1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Cra5y Pineapple]

Mynoot wrote...

People like Smudboy whine about ME2 waaaay too much and go into too much detail. I mean most movies had more plot holes than ME2. Say Back to the Future, the Flux Capacitor is just about "scientific jargon" as much as bring Shepard back to life is.

Sure, if they can find enough DNA after decompression, re-entry and impact to rebuild him.  Sorry, but I'm in agreement with Smud.  That is too much physical and logical falacy to disregard.

So is Time travel. And FTL for that matter.

[Iakus]

Lizardviking wrote...

Regarding Shepard's death.

I wouldn't really care about the technical details regarding how Shepard was brought back, as long as we got some good storytelling out of it. Which I felt we did not recieve.

Death of an important character should be a big thing. Having an important character return from the dead, should be even bigger.

This.  Exactly.  Well said.

Favorite quote from the Smudboy videos: 

"When the hero of the galaxy comes back from the dead, that should mean something to everyone who knew them and what they did.  For several reasons.  Not just get discounts at stores."

I'm even going to modify my stance from my last post:

I don't need an explanation of how Shepard's ressurection was possible IF Shepard himself is left actively wondering about it as well.  As it is, it hardly ever comes up at all after Lazarus Station.  The Citadel's security scanners show more interest than Shepard himself!

[Vyse_Fina]

So, I watched the video in the first post and I partially agreed with the guy in the video and partially with what I heard from smudboy. I then went on to check out smud's channel. He did not make a 6 video analysis of ME2. By now there are around 30. Someone who just wants to critisize a game does not go to such extremes just to do that. In other words I think he loves the ME universe and he it pains him how some of the opportunities are wasted especially in ME2.

Having watched the original 6 and some more I must say that some of his points may be nitpicky (but hey, fandom loves continuity so I can't blame him) but I actually have to agree with most of what he said.

So far my favourit video is this one though.
Despite being quite different from the other videos he made it also has a rather high comedic value as well

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 10 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

So far my favourit video is this one though.

Mine too.

Funny thing is that Mr. Squee has done a better job at explaining what happens in ME2, than the game itslef.

[ADLegend21]

while smudboy makes a few good points, Mr. squee makes tons of them. and I'm only half way through the first video in the OP.

[JKoopman]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

So, I watched the video in the first post and I partially agreed with the guy in the video and partially with what I heard from smudboy. I then went on to check out smud's channel. He did not make a 6 video analysis of ME2. By now there are around 30. Someone who just wants to critisize a game does not go to such extremes just to do that. In other words I think he loves the ME universe and he it pains him how some of the opportunities are wasted especially in ME2.

Having watched the original 6 and some more I must say that some of his points may be nitpicky (but hey, fandom loves continuity so I can't blame him) but I actually have to agree with most of what he said.

So far my favourit video is this one though.
Despite being quite different from the other videos he made it also has a rather high comedic value as well

No one spends the time to make a 6-part 30+ minute long video analysis--or even spends 2 hours typing up a forum post--about a series that they hate. They do it because they love Mass Effect and are simply dissapointed or disenfranchised with the execution or direction that it's taking. In all actuality, they likely love the game even more than a lot of the people defending it.

[Big I]

squee913 wrote...

I fail to understand how one refutes a thesis with out refuting the logic of the arguments that make up the thesis. I don't mind that he does not like the story. I disagree with the reasons he gives for it. So, I take a look at each argument and attempt to refute the logic behind it. In fact, many if not most of his arguments are not taking from in game material. Where in the game does it ever show us that Illusive man could have stopped the treat by making an army of mercenaries? Where does it tell us that Wilson is about to be rich and famous? Some of his arguments are even refuted by the game itself. He says they should have puts mines around the omega 4 relay, but the codex states that ships can drift millions of kilometers when jumping. Thus a mine field would do no good unless it was un-realistically huge. At one point he says that Reapers are giant NON-organic ships, when EDI clearly states that they are made up of organic and non-organic parts.

TIM gives you the reasons. He was a hero, he is a symbol for the galaxy, and the Reapers fear/respect him. The argument is that these reasons are unrealistic. The real world examples show that not only are the realistic, but proven. One person can make a bigger difference than an entire army. As for the reasons I give that are not explained in the game, do you really think TIM would say all his reasons for doing it? Do you think that if it is not directly talked about in the game then it is impossible? So does this mean that TIM has not ulterior motives for anything he says? IF he did, the game surely would have told you.... 

