546 réponses à ce sujet

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

@Squee913

Have you forgotten that this is a work of fiction? Scientific method can bring us to a conclusion based on the evidence with which we're presented. If that conclusion doesn't make sense within the narrative or conflicts with what logic tells us should have happened then we're well within our rights to "throw up our hands" and declare it a plothole or bad writing.

A scientist doesn't simply look at a problem, invent a possible explanation for it, assume that it is correct and declare the problem solved. He must test and prove his hypothesis. Can you prove any of your theories? What evidence does the narrative give us to support them?

You can invent all sorts of hypothesis to explain it, but you have to show evidence to support them. You literally have nothing upon which to base your theory within the narrative aside from your own supposition and no way to test your hypothesis which, according to the scientific method, discounts it from consideration.

We've been through this.

You want proof he survived in tact?, ME2 ME3?.

Lets look at some facts shall we? (again)

Alchera, the planet he crashed on has 25% less gravity than earth and 25% less atmospheric pressure.Shepard would be falling slower than if he fell to earth and there would be less resistance on entering the atmosphere, meaning less chance he'll burn up.

We also know he's wearing a state of the art suit.

Also another thing people seem to overlook is the speed shep would be entering the atmosphere.The only reason shuttles and asteroids burn up is due to the extreme speeds they are travelling.A shuttle orbiting earth is travelling at 15000mph. If shep doesn't enter orbit then there is no chance he will be anywhere close to that speed.  What we see is, shep entering the atmosphere from a relatively stationary position (the normandy),  just  above the planet, making it even less likely he'll burn up.

So yea, theres is every chance his body landed on the surface in a badly mangled state.Which is exactly what we've been told in the narative.

You talk about scientific method, but i can't imagine Einstein sitting around moaning that he had no explaination when he was theorising.

Modifié par piemanz, 09 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[piemanz]

Saphra Deden wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Why would they make a big deal out of Cerberus in ME1 and then not use them in ME2, that makes no sense. it seems like a good twist to the series to portray them as they did in ME1 and then make you work with them.

They were not a big deail in ME1. Cerberus was present in a chain of sidequests, but we were told next to nothing about their motives. We met no Cerberus characters other than one scientist we briefly interacted with and a diary of another.

In fact until the second novel was released, which was written once ME2 was already in development, we didn't even know that Cerberus was a pro-human organization. As far as we knew they were just rogue black ops who went bad for the money or some other mundane reason.

If the devs had planned a Cerberus arc all along they'd have at the very least made references to the Illusive Man in ME1.

Maybe not a huge deal, but you did get to know who they were and that they were generally unsavoury.Did you finish ME1 whith a positive attitude towards Cerberus?

Modifié par piemanz, 09 avril 2011 - 05:25 .

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

@Squee913

Have you forgotten that this is a work of fiction? Scientific method can bring us to a conclusion based on the evidence with which we're presented. If that conclusion doesn't make sense within the narrative or conflicts with what logic tells us should have happened then we're well within our rights to "throw up our hands" and declare it a plothole or bad writing.

A scientist doesn't simply look at a problem, invent a possible explanation for it, assume that it is correct and declare the problem solved. He must test and prove his hypothesis. Can you prove any of your theories? What evidence does the narrative give us to support them?

You can invent all sorts of hypothesis to explain it, but you have to show evidence to support them. You literally have nothing upon which to base your theory within the narrative aside from your own supposition and no way to test your hypothesis which, according to the scientific method, discounts it from consideration.

we've been through this.

You want proof he survived in tact?, ME2 ME3?.

Lets look at some facts shall we? (again)

Alchera, the planet he crashed on has 25% less gravity than earth and 25% less atmospheric pressure.Shepard would be falling slower than if he fell to earth and there would be less resistance on entering the atmosphere, meaning less chance he'll burn up.

We also know he's wearing a state of the art suit.

Also another thing people seem to overlook is the speed shep would be entering the atmosphere.The only reason shuttles and asteroids burn up is due to the extreme speeds they are travelling.A shuttle orbiting earth is travelling at 15000mph. If shep doesn't enter orbit then there is no chance he will be anywhere close to that speed.  What we see is shep entering the atmosphere from a relatively stationary position (the normandy),  just  above the planet make it even less likely he'll burn up.

So yea there is every chance his body landed on the surface in a badly mangled state.Which is exactly what we've been told in the narative.

