546 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Hate to bring old post up but....

squee913 wrote...

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.

The Mass effect comic "Redemption" actually has someone commenting on Shepard's corpse, that it is so smashed and destroyed that you would not be able to tell whether the corpse/remains was of a man or a woman.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 11 avril 2011 - 05:42 .

[CroGamer002]

^Ah yes "Mass Effect comics"...

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Ah yes "Mass Effect comics"...

True. They are quite terrible!

[Bourne Endeavor]

Almostfaceman wrote...

If it's a pointless debate - why are you here? To wow us all with how smart you are in detecting pointless debates?

What you consider a burden of proof does not involve me.  I played the game, this is the reasoning I used when I played the game, I'm relating it to to people on the board to discuss.  If you don't agree with it fine.  Don't.  But please don't pretend I have to check my reasoning past the JKoopman Badge of Approval Process.

You are welcome to use that line of reasoning, whilst others have their own. Where it fails to hold merit is in a debate of the narrative. The onus is upon your side to refute the challenge: "How did Shepard's brain survive?" If you use a parachute concept, then you must provide sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis, otherwise the perpetual cycle of, "this is just poor writing" is not rebutted. It is not JKoopman tooting his arrogance nor I my own. It is the fundamentals of how a debate works.

Gemini1179 wrote...

I'm not watching it and I'm not reading through 20 pages. Does he even mention how BIOWARE continually makes Shepard a complete idiot so that they can steer the plot where they want? I mean come on, not record your conversation with a Reaper once, shame on you, not record your conversation with a Reaper twice, you're an f-ing idiot.

Oh well, I suppose this means we're going to be treated to an 'engaging' and 'emotional' Shepard-must-answer-for-charges-and-then-be-hung-out-to-dry-as-a-scapegoat scene from Alliance brass. If only there were a Renegade interrupt allowing you to pull out your gun and shoot everyone in the room. Yeah, I totally shot the good Doctor. Even my Paragon Shep has had enough of this galaxy's BS. She's getting too old for this ...

Yes, in his Mass Effect analysis he explicitly points out how moronic Shepard is whenever the Council is around. That was one of his significant complaints about ME. For some reason, Shepard latches onto the "Idiot Ball" when dealing with the Council.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 11 avril 2011 - 06:18 .

[Fixers0]

Lizardviking wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Ah yes "Mass Effect comics"...

True. They are quite terrible!

What do you expect with Mac Walters.

[Almostfaceman]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

If it's a pointless debate - why are you here? To wow us all with how smart you are in detecting pointless debates?

What you consider a burden of proof does not involve me.  I played the game, this is the reasoning I used when I played the game, I'm relating it to to people on the board to discuss.  If you don't agree with it fine.  Don't.  But please don't pretend I have to check my reasoning past the JKoopman Badge of Approval Process.

You are welcome to use that line of reasoning, whilst others have their own. Where it fails to hold merit is in a debate of the narrative. The onus is upon your side to refute the challenge: "How did Shepard's brain survive?" If you use a parachute concept, then you must provide sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis, otherwise the perpetual cycle of, "this is just poor writing" is not rebutted. It is not JKoopman tooting his arrogance nor I my own. It is the fundamentals of how a debate works.

No, it's not the fundamentals of how a debate works.  It's a debate technique to try and get your opponent on the defensive.  It's not going to work on me.

If I did not score a magical speculative point on "what is or is not a plot hole" with someone fine.

A plot hole is according to wikapedia a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot.

Now, I'm watching and experiencing the game, and my logic flow is not disturbed based on what I've experienced as an individual regarding the storyline and information provided in the the storyline.  I am exhibiting the fundamental subjectivity of this concept.  This is one reason why people disagree on what is or is not a plot hole.

So, what exactly is "flow of logic" and "relevant information"?  What are those parameters?  Is it information that is spelled out exactly in the codex or discriptive dialogue?  Or could it be a sense of the universe a reader puts together for themself while experiencing the story?  Is it relevant that a person has to make up reasons for the Geth ship to be able to fly like it does?  Or make up for themselves just what a "quantum bluebox" is and what it can do?  Why is it ok for me to speculate on how EDI functions (she's a necessary part of the story) but not speculate on how Shep's body made it to the surface intact?  It's because people pick and choose what to them breaks a story or a game.  It's subjective.

