546 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

darth_lopez wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I'm aware and factored in  what i don't know (AKA variables), and since you're not really telling me anything i dont already know, you're no closer to proving it's impossible for Sheps body to survive intact, or something resembling intact.

Not necessarily true. " Meat and Tubes" implies alot about sheps condition

Well, he was intact enough to put back together, and the helmet held up more or less - I've got it on my desk @ the Normandy.

[squee913]

darth_lopez wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I'm aware and factored in  what i don't know (AKA variables), and since you're not really telling me anything i dont already know, you're no closer to proving it's impossible for Sheps body to survive intact, or something resembling intact.

Not necessarily true. " Meat and Tubes" implies alot about sheps condition

Not really. A dead person fully intact is still just meat and tubes (and bones but I doubt Jacob was giving an itemized list of what remained). Jacob very easily could have seen a badly mangled, but still largely intact body and used that term. It does not immediately dictate that all Shepard was was a pile of fleshy mass and tubes. Just like saying someone was beaten to a pulp does not mean they were bludgeoned into a pile soft moist mass.

[didymos1120]

darth_lopez wrote...

Not necessarily true. " Meat and Tubes" implies alot about sheps condition

It doesn't imply much actually.  Two things, really:

a. There were a bunch of tubes jammed into Shep, presumably doing medical-type stuff. 
b. Shep looked bad externally from the POV of someone who, as he himself said, was no doctor. 

And it's not exactly unusual for severely-injured (yet very much living) people to appear really "torn up" and yet not actually be literally torn up.  So, no: "meat and tubes" by itself doesn't tell us much at all about what exactly was wrong with the body or to what extent it was wrong.  All we can say for sure is that Shep wasn't gonna be winning any beauty contests anytime soon.

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 avril 2011 - 06:48 .

[squee913]

didymos1120 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

Not necessarily true. " Meat and Tubes" implies alot about sheps condition

It doesn't imply much actually.  Two things, really:

a. There were a bunch of tubes jammed into Shep, presumably doing medical-type stuff. 
b. Shep looked bad externally from the POV of someone who, as he himself said, was no doctor. 

And it's not exactly unusual for severely-injured (yet very much living) people to appear really "torn up" and yet not actually be literally torn up.  So, no: "meat and tubes" by itself doesn't tell us much at all about what exactly was wrong with the body or to what extent it was wrong.  All we can say for sure is that Shep wasn't gonna be winning any beauty contests anytime soon.

Jinx!!

[darth_lopez]

[quote]squee913 wrote...

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

It's kinda hard to miss Go here http://social.biowar...ndex/6968140/16 Now scroll down till you see a large White  Box with numbers in it.  However I would recommend disregarding it because the number is certaintly wrong.

Also i meant Read my Previous Post[/i]s not just the one. [/quote]

You stated that you never said he would fall faster than terminal velocity. I showed you clearly did. The fact that you recanted is great but that doesn't erase the fact you stated you said it. The only reason why I made a deal of it is because you accused me of not READING your posts. I read them just fine. You simply forgot what you wrote.

[/quote]

and as i stated somewhere until It was mentioned i had not realized it was a significant factor (Not a physicist) I corrected my error. Again Read my posts.

Post from same page lower down:
[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

[quote]squee913 wrote...

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

[quote]piemanz wrote...

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

Gravity
is unfortunately an almost non issue though ~7.25m/s (~9-25%[earths is
~9m/s]) still results in speeds of at least ~435m/s after 60 seconds. of
falling inside it's gravitational pull. That doesn't take into acount
initial velocity (which is knwon to be >0) and neglecting resistance.
He's still coming down like a bat out of hell.
[/quote]

You
can't just 'negelct' resistance as thats the biggest variable, sheps not
going to be sky diving, he's more than like going to be flailing. Not
to mention winds are another unknown, the angle of decent , the type of
surface he landed on, i could go on and on.

[/quote]
Actually, Time is the biggest variable. That and his accelaration. Those determine exactly how fast he is going
And
unless you would like to magically produce the number for resitance on
that planet you have to neglect it in this case Never mind that we know 
that in just basic physics(high school level stuff) Resistance is
considered neglegible in the Position, Velocity, and Acceleration
Formulas
and calculations neglecting it are still amazingly accurate. With an
atmosphere 25% less dense than earths(right?) that would likely be 25%
less Resistance. The winds are another unknown the angle of decent and
time, Though i'm 100% sure it took him more than 4 minutes to land, the
sruface is known to be Icy Though. Ice is not a nice substance.  Imagine
calling into a field of glass at just 435 m/s You would get sliced
diced impaled and explode all over the surface you impacted on. AND we
do know the accelartion due to gravity ~7.25 (25% less than earths.)