You talk about scientific method, but i can't imagine einstein sat araound moaning that he had no explainion when he was theorising.

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? There would seem to be evidence to support the belief that he was traveling at significant speeds when he hit the atmosphere. What evidence do you have that he wasn't? What evidence is there that the Normandy wasn't moving at a significant velocity when he was ejected? We see it taking emergency evasive actions and accelerating away from the Collector ship before it's hit. Logically, Newton's Laws of Motion and all, it stands to reason that it maintained that velocity unless Joker for some reason decided to reverse thrust, which we never see. Sure, it doesn't look like they're moving very fast relative to the camera and the planet behind it, but speed is difficult to judge in space.

What does him having a "state of the art" combat suit have to do with anything? Does that automatically mean that it has an air-braking system or a parachute built in? Where's your evidence? Where is this kind of equipment ever seen in use or referrenced? How does it affect the strength of his kinetic barrier when, again, we see his suit being ruptured by a low-speed collision with a bulkhead prior to his ejection from the Normandy?

Modifié par JKoopman, 09 avril 2011 - 05:33 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 09 avril 2011 - 05:41 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

@Squee913

Have you forgotten that this is a work of fiction? Scientific method can bring us to a conclusion based on the evidence with which we're presented. If that conclusion doesn't make sense within the narrative or conflicts with what logic tells us should have happened then we're well within our rights to "throw up our hands" and declare it a plothole or bad writing.

A scientist doesn't simply look at a problem, invent a possible explanation for it, assume that it is correct and declare the problem solved. He must test and prove his hypothesis. Can you prove any of your theories? What evidence does the narrative give us to support them?

You can invent all sorts of hypothesis to explain it, but you have to show evidence to support them. You literally have nothing upon which to base your theory within the narrative aside from your own supposition and no way to test your hypothesis which, according to the scientific method, discounts it from consideration.

we've been through this.

You want proof he survived in tact?, ME2 ME3?.

Lets look at some facts shall we? (again)

Alchera, the planet he crashed on has 25% less gravity than earth and 25% less atmospheric pressure.Shepard would be falling slower than if he fell to earth and there would be less resistance on entering the atmosphere, meaning less chance he'll burn up.

We also know he's wearing a state of the art suit.

Also another thing people seem to overlook is the speed shep would be entering the atmosphere.The only reason shuttles and asteroids burn up is due to the extreme speeds they are travelling.A shuttle orbiting earth is travelling at 15000mph. If shep doesn't enter orbit then there is no chance he will be anywhere close to that speed.  What we see is shep entering the atmosphere from a relatively stationary position (the normandy),  just  above the planet make it even less likely he'll burn up.

So yea there is every chance his body landed on the surface in a badly mangled state.Which is exactly what we've been told in the narative.

You talk about scientific method, but i can't imagine einstein sat araound moaning that he had no explainion when he was theorising.

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? So obviously he was traveling at a sufficient speed, whether you choose to believe it or not. There seems to be evidence to support the belief that he was traveling at significant speeds when he hit the atmosphere. What evidence do you have that he wasn't? What evidence is there that the Normandy wasn't moving at a significant velocity? We see it taking emergency evasive actions and accelerating away from the Collector ship before it's hit. Logically, Newton's Laws of Motion and all, it stands to reason that it maintained that velocity unless Joker for some reason decided to reverse thrust, which we never see. Sure, it doesn't look like they're moving very fast relative to the camera and the planet behind it, but peed is difficult to judge in space.

What does him having a "state of the art" combat suit have to do with anything? Does that automatically mean that it has an air-braking system or a parachute built in? Where's your evidence? Where is this kind of equipment ever seen in use or referrenced? How does it affect the strength of his kinetic barrier when, again, we see his suit being ruptured by a low-speed collision with a bulkhead prior to his ejection from the Normandy?

He' gets prepelled away from the normandy by the explosion and falls straight to the planet, the only forces propelling him towrds the planet is A: the force of the explosion, and B: the gravity of the planet..

Objects burn up on re-entry because of friction between the object  and the atmosphere which in turn causes gases to heat.The orange glow is obviously just heated gases as he enters the atmosphere, which does not necessarily mean he burt up.

Modifié par piemanz, 09 avril 2011 - 05:42 .