I would say the best way to refute his thesis is by introducing a counter-thesis (i.e. plot is less important than theme) or an antithesis (i.e there are no plot holes).


Smudboy's arguments are based around an assumption that if the story fails to logically explain aspects of it's plot this represents a failure of storytelling. Your arguments seem to be that if the player can provide their own reasonably consistent explanation for a "lapse" then there is no such failure.


For example, why Cerberus is willing to resurrect Shepard, or how such technology exists. Smudboy is unwilling to accept this as legitimate because of inadequate explanation in game as to why and how this was accomplished, and of it's implications. You have a lower threshold for acceptance of the resurrection because it supports something you agree with -  that certain individuals are disproportionately important to the course of history.


I argue that whether or not the audience agrees with that matters far less than whether it's established that Cerberus agrees with it, and that Shepard is such a person. Both TIM and Miranda are shown to have such a belief, but why is insufficiently explained. Why Shepard? Because he's "a symbol, a bloody icon"? Because he's "unique, not just in experience, but in what he represents"? How is his symbolic value at all relevant to a clandestine organisation running a covert operation in the Terminus Systems? We can imagine reasons for why this is so (perhaps they wanted to use him as a recruiting tool, or for propoganda purposes), but without an explanation in game their reasoning remains uncertain, and introduces a tension to the story can impact a person's suspension of disbelief.

[Whatever42]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I argue that whether or not the audience agrees with that matters far less than whether it's established that Cerberus agrees with it, and that Shepard is such a person. Both TIM and Miranda are shown to have such a belief, but why is insufficiently explained. Why Shepard? Because he's "a symbol, a bloody icon"? Because he's "unique, not just in experience, but in what he represents"? How is his symbolic value at all relevant to a clandestine organisation running a covert operation in the Terminus Systems? We can imagine reasons for why this is so (perhaps they wanted to use him as a recruiting tool, or for propoganda purposes), but without an explanation in game their reasoning remains uncertain, and introduces a tension to the story can impact a person's suspension of disbelief.

I agree that there will always be people who demand more exposition. However, too much exposition, too much explanation of every character's motive, slows down the story for everyone else.

Is a character does something that's believable and in-character then most people don't need a lot of explanation. Wilson is an ass with a huge ego who feels like he's been overlooked and mistreated. We can totally see a guy like that being a traitor. We don't need it being beaten into the ground.

Shepard is a legend who defeated the Reapers and was the hero of (insert background here) that Cerberus wants to spend a small percentage of their budget on to bring back because it will be good for humanity and no one is better equipped to fight the Reapers. We can totally see a pro-human organization want to do that. Most people don't need it beaten to death.

Again, I can certainly understand why some players would want a deeper explanation but video games are not novels - they want to keep things cinematic and moving. If they provide too much then the likely annoy far more people than they satisfy. And you can see this pretty much in every movie/video game out there. That's why a lot of people prefer novels. 

I'm not going to suggest that what you want is unreasonable. There is a reason many people prefer novels to their movie adaptations, because novels dig a lot deeper. What I am suggesting is that expecting a video game to be a novel is a little unrealistic and saying that its bad writing or a plothole is completely wrong. That's not to say there are no plotholes in ME1 or ME2, there are, but plotholes pretty much exist everywhere. Most of what Smud talks about aren't plotholes, though. 

[squee913]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I would say the best way to refute his thesis is by introducing a counter-thesis (i.e. plot is less important than theme) or an antithesis (i.e there are no plot holes).

Smudboy's arguments are based around an assumption that if the story fails to logically explain aspects of it's plot this represents a failure of storytelling. Your arguments seem to be that if the player can provide their own reasonably consistent explanation for a "lapse" then there is no such failure.

For example, why Cerberus is willing to resurrect Shepard, or how such technology exists. Smudboy is unwilling to accept this as legitimate because of inadequate explanation in game as to why and how this was accomplished, and of it's implications. You have a lower threshold for acceptance of the resurrection because it supports something you agree with -  that certain individuals are disproportionately important to the course of history.