So
considering there seems to be a nice 25% difference here. Shepards
chances onf not going immediately super splat are what reduced by 25%?
that's not a whole lot. And he's still coming in like a bat out of hell
the moment you can tell me that 435 Meters Per Second(after 1
minute, shepard goes unconcious is 15 seconds according to the guy with
the nasa Fact we could extend that by 25% if you'd like to be what?
~18.5 Seconds?) is not coming in like a bat out of hell is the moment
you throw all forms of logic out the window

After 2 minutes he's falling at ~870 M/S
3 minutes : 1305 m/s 
4 minutes: 1740 M/s
[/quote]

I'm no physicist, but could you explain to me why Shepard would continue to accelerate PAST terminal velocity?
[/quote]

I'm
not a physicist either I was making statements off of what i know from
Calc 1-3. I have little to no experience calculating Terminal Velocity I
was also not aware it was a factor But i'm pretty sure i adressed it.
[/quote]

I will note that at the time of this message being posted i adressed was refering back to the equation i attempted to make.  Which you seemed to totally disregard.

i also made several refrences to my attempted calculation, stating it outright  in most cases, you also seemed to disregard that :/

I only point this out because you make the accusation that i don't remember my own posts. Perhaps your coprehension really does need some work.

[quote]
[quote]
First the argument isn't survivability it's Intactness and overall recoverability of the body. In the even that it doesn't spalt and become "Meat in Tubes" as jacob claims it becomes a slightly large plot hole. Because the game makes sure to tell you that he was in no good shape at all.


Please Read your articles before Posting them.
[/quote]

You clearly asked what object can survive impact at those speeds.


[quote]darth_lopez wrote...



Lets
reduce 195km/h by 25% which is ~146.05km/h(just like we did with g and
desnisty)  lets say, for the sake of argument, This is shepards best
estimated Terminal velocity right now(cuase i bothced my attempt to find
it)
at 4 seconds shepard is heading at 29.24 m/s or 105.264 km/h if
you convert up, at 5 seconds he hits 131.58km/h and at 5.5seconds he is
traveling at 144.738km/h He obviously hits the estimated terminal velocity between 5.5 seconds and 6 seconds. And is now officially traveling like a bat out of hell.

You tell me What object that hits that any surface that fast is going to be intact?[i]

Also
i used the smaller of too numbers to estimate the terminal velocity in
this manner, giving shep the benefit of the doubt still becoming pretty
damn flat at ~89mp/h

[/quote]
[/quote]
i clearly did not.

Please look at the underlined bold face and italicized sentence

[quote]
I will give you the last one (not sure how I missed that, but I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed) but the other all survived a drop that would have caused terminal velocity. The guy who fell form 16 stories still counts since the doctor said you usually hit terminal velocity after 10 or 12 stories (if he was not at it, he was close enough for it to matter)
[/quote]

Do notice something very distinct here This is the quote below drunk i guy i believe
[quote]
Reuters reported that Munich police had detained a BASE jumper after
they found him dangling by his parachute from a construction crane 150
feet above the ground. According to the report, the man had leapt from
the 35th floor of an unfinished highrise--almost 500 feet up--only to
have his parachute fail. Luckily for him the tangled lines of his
parachute snagged the crane, saving him from near certain death. [/quote]

what i'm hoping you'll realize is teh underlined statement.

35th floor is allmost 500 feet. Are you aware of the trational method for measuring Stories?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storey

That building had roughly 35 storeys Does it mention how many stories the drunnken man fell? no...
It mentions 160feet. What i'm getting at here is that a Story while related to height Tells us more about how tall something is incomparison to other buildings While Feet determine overall hieght.

The 35 storey building was "nearly" 500 feet.

Your Doctor quotes claims falling from 20k feet was it?  would be the same as 500? Drunk man fell 160

160=/= 500
500>160 that simple.

Also fact on terminal velocity The more weight that is falling the higher the terminal velocity. There is no specifcally constant terminal velocity. If there was we could actually difinitively figure sheps out.