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

@Squee913

Have you forgotten that this is a work of fiction? Scientific method can bring us to a conclusion based on the evidence with which we're presented. If that conclusion doesn't make sense within the narrative or conflicts with what logic tells us should have happened then we're well within our rights to "throw up our hands" and declare it a plothole or bad writing.

A scientist doesn't simply look at a problem, invent a possible explanation for it, assume that it is correct and declare the problem solved. He must test and prove his hypothesis. Can you prove any of your theories? What evidence does the narrative give us to support them?

You can invent all sorts of hypothesis to explain it, but you have to show evidence to support them. You literally have nothing upon which to base your theory within the narrative aside from your own supposition and no way to test your hypothesis which, according to the scientific method, discounts it from consideration.

we've been through this.

You want proof he survived in tact?, ME2 ME3?.

Lets look at some facts shall we? (again)

Alchera, the planet he crashed on has 25% less gravity than earth and 25% less atmospheric pressure.Shepard would be falling slower than if he fell to earth and there would be less resistance on entering the atmosphere, meaning less chance he'll burn up.

We also know he's wearing a state of the art suit.

Also another thing people seem to overlook is the speed shep would be entering the atmosphere.The only reason shuttles and asteroids burn up is due to the extreme speeds they are travelling.A shuttle orbiting earth is travelling at 15000mph. If shep doesn't enter orbit then there is no chance he will be anywhere close to that speed.  What we see is shep entering the atmosphere from a relatively stationary position (the normandy),  just  above the planet make it even less likely he'll burn up.

So yea there is every chance his body landed on the surface in a badly mangled state.Which is exactly what we've been told in the narative.

You talk about scientific method, but i can't imagine einstein sat araound moaning that he had no explainion when he was theorising.

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? So obviously he was traveling at a sufficient speed, whether you choose to believe it or not. There seems to be evidence to support the belief that he was traveling at significant speeds when he hit the atmosphere. What evidence do you have that he wasn't? What evidence is there that the Normandy wasn't moving at a significant velocity? We see it taking emergency evasive actions and accelerating away from the Collector ship before it's hit. Logically, Newton's Laws of Motion and all, it stands to reason that it maintained that velocity unless Joker for some reason decided to reverse thrust, which we never see. Sure, it doesn't look like they're moving very fast relative to the camera and the planet behind it, but peed is difficult to judge in space.

What does him having a "state of the art" combat suit have to do with anything? Does that automatically mean that it has an air-braking system or a parachute built in? Where's your evidence? Where is this kind of equipment ever seen in use or referrenced? How does it affect the strength of his kinetic barrier when, again, we see his suit being ruptured by a low-speed collision with a bulkhead prior to his ejection from the Normandy?

He' gets prepelled away from the normandy by the explosion and falls straight to the planet, the only forces propelling him towrds the planet is A: the force of the explosion, and B: the gravity of the planet..

Objects burn up on re-entry because of friction between the object  and the atmosphere which in turn causes gases to heat.The orange glow is obviously just heated gases as he enters the atmosphere, which does not necessarily mean he burt up.

He's ejected perpendicular to the path of the Normandy, which means any forward momentum of the ship would be maintained by Shepard.

And pardon me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you basically just said "Shepard leaving a glowing trail behind him doesn't mean that he's burning up on reentry; it just means that he's on fire as he falls to the planet." That would seem to me to indicate atmospheric reentry burn.

[piemanz]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

I doub't he would even need airbreaks.He/shecould crash to the ground and be a total mess but thats pretty much the explenation anyway.

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...


He's ejected perpendicular to the path of the Normandy, which means any forward momentum of the ship would be maintained by Shepard.

And pardon me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you basically just said "Shepard leaving a glowing trail behind him doesn't mean that he's burning up on reentry; it just means that he's on fire as he falls to the planet." That would seem to me to indicate atmospheric reentry burn.

Look at the angle the normandy is coming across the planet, he's ejected virtually behind where the normandy was heading.

And theres a huge difference between heat and burn.

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

And then we go back to "what is good writing is subjective".  I don't have to have it spelled out for me - you do.  I can have fun with wondering how he may have made it to the planet surface in one piece - you, it seems, cannot.  I don't have to have it shown to me how medigel works - I simply make up in my head the ways it does.  I don't have to have it all spelled out for me, part of the fun is connecting the dots in my own way, it makes the story mine.  I don't mind some exposition by way of codex - but that hardly touches everything - and I like it that way.

