Before I go off on a tangent on the current debate. I shall comment on the video. Although I believe solid arguments were made and have nary been in full agreement with Smudboy anyway. Much was left to desire, either due to misinterpretation or unfeasible speculation. Furthermore, I had difficulty at first remaining alert. The initial five minutes was painful monotonous despite a decent amount of humor.
---
Moving along, about a month prior, I had entered into a debate upon this subject over on Gfaqs; yes I know, poor judgment in hindsight given the context. Whilst I could no longer hold an interest when the arguments began to amount to, "use your imagination!" I had contemplated a slightly more plausible scenario with limited alternation to the introduction. Perhaps not perfect, I believe it at least allots for theories.
Skip ahead to then scene where Shepard confronts Joker and the Normandy's body is subsequently blow into oblivion. Allow us to remove this either completely or delay it for the moment. Instead, Shepard assists Joker to the escape as normal and is shot back inside the Normady. It is at this junction the camera pans back to Joker, and possibly provides us with a glance of the Collector cruiser in closer detail since we would witness it from Joker's perspective, maybe now they fire on the Normandy. Either way, it is for dramatics.
The point this brief removal of Shepard from the scene establishes speculation. In this window of opportunity where the player cannot see Shepard; what happened? We can now process the possibility of survival or body preservation through hypothesis pertaining to escape pods, Shepard was blown away from the Normandy, the beams miraculously missed him/her, even the Mako argument has partial, albeit exceptionally mild, merit.
At the end, none can say for certain but it leads to reasonable consideration in lieu of punctured suits, reentry burn up and hurling toward a planet at remarkable speeds, at remaining intact. Toss in Miranda's acknowledgment Shepard was found in an escape pod and there you have your explanation with virtually no additional time necessary.
A similar alternate scenario with Cerberus would do the plot grand, and much akin to the aforementioned, can be accomplished with minimal adjustments. For example, the return to the Citadel is made a mandatory 'mission' and precedes any allegiance with Cerberus, begrudgingly or otherwise. It is here we discover the Council's ineptitude or denial, which ever you may fancy. Anderson is gridlocked, and cannot provide assistance through militant means. Therefore we are forced to work for Cerberus, however had a moment's defiance and in this instance saw first hand why we must join Cerberus, whereas presently, we merely take TIM at his word. In addition, TIM retains his smug disposition through confidence in allowing Shepard to return and even offering him/her a new ship, all under the perception he/she would be back.
I would include some exposition in regards to past Cerberus operations, specially Akuze. One scenario perpetrates when questioned, TIM claims there exists three head divisions and consequently three different chains of command, hence the name. The group from Mass Effect were extremists, perhaps even having gone rogue. Most importantly, it demonstrates plausibility Cerberus is not the evil operation incarnate we were led to believe. TIM could even vaguely insinuate there may be a higher chain of command than him. This would establish ambiguity, and leave the player to decide if TIM is trustworthy or not.
That has been my way of making minor changes in an attempt to fill the gaps. At this stage of the debate I am merely reiterating what preceded my arrival. Shepard dying is neither a poor decision nor unnecessary, provided it has substance and believability. Suspension of disbelief must adhere to a partially believable standard through rational exposition of the perceived rules the lore has established. Mostly, ME2 simply lacked exposition and even ten minutes could have done wonders.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 15 mars 2011 - 09:34 .
Retour en haut
)? We are never shown, right