 I argue that whether or not the audience agrees with that matters far less than whether it's established that Cerberus agrees with it, and that Shepard is such a person. Both TIM and Miranda are shown to have such a belief, but why is insufficiently explained. Why Shepard? Because he's "a symbol, a bloody icon"? Because he's "unique, not just in experience, but in what he represents"? How is his symbolic value at all relevant to a clandestine organisation running a covert operation in the Terminus Systems? We can imagine reasons for why this is so (perhaps they wanted to use him as a recruiting tool, or for propoganda purposes), but without an explanation in game their reasoning remains uncertain, and introduces a tension to the story can impact a person's suspension of disbelief.

I would argue that Smud's thesis is that if the game does not explain it, then it has no logical explanation. There are a lot of points that make perfect sense if you read between the lines or consider the possibilities. Not everything can be explained. The problem is that too many people expect the game to spoon feed them everything about everything. Why in the world should Bioware have to tell us everything? Do you honestly thing that the reasons TIM gave for resurrecting Shep were the only reasons he had? And if he has other motives, why should the game tell you? If Shepard does not know them, why should you?

By examining each argument and offering plausible reasons for why these things happened, it shows that they are not plot holes... simply things you were supposed to pick up or come to a conclusion on by yourself. Bioware should not have to hold our hands.
Smud, on the other hand feels that if Shepard missed lunch, but the game does not really explain why he/she missed lunch, then it is a plot hole because there is not reason for him to miss lunch. 

Zulu_DFA wrote

Funny thing is that Mr. Squee has done a better job at explaining what happens in ME2, than the game itslef.

Mr. Squee? That's a new one    First of all, thanks for the complement! Secondly, I feel that I was merely pointing out things that most people should or did think of on their own. Or at the very least, offer a new perspective on it.
For the most part, all I see people debating is Shep's death and resurrection, and a few here and there as to why Cerberus did it. Didn't anyone else have problems with any of the other arguments? Part of the reason I did this was not only to offer a new perspective, but to gain new perspectives form other people. If you disagreed with anything else I said let me know!
btw 

JKoopman wrote

Maybe Shepard wasn't obliterated on impact because the core of the planet was hollow, maybe it's a different density, or the rotation was different, etc? There's way too many unknown variables to make any sort of judgement.

And maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster stretched out His noodly appendage and caught Shepard?

There actually aren't that many unknown variables involved, and the variables that ARE known all add up to one thing: Shepard burning up and going SPLAT.

1) We know the properties of the planet Alchera, including it's atmosphere, mass and gravity.
2) We see Shepard's suit hemoraging oxygen.
3) We see Shepard beginning to burn up in Alchera's atmosphere.
4) We know Shepard's body was recovered from the surface of Alchera, so he most definitely made impact from orbit.
5) We know from Jacob that when Shepard was recovered he was "nothing but meat and tubes."

Flying Spaghetti Monster do exsist? I knew it!! NASA lied to me!!!!!!! 

Honeslty, I do feel a bit silly that I did not realize the codex told us all that about the planet, and I concede that point for the most part. I agree it is hard to explain how they recovered the body. My guess would be the armor protected him somehow, but agree that's a little flimsy. So, my apologies on that good sir! I'll probably state that in the next vid as well. There are too many people here and on youtube that will not admit they were wrong even when they realize it themselves. I refuse to be one of them.
Sill don't think a few plot holes make a bad story 

Modifié par squee913, 10 mars 2011 - 03:25 .

[Zulu_DFA]

squee913 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote

Funny thing is that Mr. Squee has done a better job at explaining what happens in ME2, than the game itslef.

Mr. Squee? That's a new one [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]   First of all, thanks for the complement! Secondly, I feel that I was merely pointing out things that most people should or did think of on their own. Or at the very least, offer a new perspective on it.
For the most part, all I see people debating is Shep's death and resurrection, and a few here and there as to why Cerberus did it. Didn't anyone else have problems with any of the other arguments? Part of the reason I did this was not only to offer a new perspective, but to gain new perspectives form other people. If you disagreed with anything else I said let me know!

I have a whole bunch of theories, explaining some of the "plot holes" of ME2. Some people find it's an interesting read, some think than I am a lunatic tin-foil hat dealer. So check them out at your own risk, if you will.

To that I can add, that both Hannibal and Joan of Arc were so famous because they kicked Roman/English arses all of the time, and did not waste most of it on fixing the daddy issues of their underlings. So Smudboy does have a point. It would probably have helped, if we were at least hinted on some kind of ulterior agenda TIM had about all of our fashion show winners, but oh well...