[quote]
They all survived. If a body can survive it, than it is more than possible that it can at least make the fall and remain intact enough to recover. We have no idea how shepard landed. Something could have broken his fall, or affected it. Did he fall through a glass roof? Not likely, but you cannot assume he hit the ground at full speed and a 90 degree angle.
[/quote]
[/quote]
1 spalshed into water. Water is a liquid and thus not a solid
1 got stuck in mid air
i believe it was 2? had a transfer of momentum before impact, one of them NEARLY LOST HIS ARM(in caps so you can read it) 
and the other of the cases simply fell and survived minus broken leg. From roughly what 160 feet?

Now if the something that broke shepards fall is jagged icy rocks i highly doubt whichever piece of his body first impacted came out of the impacted unshredded (see man falling through glass with nearly severed arm)

Ice and Glass are alot alike in sharpness and ability to kill people trust me.  You would know that if you lived anywhere with harsh winters Icicles are the most seemingly benign homicidal maniacs you can find  and what happens if large unmovable Upward facing Icicles have a person slide down them? That person gets and icicle through whatever body part they hit it with.

Furthermore neither Terminal Velocity nor Teh standard velocity function require 90degree angles. Angles can still be varriabl his speed isn't likely to change. Also if he comes into atmosphere and falls at an angle not 90degree he is likely to have initial velocity INcreasing his speed. Considernig that Terminal Velocity is for objects in Free Fall and shepard was propelled toward the planet by an explosion which cause him to richochet off the normandy it is unlikely he was in the perfect state of free fall as teh force of the Explosion was his propellent thus he had initial velocity and Terminal Velocity no longer Applies. He could Very well exceed terminal velocity If his Initial upon entering gravities pull is not 0 because he is no longer in free fall. So having shep coming in at an angle increases the chances that he will splat Angles are very very bad in this case. 90degree is probably want you want. You want shep to be pulled directly down in a 90degree angle while in free fall and hopefully not severely affected by outside forces. *note that in calculating Terminal Velocity Angle of decent does not matter seemingly*

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 07:36 .

[darth_lopez]

didymos1120 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

Not necessarily true. " Meat and Tubes" implies alot about sheps condition

It doesn't imply much actually.  Two things, really:

a. There were a bunch of tubes jammed into Shep, presumably doing medical-type stuff. 
b. Shep looked bad externally from the POV of someone who, as he himself said, was no doctor. 

no there are several infrences from this jacobs statement it's not just 2 things from the Linguistic Stand point. Which is the one that matters.

a) is an entailment : Shepards Body is Meat, and there were tubes
is a presupposition:Shepard was dead
c)Presuppossition: Shepard was Recoverd
d)Presuppossition: Shepard was operated on
e)implicature: Shepard Was badly dismembered
f)implicature: Shepard was badly mamed
g)implicature: Shepard was contained in tubes
h) implicature:shepard had tubes in him
i) implicature: he was recovered as Meat and in Tubes
j) implicature: He had tubes placed in him for medical purposes


we can all agree that in order for the statement to be true a, b,c  and d must also be true. If any of those are false the sentence would also be false (d is debatable lets leave it alone though the reason it's debatable is not really applicable to the conversation)
e-j are implicatures meaning these are potential bits of information that could have been implied through the Phrase. While it mainly comes to 2-6 big ideas The extremes of both sides  being:
1) that the tubes were placed medically and shepard was largely intact.
2) That he was contained in tubes and he was largely dismembered.

Neither can be confirmed from the information in the phrase. Nor can any of the implicatures e-j have to be true for the phrase to be true. Luckily what determines if something is an Implicature is that Implicatures can be false while the phrase is still true.
*crash course in very basic linguistic semantics.*

If we could confirm from the information given just these 2  interpretations

a. There were a bunch of tubes jammed into Shep, presumably doing medical-type stuff. 
b. Shep looked bad externally from the POV of someone who, as he himself said, was no doctor. 

which are actually a combination of multiple implicatures taken from the phrase we wouldn't be debating it.
The phrase actually implies alot more than what more than most would realize.(no offense meant most people don't really think about the actual meaning and truthiness to what they say, read or type, they just  do what comes automatically to them)
we would not be arguing

And it's not exactly unusual for severely-injured (yet very much living) people to appear really "torn up" and yet not actually be literally torn up.  So, no: "meat and tubes" by itself doesn't tell us much at all about
what exactly was wrong with the body or to what extent it was wrong. 
All we can say for sure is that Shep wasn't gonna be winning any beauty
contests anytime soon.