I'll give one example:

Joe plays Mass Effect.  Joe is blown away by the mystical science fiction he experiences.  Big metal contructs grab spaceships with lightning and hurl them through outer space.  Giant squids are space ships that talk. He does not care about the codex.  He experiences the story but doesn't get caught up in the details.  He loves the gee wow factor of super fast speeds and lasers flying.  A person being resurrected by this wonderful science magic does not phase him in the slightest.  He sees it as just another amazing feat of technological magic like them there asari merging with Shepards brain and seeing planets glowing in black against a starry background. The logic he applies to the story is not the same as my logic, nor your logic.  For him, a plot hole would be Shepard being in a scene with Anderson and in one cut he's wearing his armor and in the next he's wearing a clown outfit and is all of a sudden discussing the need for more belly dancers to welcome people in port.

vs.

Jason plays Mass Effect.  He studies the codex extensively.  He knows how the armor in Mass Effect 1 works to a degree and gets pissed that squaddies in Mass Effect 2 don't wear armor.  To him every single deviation from the codex and express universe-descriptive dialogue is a plot hole.  This is his logic.

There is no onus on me - JKoopman has made up his mind based on his logic and how he views the narrative and the story.  There is nothing for me to convince him of.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  That's what fundamentally makes Koopman - Koopman.

[CroGamer002]

Fixers0 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Ah yes "Mass Effect comics"...

True. They are quite terrible!

What do you expect with Mac Walters.

Outstanding characters and big levels.

[Nashiktal]

I don't know about you, but my logic flow was totally thrown off a few times while playing ME2. The shuttle was one of them, (Not because of the shuttle itself per ce... but for the sudden and illogical reason for the shuttle crunch. Not the thread to get into the why though) It just really brought me out of immersion.

[Nashiktal]

Mesina2 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Ah yes "Mass Effect comics"...

True. They are quite terrible!

What do you expect with Mac Walters.

Outstanding characters and big levels.

Good characters? Yes.

Big levels? What you smokin? Levels in ME1 were bigger than 2. 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Almostfaceman wrote...

snip

No, everything exists under a principle of rules and must adhere to these established requirements. If a person is accused of murder, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove they committed the crime. The consequential evidence provided shifts the burden of proof to the defense, who then must refute the supposed evidence with evidence of their own. If the prosecution cannot prove what they claim as irrefutable fact, they lose.

If we fit this argument under those parameters; people who purpose Shepard’s death and subsequent resurrection is a plot hole, are the prosecution. Those who refute this would be the defense. We, the prosecution, have provided evidence this is a plot hole by virtue of lack of exposition and unbelievability. Our stance is Shepard’s brain could not have survived either planetary reentry or impact of falling at incredible speeds to the planet’s surface. The burden now shifts to your side to refute this argument. You do so by way of citing the possibility of a parachute, which would eject to break the speed of deceleration. We counter, by asking for evidence to support this plausible theory, a codex entry or even the comics would sufficient and shift the burden. You instead respond with… nothing and therefore lose as the burden of proof is on your side and you have failed to meet the demands of the prosecution.

The paradigm you presented is the default basis for the definition of a plot hole. The flow of logic pertains to existing information readily available in the narrative or thought common due to frequent use. Relevant information is what is necessary for us to continue to the next chapter of the story. Your interpretation of this does not alter their definition nor is it subjective. To reach act two, there must be a connection derived from the previous act one. We witness Shepard’s suit rupture, his body hurling toward a planet and eventually igniting. Act two instantaneously depicts Miranda claiming to have recovered that very body and the Lazarus Project is underway. This bodes a conundrum because moments ago we saw Shepard’s body either liable to crash land on a planet or burn in reentry. It is now the responsibility of the narrative to remedy this problem by means of exposition. How did what we were shown in act one change in act two? Instead, it is never mentioned and no one asks. This is an inconsistency in the narrative because it did not answer the questions purposed by the second act that contradict with the first and therefore is a plot hole.

The fact it did not disrupt your immersion does not disregard the reality. It means you either were not bothered by the inconsistency or found a suitable means to rectify it using your imagination. The definition of a plot hole remains the same in both scenarios. What you are using is false logic and attempt to incorporate what you perceive as fact. Using such a method, I could claim nothing has plot holes, and the term is merely a figment of delusion because someone somewhere will believe it is an excellent piece of literature. For instance, I believe Twilight is a horrendous mess however many people evidently adore it. They will claim there are no plot holes, whereas I would argue otherwise. By your line of reasoning, I cannot present an argument because everything is subjective. This why we have an unbiased basis and must adhere to it, and is why a person’s imagination is inadmissible in a debate.