I've been trying to be more on Mac Walters' side of things and saying that all the real plot holes probably weren't even his fault. Until today that I saw the preview of #3 Evolution ...

#2, p.3: TIM is strapped to a chair in a Turian ship.
#3, p.6: TIM is strapped to a chair in a Turian ship.
PLOT EPIC FAIL

I think, I'm just gonna say "**** this!" one of these days.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 mars 2011 - 05:19 .

[JKoopman]

squee913 wrote...

I would argue that Smud's thesis is that if the game does not explain it, then it has no logical explanation. There are a lot of points that make perfect sense if you read between the lines or consider the possibilities.

I have no desire to spend 2+ hours typing up another reply nor do I have the time at the moment, but I just have to interject here that what some people consider logical plausible, other people may not find as plausible. After all, some people find it plausible that the world was created in 6 days ~4,000 years ago by a bearded wizard in the sky, and that's enough of an explanation for them to get on with their lives and not think about the origin of the universe. To others, that notion is not quite as believable.

Simply put, what you find to be an acceptable explanation may not work as well for others, and I think that difference of acceptability is where a lot of the conflict is going to arrise between "believers" and "nonbelievers".

Modifié par JKoopman, 10 mars 2011 - 05:36 .

[Zulu_DFA]

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I would argue that Smud's thesis is that if the game does not explain it, then it has no logical explanation. There are a lot of points that make perfect sense if you read between the lines or consider the possibilities.

I have no desire to spend 2+ hours typing up another reply nor do I have the time at the moment, but I just have to interject here that what some people consider logical plausible, other people may not find as plausible. After all, some people find it plausible that the world was created in 6 days ~4,000 years ago by a bearded wizard in the sky, and that's enough of an explanation for them to get on with their lives and not think about the origin of the universe. To others, that notion is not quite as believable.

Simply put, what you find to be an acceptable explanation may not work as well for others, and I think that difference of acceptability is where a lot of the conflict is going to arrise between "believers" and "nonbelievers".

And that difference also has something to do with the SCIENCE element of "science fiction". ME2 seriously fails to sell its MAGIC for a fictious science.

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...

I have no desire to spend 2+ hours typing up another reply nor do I have the time at the moment, but I just have to interject here that what some people consider logical plausible, other people may not find as plausible. After all, some people find it plausible that the world was created in 6 days ~4,000 years ago by a bearded wizard in the sky, and that's enough of an explanation for them to get on with their lives and not think about the origin of the universe. To others, that notion is not quite as believable.

Simply put, what you find to be an acceptable explanation may not work as well for others, and I think that difference of acceptability is where a lot of the conflict is going to arrise between "believers" and "nonbelievers".

So those people who think that we don't need to be handheld through every plot point are at the same mental level of creationists, right? Nice. Well, I think that those who tie themselves up into knots because they don't have detailed explanations for everything have OCD and are off their meds.

However, once again, the OCD crowd has to remember that most movies and games can only have limited depth because of other considerations, like a limited time frame and cinematic pacing. Sure, the old RPGs could be novles because it was all text. However, a cinematic game like ME2 is more like a movie and has the same limitations as such.

And, Zulu, I agree ME doesn't sell the magic. Space Operas don't, which is why they're not real sci fi like you might read from Arthur C. Clarke. I don't buy FTL travel and magic space swords that cut through anything any more than I do warp speed or giant killer robots. None of those franchises does a decent job establishing the logic of their magic and all of them at some point have completely ignored real scientific laws. 

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

So those people who think that we don't need to be handheld through every plot point are at the same mental level of creationists, right?
[/quote]
No, what is being said is that BioWare treats everybody as "creationinsts". Or "awizarddiditists". There are indeed a lot of them among the ME2 fanboys.


[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And, Zulu, I agree ME doesn't sell the magic. Space Operas don't, which is why they're not real sci fi like you might read from Arthur C. Clarke. I don't buy FTL travel and magic space swords that cut through anything any more than I do warp speed or giant killer robots. None of those franchises does a decent job establishing the logic of their magic and all of them at some point have completely ignored real scientific laws. [/quote]
[/quote]
ME1 did it pretty well though (as the whole franchise is in fact based on Clarke's "Space Odyssey" and "Rama" series). ME2 took a huge step away from it.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 mars 2011 - 06:36 .