Exactly  The phrase doesn't tell us much and there are many more implicatures than there are facts to found them. Thus why we are debating Using math and some degree of science to help us get a grasp on the total scale of the situation


edit: if you couldn't tell i sorta study this topic >.> just a wee 'ittle bit.
edit edit: Clerification of 2< interpretations of the phrase

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 07:44 .

[squee913]

darth_lopez wrote...

*huge snip*

I can see this turning into an Emperor's New Groove 'Nuh Uh! Uh Huh! Nuh Uh! Uh Huh!" Thing so tell you what; You were very quick to correct yourself, and I admire that. A lot of people can't admit a fault for the life of them. I got so hung up on the accusation, that I did not read something clearly, that I was arguing a silly technicality. For that I apologize. Why don't we simply agree there was a misunderstanding and bear no ill will for it.

The articles I was using were simply to add weight to the idea that the possibility (even if small) for Shep's body to be more than a paint stain does exist. Personally, I wish they had explained it better since I don't like it when the hero succeeds in the 1% chance scenario, but I feel that if it is possible than it is not a plot hole.

[darth_lopez]

squee913 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

*huge snip*

I can see this turning into an Emperor's New Groove 'Nuh Uh! Uh Huh! Nuh Uh! Uh Huh!" Thing so tell you what; You were very quick to correct yourself, and I admire that. A lot of people can't admit a fault for the life of them. I got so hung up on the accusation, that I did not read something clearly, that I was arguing a silly technicality. For that I apologize. Why don't we simply agree there was a misunderstanding and bear no ill will for it.

The articles I was using were simply to add weight to the idea that the possibility (even if small) for Shep's body to be more than a paint stain does exist. Personally, I wish they had explained it better since I don't like it when the hero succeeds in the 1% chance scenario, but I feel that if it is possible than it is not a plot hole.

i'd be perfectly fine abandoning the exhange on who fouled who first.

The articles however were not very helpful in furthering your cause.

I must also protest that simply because something is possible doesn't make it not a plot hole. But i was never arguing that it was plot hole nor did i intend to. Simply that Shep Did not have Airbreaks, or a parchute, nor did he likely land Fully intact. The math, environment, and Some of your articles, and most of the logic on practicality and military implementation, Seems to be in my favor that he was at the very least not fully intact(nor was he  even mostly intact including mutalation of limbs and face in my idea of intact i may have wanted to clearify that earlier).

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 07:39 .

[squee913]

darth_lopez wrote...

Exactly  The phrase doesn't tell us much and there are many more implicatures than there are facts to found them. Thus why we are debating Using math and some degree of science to help us get a grasp on the total scale of the situation

wait... So does this mean we all agree that what Jacob says does not really help us determine the state of Shepard? So why are we even talking about it?

Modifié par squee913, 10 avril 2011 - 07:47 .

[darth_lopez]

Almostfaceman wrote...

@darth_lopez - and THIS is why I said it's all ultimately speculation.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me - I have a problem when they start telling me their opinion is fact (in situations like this).  This message board is full of people who think their opinion is equivalent to the Word of God handed down by Moses on the tablets - and I like pointing out how silly they are.

I have been waiting to reply to this for a long time.  but i got caught up in arguing with squee. i felt a wee bit on the attacked side with this post. I just wanted to say Yes it's ultimate speculation, However between the two of us specifically i've been the one trying to support my statements with applicable facts and evidence relative to what we've been arguing. Not just my claim or phrases that have no particular value to the conversation and themselves lack substance.

Also just because something is speculation does not justify the total ambandonment of supporting evidence (like facts, and examples) that would certaintly help further your cause. The people who support their claims with facts and examples are typically the ones who tend to be correct  or are at least on to something that could turn out to be valid with more evidene (issaac newtons 3 laws of physics, Einsteins theory of relativity just about every other scientist, mathematician, philosopher, any Professional in a field)

An argument is an Opinion(or claim) with supporting facts that bring validity to the claim so long as they are applicable and relevant to the subject. An opinion is just: "Well for me Airbreaks work" Or "He could've had a Parachute" I'm sorry you feel that i had been arrogant in my defense of my claim and usage of applicable and relevant facts and examples.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 08:05 .