[CroGamer002]

JKoopman wrote...

You really need to get new material, man. The whole "Dr. Evil" thing is getting played out.

What Dr. Evil thing?

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

And then we go back to "what is good writing is subjective".  I don't have to have it spelled out for me - you do.  I can have fun with wondering how he may have made it to the planet surface in one piece - you, it seems, cannot.  I don't have to have it shown to me how medigel works - I simply make up in my head the ways it does.  I don't have to have it all spelled out for me, part of the fun is connecting the dots in my own way, it makes the story mine.  I don't mind some exposition by way of codex - but that hardly touches everything - and I like it that way.

Which is fine. My goal here isn't to tell people how to enjoy the game, or to dictate for them how they should feel about the plot. I'm here arguing specifically because smudboy posted an analysis criticizing these aspects of the plot (as is his right) and someone then came along and tried to tell him that he was wrong and that these things in fact totally made sense and were explained by the narrative and he was simply inventing plotholes were there weren't any.

If people just want to leave it at "The plot isn't perfect and I can see how some people might have problems with it, but those things just don't bother me and I'm able to overlook them because I genuinely enjoyed the game", honestly, I would be absolutely fine with that as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm wrong to feel differently.

Modifié par JKoopman, 09 avril 2011 - 06:48 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

Also, a note:

I'm actually willing to give you "project Lazarus doesn't make sense." I think that that was simply the best plot expedient they could think of to "rationally" allow you to change faces and classes, and explain the timeskip. I would have rather they found you floating in space, mostly dead but not dead, and it took them 2 years to fix you to the point where you could wake up without screaming. But other than the fact that you owe Cerberus for saving your life, and you owe Liara for saving your death, it doesn't come up again. I wish I could write it back to "comatose, all your bones broken, probably paralyzed ;" but I can't. Ok, you've found the one flaw in my beautiful diamond, can we move on?

Just because one plot criticism is valid (and there are several valid ones to be made about Arrival,) doesn't mean all of them are. I'll give you "wasn't the conduit supposed to let you into a hidden area of the citadel?" Yep, and that would have made more sense, but was cut for budgetary reasons. Quirk of the design process, so a bit forgivable, (and I could have fixed it with like three lines of dialogue. Argh arg arg.)

I'll also give you that Shep going alone on that Arrival mission was dumb, as was the fact that she didn't radio the Normandy from the shuttle, and that she didn't ask more questions about the Reaper artifact. All those things bothered me while I was playing, too. They could have been fixed so easily, too, that's what really bugs me - a line or two of exposition could have given us a decent excuse as to why radio communications was off, or why only one person could enter the prison - but a lot of the DLC seems to be worked on by a smaller writing team than the main story, so I'll give that a pass too... and simply recommend you not play Arrival. I certainly won't be playing it again!

These are all pretty ancillary to the central plot, though, and all of them could be fixed really easily. I'd call them quiet casualties of the script rewrite process, and the timelines associated with game development. None of them break the story's back.

Other than these three things, I haven't seen anyone mention a plot problem in ME2 that won't likely come together as a revelation in ME3, when all the data finally comes together to make a picture. There's just not much wrong with it, from my perspective.

That back from the dead stuff, though? I'll admit it, that's messed up.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 avril 2011 - 06:51 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

Which is fine. My goal here isn't to tell people how to enjoy the game, or to dictate for them how they should feel about the plot. I'm here arguing specifically because smudboy posted an analysis criticizing these aspects of the plot (as is his right) and someone then came along and tried to tell him that he was wrong and that these things in fact totally made sense and were explained by the narrative and he was simply inventing plotholes were there weren't any.

If people just want to leave it at "The plot isn't perfect and I can see how some people might have problems with it, but those things just don't bother me and I'm able to overlook them because I genuinely enjoyed the game", honestly, I would be absolutely fine with that as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm wrong to feel differently.

By the same token can't you just say "you know what, i dislike the game even though it made sense"?

Regarding Smudboy, he made no secret of his opinions, and he should expect people to argue against them.

Modifié par piemanz, 09 avril 2011 - 06:56 .

[JKoopman]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

Also, a note:

I'm actually willing to give you "project Lazarus doesn't make sense." I think that that was simply the best plot expedient they could think of to "rationally" allow you to change faces and classes

How does Project Lazarus rationally explain Shepard's face and class changing between ME1 and ME2 though? Wasn't the whole point of the project to bring him back exactly as he was before? And if they didn't, then the project was a failure? So if that was the true purpose behind writing the death and resurrection scene, then it failed even at that.