Your examples retain the false logic I mentioned earlier. You are changing the definition of a term to suit your argument. In the first, their lack of concern for proper story structure and plot consistency suggests they are like yourself; either using their imagination or simply do not care. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this mindset. It is not correct for reasons I have already discussed.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 11 avril 2011 - 09:17 .

[Il Divo]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

-snip-

It must be said that was a very well-thought out post.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 avril 2011 - 09:38 .

[Almostfaceman]

Il Divo wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

-snip-

It must be said that was a very well-thought out post.

It must be said I don't agree with parts of it.

[Almostfaceman]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

snip

No, everything exists under a principle of rules and must adhere to these established requirements. If a person is accused of murder, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove they committed the crime. The consequential evidence provided shifts the burden of proof to the defense, who then must refute the supposed evidence with evidence of their own. If the prosecution cannot prove what they claim as irrefutable fact, they lose.
.

First, I need to wrap my puny brain around this concept of prosection and defense - because ya know I thought we were just a couple of guys and gals shootin' the ****e on a message board about a video game.  I was completely unaware that I was being put in a position where I actually had to prove something.

Do I, really? 

I mean, can it be possible I can just be having a conversation with someone without having to answer to them?

I think it's possible.

This may be the approach you're taking with this discussion, but I'm pretty sure you cannot force adherence to this approach.  I mean, if I don't look at this conversation the same way you do, can you call a moderator and have me banned?

No.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 11 avril 2011 - 09:51 .

[Almostfaceman]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

snip

If we fit this argument under those parameters; people who purpose Shepard’s death and subsequent resurrection is a plot hole, are the prosecution. Those who refute this would be the defense. We, the prosecution, have provided evidence this is a plot hole by virtue of lack of exposition and unbelievability. Our stance is Shepard’s brain could not have survived either planetary reentry or impact of falling at incredible speeds to the planet’s surface. The burden now shifts to your side to refute this argument. You do so by way of citing the possibility of a parachute, which would eject to break the speed of deceleration. We counter, by asking for evidence to support this plausible theory, a codex entry or even the comics would sufficient and shift the burden. You instead respond with… nothing and therefore lose as the burden of proof is on your side and you have failed to meet the demands of the prosecution.


.

I don't fit this discussion under those parameters.  I fit this discussion as we're shooting the ****e about a video game.  I'm here to share my ideas about what I do and don't like about the game.  I'm not here to be cross examined or to meet burdens of proof or submit myself to your scrutiny.  

If you don't like my ideas, feel free to say so, but please don't postulate the notion that I must answer to you or to Koopman or anyone else.

[Almostfaceman]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

snip

The paradigm you presented is the default basis for the definition of a plot hole. The flow of logic pertains to existing information readily available in the narrative or thought common due to frequent use. Relevant information is what is necessary for us to continue to the next chapter of the story. Your interpretation of this does not alter their definition nor is it subjective. 

And here we have your interpetation of the definition, which by all means you're entitled to.  I disagree for reasons stated in my previous post.

[didymos1120]

squee913 wrote...

True, but those were done while they were... you know... not dead  I don't think Shep could have used biotics to help. As for Mass Effect feilds... who knows.

I wasn't saying that was how the Shepcorpse remained intact. Armor doesn't carry large enough ME generators for that, AFAIC.  I'm just saying that can be (and has been) done in ME-Land. 

[squee913]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

snip

No, everything exists under a principle of rules and must adhere to these established requirements. If a person is accused of murder, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove they committed the crime. The consequential evidence provided shifts the burden of proof to the defense, who then must refute the supposed evidence with evidence of their own. If the prosecution cannot prove what they claim as irrefutable fact, they lose.

If we fit this argument under those parameters; people who purpose Shepard’s death and subsequent resurrection is a plot hole, are the prosecution. Those who refute this would be the defense. We, the prosecution, have provided evidence this is a plot hole by virtue of lack of exposition and unbelievability. Our stance is Shepard’s brain could not have survived either planetary reentry or impact of falling at incredible speeds to the planet’s surface. The burden now shifts to your side to refute this argument. You do so by way of citing the possibility of a parachute, which would eject to break the speed of deceleration. We counter, by asking for evidence to support this plausible theory, a codex entry or even the comics would sufficient and shift the burden. You instead respond with… nothing and therefore lose as the burden of proof is on your side and you have failed to meet the demands of the prosecution.