[darth_lopez]

squee913 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

Exactly  The phrase doesn't tell us much and there are many more implicatures than there are facts to found them. Thus why we are debating Using math and some degree of science to help us get a grasp on the total scale of the situation

wait... So does this mean we all agree that what Jacob says does not really help us determine the state of Shepard? So why are we even talking about it?

.....because the implicatures are there and i thought that's why we were arguing about it >.> because there wasn't enough supporting evidence for either Claim that he was intact  or dismembered.....<.<'  and my interpretation of the phrase is he went splat and i was under the impression i was defending it >.>

Look i only started to debunk airbreaks in the armor and parachutes and that there is a high likelyhood he was not fully intact. If i've done that i've accomoplished my goal

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 07:59 .

[darth_lopez]

didymos1120 wrote...
 *articles.


Shep's got an advantage here: he/she was already dead, so the unlikelihood of surviving isn't an issue.  The corpse just has to stay in one piece. Much easier to accomplish.  And unless she/he somehow managed to go into rigor during the fall, the corpse gets all the benefits of the relaxed falling drunk person.

Well played sir well played....

still ones fall was broken by pine trees and the other Is surpisingly super lucky. Pines are much softer than Ice mountains.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 08:13 .

[JKoopman]

I think it warrants reiteration that the whole point behind the argument of Shepard's corpse's survivability is whether or not it's plausible for his brain to have survived the fall intact and thus the plausibility of Shepard's mind, personality and memories being restored exactly as they were before his death.

IF his body somehow didn't burn up and disintegrate on reentry...

and IF his brain somehow wasn't liquefied/chunked inside his skull from the impact...

THEN it's somewhat plausible that his mind, personality and memories could be reconstructed from an intact--albeit dead--brain.

If either of the above two cases hold true, then no, the success of the Lazarus Project was completely ridiculous.

[xSTONEYx187x]

I think some people on here enjoy picking apart the story of Mass Effect and ridiculing it rather than enjoying the damn thing.

[Shadesofsiknas]

I have to agree with a lot of what Smudboy says in the review. The writing in ME2 is awful. The best wrote stuff for me was LOTSB which was penned by Patrick Weekes if Im right?

I think Patrick should be lead writer for ME3. While Ive nothing personal against Mac Walters Im sure he is a nice guy. I think he is a hack of a writer. The stuff we have had since he took the helm is just riddled with holes and retcons.

I love Mass Effect and it kills me to see it been butchered by sub-standard writing.

Edit:Typo.

Modifié par Shadesofsiknas, 10 avril 2011 - 11:23 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Seriously, why does anyone say that Shepard might have been alive when they recovered him?

I'll take this from least convincing argument to most convincing.

Shepard was being ferried and held by the Shadow Broker for an extended period of time:

Liara had her whole series of events in Redemption recovering your body. Talking to Feron, meeting Miranda, talking to TIM, and everything that followed. There was a considerable time lapse there.

Shepard, if he was recovered in a mangled state, had fallen the the planet below:

You do not become "meat and tubes" by floating in space. Your body would lose all heat and freeze via rigamortis and you would just be drifting along if it had simply been drifting in space.

Jacob states you were dead:

"Dead as dead can be when they brought you here."

[piemanz]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Seriously, why does anyone say that Shepard might have been alive when they recovered him?

I'll take this from least convincing argument to most convincing.

Shepard was being ferried and held by the Shadow Broker for an extended period of time:

Liara had her whole series of events in Redemption recovering your body. Talking to Feron, meeting Miranda, talking to TIM, and everything that followed. There was a considerable time lapse there.

Shepard, if he was recovered in a mangled state, had fallen the the planet below:

You do not become "meat and tubes" by floating in space. Your body would lose all heat and freeze via rigamortis and you would just be drifting along if it had simply been drifting in space.

Jacob states you were dead:

"Dead as dead can be when they brought you here."

Well, the argument seems to have gone from "could he have landed intact" to "could they ressurect him", since we seem to have reached a consesus that he could have landed intact to some degree. Ranging from splattered, to broken bones and severe injuries, unless he got really lucky.

Wether he's alive or not after the impact is kind of a moot argument, since he's probably already dead before he hits the planet.