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I have no desire to spend 2+ hours typing up another reply nor do I have the time at the moment, but I just have to interject here that what some people consider logical plausible, other people may not find as plausible. After all, some people find it plausible that the world was created in 6 days ~4,000 years ago by a bearded wizard in the sky, and that's enough of an explanation for them to get on with their lives and not think about the origin of the universe. To others, that notion is not quite as believable.

Simply put, what you find to be an acceptable explanation may not work as well for others, and I think that difference of acceptability is where a lot of the conflict is going to arrise between "believers" and "nonbelievers".

So those people who think that we don't need to be handheld through every plot point are at the same mental level of creationists, right? Nice. Well, I think that those who tie themselves up into knots because they don't have detailed explanations for everything have OCD and are off their meds.

I was illustrating a point. It wasn't some veiled jab at ME2 supporters. There's no need to be so hyper-defensive.

[Whatever42]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

No, what is being said is that BioWare treats everybody as "creationinsts". Or "awizarddiditists". There are indeed a lot of them among the ME2 fanboys.

That's not at all what he meant, but whatever.

ME1 did it pretty well though (as the whole franchise is in fact based on Clarke's "Space Odyssey" and "Rama" series). ME2 took a huge step away from it.

I read those books and I don't really see it.  Yes, the protheans advancing human technology that's not unique to those books and ME borrowed from lots of places, including star wars, battlestar galactica, star trek, and blade runner. Clarke's books were slow moving creations, full of interpersonal and political drama. The characters and drama in ME1 is shallow by comparison. And Clarke stories didn't feature a lot of FTL or force fields.

I even remember one book where a ship that took hundreds of years to travel to the nearest star needed to be protected because even though the density of molecules in space is  very low, it could still cause significant damage over time at their speeds. So the ship was protected by an ice shield. They chose ice because any barrier would be reduced over time and they had it plotted where they could find water. That is not very ME.

In fact, I would argue that the ME universe was created after KotoR because Bioware wanted their own Star Wars-like IP, even kicking it off as a trilogy and having magical, force-like powers.

[SSV Enterprise]

Just started watching.  "If someone takes the time to make a video that has to be split into six parts, they're probably doing it for education purposes or because they don't like something."

I love this guy already.

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I have no desire to spend 2+ hours typing up another reply nor do I have the time at the moment, but I just have to interject here that what some people consider logical plausible, other people may not find as plausible. After all, some people find it plausible that the world was created in 6 days ~4,000 years ago by a bearded wizard in the sky, and that's enough of an explanation for them to get on with their lives and not think about the origin of the universe. To others, that notion is not quite as believable.

Simply put, what you find to be an acceptable explanation may not work as well for others, and I think that difference of acceptability is where a lot of the conflict is going to arrise between "believers" and "nonbelievers".

So those people who think that we don't need to be handheld through every plot point are at the same mental level of creationists, right? Nice. Well, I think that those who tie themselves up into knots because they don't have detailed explanations for everything have OCD and are off their meds.

I was illustrating a point. It wasn't some veiled jab at ME2 supporters. There's no need to be so hyper-defensive.

You were illustrating a point using an example that
suggested everyone that agrees with the opinions stated in my video are akin to
creationists. That may not have been what you meant to say, but it is certainly
what was implied. In any case, it is not a good example because there is a big difference
between what I will believe in a fictional story and what I will believe in
real life.

Despite the poor judgment on the example, you are right that
different people have different opinions.  I can explain mine, and why I hold it, but not
everyone is going to agree.

Modifié par squee913, 10 mars 2011 - 08:29 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Okay, part 2 is posted. Gotta love the Reality Show pitch, heh heh.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 14 mars 2011 - 01:10 .

[William Adama]

Smudboy is a far more intelligent person than this guy... there were literally moments during his commentary when I slammed my head against my desk because he didnt know what smudboys argument was.

1) Shepards death:

Shepard was dead for 2 years... yet that little tid bit didn't bother him/her one bit during the story. If I was Shepard, I would be having a spiritual crisis on some level. Maybe even speak of my death experience with Chawkwas etc but NO, we get no reflection! Bioware has the balls to have lesbian sex in a videogame but no religion or spirituality? Cmon...

2) IM spent 4 billion credits on resurrecting ONE PERSON. Think about that for a minute... there really isn't anything to say about that argument. Unless we are given a trait UNIQUE to the original Shepard that was critical to the survival of the galaxy, this plot point makes no darn sense. I wouldn't spend 2 dollars resurrecting Achilles just to have him lead my modern army, even though he was a "skilled" warrior. IM could have spent that money invested in Reaper research or new weapons, but NO, he goes and brings back some dead soldier for no reason.