The paradigm you presented is the default basis for the definition of a plot hole. The flow of logic pertains to existing information readily available in the narrative or thought common due to frequent use. Relevant information is what is necessary for us to continue to the next chapter of the story. Your interpretation of this does not alter their definition nor is it subjective. To reach act two, there must be a connection derived from the previous act one. We witness Shepard’s suit rupture, his body hurling toward a planet and eventually igniting. Act two instantaneously depicts Miranda claiming to have recovered that very body and the Lazarus Project is underway. This bodes a conundrum because moments ago we saw Shepard’s body either liable to crash land on a planet or burn in reentry. It is now the responsibility of the narrative to remedy this problem by means of exposition. How did what we were shown in act one change in act two? Instead, it is never mentioned and no one asks. This is an inconsistency in the narrative because it did not answer the questions purposed by the second act that contradict with the first and therefore is a plot hole.

The fact it did not disrupt your immersion does not disregard the reality. It means you either were not bothered by the inconsistency or found a suitable means to rectify it using your imagination. The definition of a plot hole remains the same in both scenarios. What you are using is false logic and attempt to incorporate what you perceive as fact. Using such a method, I could claim nothing has plot holes, and the term is merely a figment of delusion because someone somewhere will believe it is an excellent piece of literature. For instance, I believe Twilight is a horrendous mess however many people evidently adore it. They will claim there are no plot holes, whereas I would argue otherwise. By your line of reasoning, I cannot present an argument because everything is subjective. This why we have an unbiased basis and must adhere to it, and is why a person’s imagination is inadmissible in a debate.

Your examples retain the false logic I mentioned earlier. You are changing the definition of a term to suit your argument. In the first, their lack of concern for proper story structure and plot consistency suggests they are like yourself; either using their imagination or simply do not care. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this mindset. It is not correct for reasons I have already discussed.

Actually, as prosecutors, you have to prove beyond doubt that there was NO WAY for Shep's body to survive impact. You would have to prove he was moving fast enough to burn up on re-entry. You can't. You cannot prove that we see him catch on fire since it could simply be cold gases reacting to his heated suit, or that he was moving fast enough to heat up the gas, but not fast enough for it to burn through the armor. You would have to prove that there was no way he could have fallen in such a way as to be recoverable. you can't. If you can show us evidence that there is no way possible for Shep to have made that landing intact, THEN the burden of proof will move. So far, the best you've done is say, well he could have been moving fast enough to burn up, and it is unlikely for him to survive that fall intact.
A prosecutor is not going to win a case by saying, "That guy could have killed him, and it's unlikely someone else did it..."
Honestly, I'm with the idea that was are just shootin the breeze on a forum... but you brought it up.

[MrFob]

Sorry to break everyone's line of arguments here and to open up potentially very old wounds but could someone remind me, what are the pieces of evidence that Shep actually crashed into the planet? AFAIK there are three:
1. Sheps helmet is on the planets surface
2. Legion states that he found that pieces of Sheps armor on the planet
3. We see Shep hurling toward the planet by the end of the ME2 intro

I am asking because IMO none of those proves Shep crashed into the planet:
1. & 2.: For all we know Shep had a spare rmor on the Normandy. After all it would come in handy while one is repaired or some such to have a second one (i know my Shep had tons of Onyx armors by the end of ME1, he liked the onyx).
3.: Video fades out and apart from the fact that the weird perspective we have and a change in camera angles can do funny things to your perception, Sheps armor was still depreasurising at the end of the intro which might significantly change his/her trajectory and push him/her into a rather stable orbit (at least potentially long enough for the SB to recover the corpse). Also, we don't know how long it took the SB to get there and get the corpse, right? Could have been rather quick.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this has all been discussed somewhere already so I'd be grateful if someone could tell me if I missed something.

[piemanz]

MrFob wrote...

Sorry to break everyone's line of arguments here and to open up potentially very old wounds but could someone remind me, what are the pieces of evidence that Shep actually crashed into the planet? AFAIK there are three:
1. Sheps helmet is on the planets surface
2. Legion states that he found that pieces of Sheps armor on the planet
3. We see Shep hurling toward the planet by the end of the ME2 intro

I am asking because IMO none of those proves Shep crashed into the planet:
1. & 2.: For all we know Shep had a spare rmor on the Normandy. After all it would come in handy while one is repaired or some such to have a second one (i know my Shep had tons of Onyx armors by the end of ME1, he liked the onyx).
3.: Video fades out and apart from the fact that the weird perspective we have and a change in camera angles can do funny things to your perception, Sheps armor was still depreasurising at the end of the intro which might significantly change his/her trajectory and push him/her into a rather stable orbit (at least potentially long enough for the SB to recover the corpse). Also, we don't know how long it took the SB to get there and get the corpse, right? Could have been rather quick.