And with regards to the ressurection, we simply have no idea what the process was. There was a degree of explanation. We know Sheps not cloned, we know they rebuilt his neural pathways by splicing organic and inorganic material. Just because we dont know the exact process does not mean it's a plot hole.

Example of a plot hole:

Shep crashes to the planet, cutscene ends. Shep is now walking around as if nothing happened apparently ressurected.

What we actually got:

Shep crashes to the planet, cutscene ends. We wake to find the Lazarus project has spent the last 2 years rebuilding him at great cost and rescources. Which in context to the narative and Sci-Fi setting, is not impossible.


Whether people choose to like it or not is entirley their choice, but don't claim it's a plot hole.Personaly i can live with it and i think Sheps ressurection will still have some story to come in ME3.

Modifié par piemanz, 10 avril 2011 - 04:37 .

[darth_lopez]

JKoopman wrote...

I think it warrants reiteration that the whole point behind the argument of Shepard's corpse's survivability is whether or not it's plausible for his brain to have survived the fall intact and thus the plausibility of Shepard's mind, personality and memories being restored exactly as they were before his death.

IF his body somehow didn't burn up and disintegrate on reentry...

and IF his brain somehow wasn't liquefied/chunked inside his skull from the impact...

THEN it's somewhat plausible that his mind, personality and memories could be reconstructed from an intact--albeit dead--brain.

If either of the above two cases hold true, then no, the success of the Lazarus Project was completely ridiculous.

Agreed overall.

Although i do have some information in the Lore to help explain away the memories and mind thing

Quarians used to rever their dead by basically creating VIs of them with personality imprints and the information that would make up their memories(or so i would assume) If they used what ever tech quarians used to have to extract shepards then modify the VI until it was an AI shepard could literally be an AI in a Cyborg Body now .

The thing about quarians and the VI tradition tends to be overlooked because it was a minor cultural codex entry in #1

And as someone pointed head likley wasn't badly damaged from what we know from retrieving the helmet

[darth_lopez]

Shadesofsiknas wrote...

I have to agree with a lot of what Smudboy says in the review. The writing in ME2 is awful. The best wrote stuff for me was LOTSB which was penned by Patrick Weekes if Im right?

I think Patrick should be lead writer for ME3. While Ive nothing personal against Mac Walters Im sure he is a nice guy. I think he is a hack of a writer. The stuff we have had since he took the helm is just riddled with holes and retcons.

I love Mass Effect and it kills me to see it been butchered by sub-standard writing.

Edit:Typo.

Nah they should totally Bring back Karpashyn (spelling)

althought Karpashyn + LoTSB guy? = likley epic win

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 avril 2011 - 04:39 .

[Almostfaceman]

darth_lopez wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

@darth_lopez - and THIS is why I said it's all ultimately speculation.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me - I have a problem when they start telling me their opinion is fact (in situations like this).  This message board is full of people who think their opinion is equivalent to the Word of God handed down by Moses on the tablets - and I like pointing out how silly they are.

I have been waiting to reply to this for a long time.  but i got caught up in arguing with squee. i felt a wee bit on the attacked side with this post. I just wanted to say Yes it's ultimate speculation, However between the two of us specifically i've been the one trying to support my statements with applicable facts and evidence relative to what we've been arguing. Not just my claim or phrases that have no particular value to the conversation and themselves lack substance.

Also just because something is speculation does not justify the total ambandonment of supporting evidence (like facts, and examples) that would certaintly help further your cause. The people who support their claims with facts and examples are typically the ones who tend to be correct  or are at least on to something that could turn out to be valid with more evidene (issaac newtons 3 laws of physics, Einsteins theory of relativity just about every other scientist, mathematician, philosopher, any Professional in a field)

An argument is an Opinion(or claim) with supporting facts that bring validity to the claim so long as they are applicable and relevant to the subject. An opinion is just: "Well for me Airbreaks work" Or "He could've had a Parachute" I'm sorry you feel that i had been arrogant in my defense of my claim and usage of applicable and relevant facts and examples.

We're talking about a fictional story - so it means that all the facts are not present.  "Supporting Evidence" becomes less important since this universe isn't as complete as ours.  We cannot, for instance, call the manufacturer of Sheps suit and ask them about the parachute.  We cannot check their web site.  None of this exists.  No author is this thorough.  Therefore in my opinion a lot of the effort you put into the discussion was pointless. 