More to come...

[squee913]

William Adama wrote...

Smudboy is a far more intelligent person than this guy... there were literally moments during his commentary when I slammed my head against my desk because he didnt know what smudboys argument was.

1) Shepards death:

Shepard was dead for 2 years... yet that little tid bit didn't bother him/her one bit during the story. If I was Shepard, I would be having a spiritual crisis on some level. Maybe even speak of my death experience with Chawkwas etc but NO, we get no reflection! Bioware has the balls to have lesbian sex in a videogame but no religion or spirituality? Cmon...

2) IM spent 4 billion credits on resurrecting ONE PERSON. Think about that for a minute... there really isn't anything to say about that argument. Unless we are given a trait UNIQUE to the original Shepard that was critical to the survival of the galaxy, this plot point makes no darn sense. I wouldn't spend 2 dollars resurrecting Achilles just to have him lead my modern army, even though he was a "skilled" warrior. IM could have spent that money invested in Reaper research or new weapons, but NO, he goes and brings back some dead soldier for no reason.

More to come...

While I will be happy to admit that I am not the sharpest
tool in the shed, you could at least pay attention to the video before you
argue against it. Never once did I talk about Shepard’s lack of spiritual dilemma
over being resurrected in the video. I did not bring up the spiritual dilemma debate
because it is a matter of opinion and a valid argument. I don’t think not
having it breaks the game (after all the game is about the Collectors and
Reapers, not Shepard’s therapy sessions), but I see why some people wished it
had been addressed.

Smud argued that that Shep’s death was unbelievable because
they did not explain the details of how the procedure was done, and that most
sci fi handles this sort of thing with some god like being. I argued that 4
billion credits, two years, and the best minds bringing a person back to life
in Sci Fi is more believable than some Q like god snapping his fingers. Or that
it is just as plausible as changing the mass of an object through element Zero.
I understand that slamming your head against a desk can cause dizziness and
make it hard to concentrate, but please try to pay attention to what I am
saying before insulting my intelligence.

Secondly, just because you would not have brought Shpeard
back, does not mean there were not people who would. All I have to do is show
that it is possible that TIM would have felt the money was worth it, not whether
or not you felt it was worth it. He brought Shep back because he was a symbol,
and a fantastic leader (and other reasons that we simply are not aware of) If
you asked any of the Ancient Chinese emperors if they would spend the
equivalent amount of money to bring Sun Zhu back, or the Macedonians to bring
Alexander back, I think you would find that most of them would do it in a heart
beat.

Modifié par squee913, 14 mars 2011 - 03:53 .

[William Adama]

squee913 wrote...

Smud argued that that Shep’s death was unbelievable because
they did not explain the details of how the procedure was done, and that most
sci fi handles this sort of thing with some god like being. I argued that 4
billion credits, two years, and the best minds bringing a person back to life
in Sci Fi is more believable than some Q like god snapping his fingers. Or that
it is just as plausible as changing the mass of an object through element Zero.
I understand that slamming your head against a desk can cause dizziness and
make it hard to concentrate, but please try to pay attention to what I am
saying before insulting my intelligence.

Ya, but Bioware has PAGES of codex explaining every piece of technology and upgrade for the lore of ME. Saying that the best scientific minds and 7 billion credits were utilized to resurrect you doesn't cut it. That is called a JUST SO STORY. Those kind of tales may have been good enough for toddlers but not mature gamers.

Now Im not saying write a credible codex explaining shepards resurrection, just provide a better explainaition as to HOW they could have brought them back. This is CRITICALLY important because of the effects resurrection technology could have on both the plot and gameplay. Here is HOW:

1) Cerberus has just found a way to bring the dead back to life...why do we have a mission failed screen whenever we die in the game? Cerberus could just as easily taken my FRESH corpse back to the Normandy and be brought back to life everytime I died.

2) If cerberus could bring back one super dead corpse, why not resurrect the PROTHEANS to ask them for their help on building mass relay technology? Maybe even find a way to dark space and destroy the Reapers as they hibernate?