Anyway, I am pretty sure this has all been discussed somewhere already so I'd be grateful if someone could tell me if I missed something.

The main reason for thinking Shep crashed to the planet is the fact you see him/her enter the atmosphere.Theres a chance shep could of bounced off, but it's fairly unlikely given the angle of descent and the fact Shep would simply not be travelling fast enough to resist the planets gravity well. Which is also why it's unlikely he would be travelling fast enough to burn up in the atmosphere.

Most of it's been covered in detail in the thread starting from the top of page 14, if you're intrested.

But basicly just to recap.

Shep falls to the planet from a relatively stationary postion from the normandy, which is positioned just above the planet from what we can see.

Shep then enters the atmosphere and would fall to the planet and hit around 650mph, before hitting the lower atmosphere, where he would start slowing down dramaticly. His/Her terminal velocity through the lower atmosphere would be around 120-200mph based on what we know of the planets atmosphere and gravity in the codex.

Shep would be hitting the planet surface anywhere from 120-300 mph, thats not taking into account variables such as wind and atmospheric conditions in general.

Modifié par piemanz, 12 avril 2011 - 11:10 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

didymos1120 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

True, but those were done while they were... you know... not dead  I don't think Shep could have used biotics to help. As for Mass Effect feilds... who knows.

I wasn't saying that was how the Shepcorpse remained intact. Armor doesn't carry large enough ME generators for that, AFAIC.  I'm just saying that can be (and has been) done in ME-Land. 

so how big does your mass effect generator need to be to keep your body from turning into cartoon goopy goop when you land on a planet?  2 meters?  3 meters?

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 avril 2011 - 10:57 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

This guy's friggin awesome. He has come up with so many alternate scenario's in previous reviews of ME2 that would've been at least 100x better than what actually happened. This review was great, but there were too many "I'M FUNNY" moments in there, he needs to dial it down a bit. Other than that, another great review.

[MrFob]

piemanz wrote...
*snip of quick recap*

Cheers mate.
Looks like that'll be cover by suspension of disbelief for my part.

[darth_lopez]

squee913 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

squee913 wrote...

There is more evidence to support the possibility of some sort of system for breaking their fall built into the armor. At the beginning of ME1 When they are approaching Eden prime, Nihlus runs off the ship like he was late for dinner. There is no way to tell exactly how far off the ground they were, but they were moving as a fast speed due to the wind and they was very little chance Nihlus could have made that kind of jump with out injury unless he had some way of controlling his decent. It wasn't fast ropes since they would be useless at those speeds. Considering we never see the Normandy touch down when Shep, kadian, and Leeroy hit the ground, it is likely they used the same method Nihlus used.

We did see the normandy not too high above the ground however for Shep and co. And nihulus is the only instance in both games where that occurs :/

True, true. It proves nothing, but it adds a little weight behind the idea.

It does as does the makos apparent lack of a chute, jokers apparent lack of suit. The fact that Nihulus is the only person ever seen jumping off a moving aircraft Is a fairly interesting one But there is absolutely nothing saying they weren't low enough or slow enough for him to tuck and roll either. He is a spectre (Most ba individuals in the Galaxy) after all.

As for the plausibility of soldiers having such a system. Look, I was just a ground pounder. Never did air borne, But even I went through extensive training to hop off a helicopter hovering above the ground, or to fast rope down. When assaulting form the air, speed is paramount, and the fastest was to reach the ground is a controlled fall. Injuries during fast roping, or parachuting are very high, even with training. If the military had a way to prevent this, they certainly would. Any soldier that served on a ship that could deploy them on the ground, would likely have this safety measure.

wasn't aware injury rates were high for parchuting and fast ropes. That does likley change things.

Think Black Hawk Down (if you've ever seen it)
Fast roping, and parachuting even more so, is dangerous at the best of times. One wrong landing, one missed grab, one parachute that was not perfectly packed, and you are injured/crippled. And this is without the distractions of combat. Parachutes have you landing on the ground usually between 15-20 miles an hour. There are very few Airborne who have not at least sprained an ankle.