I'd always found it odd how people were instantly recognizing Shepard even though he had gone from a pale white biotic Adept with blonde hair and blue eyes to a bald-headed black Soldier in the two years he was away.

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Which is fine. My goal here isn't to tell people how to enjoy the game, or to dictate for them how they should feel about the plot. I'm here arguing specifically because smudboy posted an analysis criticizing these aspects of the plot (as is his right) and someone then came along and tried to tell him that he was wrong and that these things in fact totally made sense and were explained by the narrative and he was simply inventing plotholes were there weren't any.

If people just want to leave it at "The plot isn't perfect and I can see how some people might have problems with it, but those things just don't bother me and I'm able to overlook them because I genuinely enjoyed the game", honestly, I would be absolutely fine with that as long as they don't try to tell me that I'm wrong to feel differently.

By the same token can't you just say "you know what, i dislike the game even though it made sense"?

Regarding Smudboy, he made no secret of his opinions, and he should expect people to argue against them.

I... could say that. Would it be true? Has anyone actually argued that ME2's plot stands up perfectly on it's own without having to create any narrative explanations for events?

Modifié par JKoopman, 09 avril 2011 - 07:07 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JKoopman wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

Also, a note:

I'm actually willing to give you "project Lazarus doesn't make sense." I think that that was simply the best plot expedient they could think of to "rationally" allow you to change faces and classes

How does Project Lazarus rationally explain Shepard's face and class changing between ME1 and ME2 though? Wasn't the whole point of the project to bring him back exactly as he was before? And if they didn't, then the project had failed? So if that was the true purpose behind writing the death and resurrection scene, then it failed even at that.

Oh no, I'm not saying it rationally explains it. I'm saying that the writers and devs felt the need to come up with a concept that explained it... and failed. Instead, they should have just done the same "data file corrupted" bit they did in ME1, where they were like HISTORY CAN'T REMEMBER IF YOU WERE A DUDE, ARE YOU A DUDE?

I still stand behind pretty much everything else about the plot (with the exception of the two or three other things I mentioned, which I consider "writing errors" rather than plot holes).

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JKoopman wrote...

I... could say that. Would it be true? Has anyone actually argued that ME2's plot stands up perfectly on it's own without having to create any narrative explanations for events?

I would argue that, other than the death thing, which I have already conceeded, the plot of ME2 stands up perfectly as the second episode of a three part mini-series. Does that count?

[JKoopman]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Have you forgotten that we CLEARLY see Shepard undergoing atmospheric reentry burn in the opening scene? 

It's not clear at all to me that it is re-entry burn - all I see is gases fluttering around his body.  A state-of-the-art airbrake system in his suit is not illogical - since obviously his body does not burn up.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Which, again, goes back to "If I have to invent narrative to explain the impossible, how is this good writing?"

Also, a note:

I'm actually willing to give you "project Lazarus doesn't make sense." I think that that was simply the best plot expedient they could think of to "rationally" allow you to change faces and classes

How does Project Lazarus rationally explain Shepard's face and class changing between ME1 and ME2 though? Wasn't the whole point of the project to bring him back exactly as he was before? And if they didn't, then the project had failed? So if that was the true purpose behind writing the death and resurrection scene, then it failed even at that.

Oh no, I'm not saying it rationally explains it. I'm saying that the writers and devs felt the need to come up with a concept that explained it... and failed. Instead, they should have just done the same "data file corrupted" bit they did in ME1, where they were like HISTORY CAN'T REMEMBER IF YOU WERE A DUDE, ARE YOU A DUDE?

I still stand behind pretty much everything else about the plot (with the exception of the two or three other things I mentioned, which I consider "writing errors" rather than plot holes).

I agree with you. I've always felt that they should've just left it seperate to the narrative and offered no plot explanation for how Shepard's appearance is inexplicably able to be modified between games. "It's just a game" would've been a sufficient explanation for me; and Shepard's appearance change could've simply been chalked up to a player retcon (in other words, if you choose to change his appearance then retroactively he just always looked like that). I don't feel it really needed a story explanation.

[JKoopman]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I... could say that. Would it be true? Has anyone actually argued that ME2's plot stands up perfectly on it's own without having to create any narrative explanations for events?