3) If the ME universe now has the technology to bring a 2 year old corpse back to life, why do they still have problems with HEAT management in weapons and propulsion tech? Think of the application of this advancement! They can now COMPLETELY repair and duplicate a individuals brain using NO reference material or scan! The brain is the most complex thing in the known universe and they just happend to get it perfectly right for Shepards personality and memories... cmon, that's a stretch.

I would have believed that Shep was a clone or his/her brain was preserved in the ice of some frigid planet or in vaccuum, but to have a person fall into a planet at MACH, not disintigrate, not explode on impact, AND be salvagable is rediculous.

[Iakus]

[quote]squee913 wrote...


While I will be happy to admit that I am not the sharpest
tool in the shed, you could at least pay attention to the video before you
argue against it. Never once did I talk about Shepard’s lack of spiritual dilemma
over being resurrected in the video. I did not bring up the spiritual dilemma debate
because it is a matter of opinion and a valid argument. I don’t think not
having it breaks the game (after all the game is about the Collectors and
Reapers, not Shepard’s therapy sessions), but I see why some people wished it
had been addressed. [/quote]

Actually, I'd argue that the game was mainly about the squad's therapy sessions.  The incredibly violent therapy sessions.

I mean, think about it, all these "best of the best" hired bad****es have these emotional dilemas which can very well get them killed, with whole conversatons and missions devoted towards it, and developing these characters.  Yet Shepard has what is potentially the biggest one:  coming back from the dead and essentially losing his identity in the galaxy, and he gets nothing?  That's a huge oversight on the part of Bioware.  One I am not accustomed to seeing in them.  Heck even ME 1 has quests and dialogue associated with your selected prewar stuff.

[quote]
Smud argued that that Shep’s death was unbelievable because
they did not explain the details of how the procedure was done, and that most
sci fi handles this sort of thing with some god like being. I argued that 4
billion credits, two years, and the best minds bringing a person back to life
in Sci Fi is more believable than some Q like god snapping his fingers. Or that
it is just as plausible as changing the mass of an object through element Zero.
I understand that slamming your head against a desk can cause dizziness and
make it hard to concentrate, but please try to pay attention to what I am
saying before insulting my intelligence.[/quote]

The Cure for Death doesn't need in-depth details.  Mass Effect Relays and biotics don't even have that really.  But for such an important plot device, I would have at least expected something on the same level as the relays.  "Cutting edge tedhnology" and "4 billion credits" simply doesn't cut it.

Without even a fig leaf of an explanation for how this is possible, the 2 years and 4 billion credits might as well have been Q snapping his fingers.  I don't need scientifcally plausible.  I need plausible for this universe.

[quote]
Secondly, just because you would not have brought Shpeard
back, does not mean there were not people who would. All I have to do is show
that it is possible that TIM would have felt the money was worth it, not whether
or not you felt it was worth it. He brought Shep back because he was a symbol,
and a fantastic leader (and other reasons that we simply are not aware of) If
you asked any of the Ancient Chinese emperors if they would spend the
equivalent amount of money to bring Sun Zhu back, or the Macedonians to bring
Alexander back, I think you would find that most of them would do it in a heart
beat.[/quote]

The problem here is, TIM gave a reason why he brought back Shepard.  The whole "You are unique"  speech Okay, I can get behind that.  If only we saw what it was that made Shepard unique.  In ME 1, it was clear:  the beacon visions.  What was it this time?  What did Shep do that was worth emptying the Cerberus piggybank that couldn't have been done with a live person? 

Keep in mind that while Shepard may be a symbol, that symbol was not used in ME 2, given:

The Council (if they will even speak to Shepard) thinks he's deranged
The Alliance thinks he's a traitor
It was not made publicly known that Shepard was alive.
Most of the people Shepard recruits either don't know or care who he was or what he did. 



[/quote]

Modifié par iakus, 14 mars 2011 - 04:29 .

[Iakus]

William Adama wrote...


Ya, but Bioware has PAGES of codex explaining every piece of technology and upgrade for the lore of ME. Saying that the best scientific minds and 7 billion credits were utilized to resurrect you doesn't cut it. That is called a JUST SO STORY. 

This. (not that Kipling wasn't a great writer)

If the missile launcher gets a codex entry, the Cure for Death should at least get one.

Modifié par iakus, 14 mars 2011 - 04:44 .

[marshalleck]

Heh. Good luck iakus. I don't think you're going to convince anyone who chooses to remain oblivious to ME2's painfully obvious flaws.