It's ALL GUESSWORK.  As you have admitted.  

The parachute idea came from me discussing with Koopman earlier about the survivability of Shep's brain.  For me, looking at what little we have to work with, I postulated the possibility of a parachute.  This could conceivably slow Shep's fall enough to (combined with the helmet) protect Sheps's brain enough for recovery.  Because Shep's brain was recovered.

If someone can prove that it is a FACT that the suit does not have a parachute, then I'll have to disregard that possibility.  Until then, I can, in MY explanation of what could have happened, say it's possible for a parachute to have been deployed.

With all due respect, any guesses, for any reason, that the suit did not have a parachute, remain at heart guesses, not fact.

Now, if the cut-scene had shown us Shepard's head exploding and his body turning to liquified goo - I would cede the "it's a plot-hole" argument.

[Il Divo]

Almostfaceman wrote...

If someone can prove that it is a FACT that the suit does not have a parachute, then I'll have to disregard that possibility.  Until then, I can, in MY explanation of what could have happened, say it's possible for a parachute to have been deployed.

But what you are suggesting is scientifically unsound. We do not assume something exists, until proven otherwise. If we take your suggestion as true, there are no such things as plot holes because I can invent whatever explanation I want that will suddenly make a story consistent.

[Almostfaceman]

Il Divo wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

If someone can prove that it is a FACT that the suit does not have a parachute, then I'll have to disregard that possibility.  Until then, I can, in MY explanation of what could have happened, say it's possible for a parachute to have been deployed.

But what you are suggesting is scientifically unsound. We do not assume something exists, until proven otherwise. If we take your suggestion as true, there are no such things as plot holes because I can invent whatever explanation I want that will suddenly make a story consistent.

I'm sorry, was I making a scientific argument, or was I explaining how a story point could work?

[Il Divo]

Almostfaceman wrote...

I'm sorry, was I making a scientific argument, or was I explaining how a story point could work?

I'd say they're one and the same in this case. There's no logic flow to the conclusion that Shepard had a parachute. As I said, if we can choose whatever explanation we want, then there's no such thing as plotholes.

[Almostfaceman]

Il Divo wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

I'm sorry, was I making a scientific argument, or was I explaining how a story point could work?

I'd say they're one and the same in this case. There's no logic flow to the conclusion that Shepard had a parachute. As I said, if we can choose whatever explanation we want, then there's no such thing as plotholes.

Exactly how was I making up whatever I wanted?  I'm pretty sure my argument was within certain parameters. 

Parameter 1:
Sheps body survived - did not burn to crisp, did not turn to liquified goo on impact of planet.
Parameter 2: 
Sheps brain suvived - Shep returns to us with his memories intact.
Parameter 3:
It is logical to me that a suit designed to survive the destruction of a spaceship (which can have a critical failure both in atmosphere and in space) have a parachute.

I'm not "making anything up".  I'm pointing at a possibility.

Now, if you want to suggest this is as ridiculous as me saying that UFO strangers from planet X grabbed Shep on the descent and set him down gently - I'll have to disagree with you.

[piemanz]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

I'm sorry, was I making a scientific argument, or was I explaining how a story point could work?

I'd say they're one and the same in this case. There's no logic flow to the conclusion that Shepard had a parachute. As I said, if we can choose whatever explanation we want, then there's no such thing as plotholes.

Exactly how was I making up whatever I wanted?  I'm pretty sure my argument was within certain parameters. 

Parameter 1:
Sheps body survived - did not burn to crisp, did not turn to liquified goo on impact of planet.
Parameter 2: 
Sheps brain suvived - Shep returns to us with his memories intact.
Parameter 3:
It is logical to me that a suit designed to survive the destruction of a spaceship (which can have a critical failure both in atmosphere and in space) have a parachute.

I'm not "making anything up".  I'm pointing at a possibility.

Now, if you want to suggest this is as ridiculous as me saying that UFO strangers from planet X grabbed Shep on the descent and set him down gently - I'll have to disagree with you.

Although i had dismissed this and concentrated my argument that he could have landed intact even without a parachute.There is a decent argument that their suits do have some kind of parachute built in.

Before landing on eden prime in ME1, Nialus clearly jumps out of the docking bay of the normandy in midflight, without an obvious parachute, and Shep and Co. seem to do the same a bit later.

Modifié par piemanz, 10 avril 2011 - 05:25 .