I would argue that, other than the death thing, which I have already conceeded, the plot of ME2 stands up perfectly as the second episode of a three part mini-series. Does that count?

Meh. I suppose. I'm tired of arguing anyway.

EDIT: I should also point out that literally 90% of my issue with Mass Effect 2's plot comes from the first 10 minutes of the game and the last 10 minutes of the game. Most of what's between, I'm okay with.

Modifié par JKoopman, 09 avril 2011 - 07:16 .

[darth_lopez]

Mesina2 wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

I don't like his voice, so I'll pass. But I'd say he's loving the attention he's getting on the forums.

Well he has good voice in my opinion.

Also he is perma-banned on BSN so I really think he doesn't care much.

Wait wtf... How the hell did smud get banned? What did he do. I mean i know he can be an ass but seriously he typically has good points.

[JKoopman]

darth_lopez wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

I don't like his voice, so I'll pass. But I'd say he's loving the attention he's getting on the forums.

Well he has good voice in my opinion.

Also he is perma-banned on BSN so I really think he doesn't care much.

Wait wtf... How the hell did smud get banned? What did he do. I mean i know he can be an ass but seriously he typically has good points.

I'm assuming he had some sort of mental breakdown and went on an insult rampage.

[Nashiktal]

Fixers0 wrote...

Found it in one of smudboy's videos, slightly edited to be more clear.

Smudboy's list of why mass effect 2 has a bad plot.
1. Plot holes.
2. Lack of plot expostion of the development.
3. Random plot progression
4. Mysterious/unclear enemy goals and plan.
5. Disconnected from the overarching plot of Mass Effect.
6. Retcons.
7. Poor Pacing of events.
8. Too Passive protaganist.
9. A poor 'antagonist.
10. 1 dimensional plot devices .
11. Flimsy and unknow plot or goal.
12 Useless Characters side stories.

You see, when you cut out the "flowery" language, jokes, random complaints, and distill the complaints down into it its base essence, things become clear.


This list I can agree with. I enjoyed ME2 for the brief stints of nostalgia it gave, (pre LOTSB) and the revamp to gameplay was fun, but I admit there were many times where I just stopped and went...

"wait... what justh happened?"
"That doesn't make any sense."
"wait... thats it?" (When I hit the ending)
"Emails?" (More of a personal complaint, but still.)

[CroGamer002]

darth_lopez wrote...

Wait wtf... How the hell did smud get banned? What did he do. I mean i know he can be an ass but seriously he typically has good points.

He likes to insult a lot if you disagree with him.

That's against Site Rules last time I checked.

[darth_lopez]

Nashiktal wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Found it in one of smudboy's videos, slightly edited to be more clear.

Smudboy's list of why mass effect 2 has a bad plot.
1. Plot holes.
2. Lack of plot expostion of the development.
3. Random plot progression
4. Mysterious/unclear enemy goals and plan.
5. Disconnected from the overarching plot of Mass Effect.
6. Retcons.
7. Poor Pacing of events.
8. Too Passive protaganist.
9. A poor 'antagonist.
10. 1 dimensional plot devices .
11. Flimsy and unknow plot or goal.
12 Useless Characters side stories.

You see, when you cut out the "flowery" language, jokes, random complaints, and distill the complaints down into it its base essence, things become clear.


This list I can agree with. I enjoyed ME2 for the brief stints of nostalgia it gave, (pre LOTSB) and the revamp to gameplay was fun, but I admit there were many times where I just stopped and went...

"wait... what justh happened?"
"That doesn't make any sense."
"wait... thats it?" (When I hit the ending)
"Emails?" (More of a personal complaint, but still.)

i would argue with point 5, While the game feels disconnected from ME 1 (as an immediate transition) and while the story was executed poorly It was Still with in the Overall story Shepard vs reapers vs World. And stuff still happened that minutely furthered our understanding of the Reaperes and hindered the porgression of their plans.

[darth_lopez]

Mesina2 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

Wait wtf... How the hell did smud get banned? What did he do. I mean i know he can be an ass but seriously he typically has good points.

He likes to insult a lot if you disagree with him.

That's against Site Rules last time I checked.

Still He got away with it fine in the Old Forums. Oh smud...How i shall miss you my old foe-Friend, I mean at least smud wasn't as bad as that Guy Aesieru on the old forums. He was pretty nasty to argue with.