I've seen black hawk down and it's details of the battle of Mogidishu, by the way those 2 delta force snipers are estimated to have killed Alot of insurgents one of them i believe had an aircraft carrier named after him. However they were fast roping down, if i remember correctly into enemy fire, and grabbing a rope and going down, even if you're like me and terrified of hieghts, is not a hard thing to do if you put your mind to it (which i assume soldiers can do easily they are ours(USA) after all). Parachutes however i was unaware of their speeds of decent.

[darth_lopez]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

True, but those were done while they were... you know... not dead  I don't think Shep could have used biotics to help. As for Mass Effect feilds... who knows.

I wasn't saying that was how the Shepcorpse remained intact. Armor doesn't carry large enough ME generators for that, AFAIC.  I'm just saying that can be (and has been) done in ME-Land. 

so how big does your mass effect generator need to be to keep your body from turning into cartoon goopy goop when you land on a planet?  2 meters?  3 meters?

Well, if we really want to get technical you'd need on ethat can absorb mass amounts of heat and prevent ignition of the suits materials. Then one that can totally absorb the shock of your impact. I wasn't aware ME Fields could absorb heat or Prevent ignition, or even absorb impack shock (keep in mind low velocity particles can penetrate ME fields)

[darth_lopez]

squee913 wrote...


Actually, as prosecutors, you have to prove beyond doubt that there was NO WAY for Shep's body to survive impact. You would have to prove he was moving fast enough to burn up on re-entry. You can't.

actually you can :/ simple fact that things much larger than a Human body Have Burnt up in our atmospher just by driffting into it, shepards shields can barely stand radiation from the Sun on Heastrom, how are they supposed to survive what meterites can't? Then theres the fact that alcheras atmosphere is made fo methane and Ammonia, Methane is explosive.

and according to wiki

An approximate rule-of-thumb used by heat shield designers for
estimating peak shock layer temperature is to assume the air temperature
in kelvins
to be equal to the entry speed in meters per second — a mathematical
coincidence. For example, a spacecraft entering the atmosphere at
7.8 km/s would experience a peak shock layer temperature of 7800 K.

Considering we knwo that shepard was propelled by the ships explosiong (thus V init =/= 0) He most certaintly burned up. If our estimated terminal Velocity applies to him(the one that's like ~145km/h or something) He might not have. Just remember Terminal Velocity if i'm understanding it right, and i believe i am otherwise planes and Meteors would be immensley limited in speeds, only applies in free fall or simulated free fall (meaning no outside forces act upon him)

You cannot prove that we see him catch on fire since it could simply be cold gases reacting to his heated suit, or that he was moving fast enough to heat up the gas, but not fast enough for it to burn through the armor.

Methane Is highly flammable, infact if you fart and light a lighter there will be fire if you time it right (don't try this it is dangerous)

You would have to prove that there was no way he could have fallen in such a way as to be recoverable. you can't. If you can show us evidence that there is no way possible for Shep to have made that landing intact, THEN the burden of proof will move.

Is someone trying to claim the game didn't say he was recoverable? (because it did, although his re-entry was a plot hole because it has never been explicitly explained by the lore and the construction of alcheras atmosphere would seem to imply he Caught on fire when he rentered (see wiki article and review methane and it's flammability))

So far, the best you've done is say, well he could have been moving fast enough to burn up, and it is unlikely for him to survive that fall intact.
A prosecutor is not going to win a case by saying, "That guy could have killed him, and it's unlikely someone else did it..."
Honestly, I'm with the idea that was are just shootin the breeze on a forum... but you brought it up.

Physically speaking there is nearly a certainty he bursted into flames game wise for some reason he didn't and it has yet to be explained in any of the lore. thus a plot hole(an overlookable one but one none-the-less)

But yeah... I was just interjecting this time to show 1) he was likely on fire, no matter what anyone says(he certaintly had some sort of init. velocity from the ship explosion and the, is it inertia or memonetum of the normandy?, that would have carried him forward.
2) Objects large than shep burn up in our atmosphere(which is not as flammable as methane) 
3) One i forgot to state earlier SHeps suit was venting Oxygen (part of the fuel for fire) There was likely friction between him and the particles in the air or residule heat from the explosion, He has Methane, Oxygen, and Heat Ample suuply for a fire centralized to at least him until he runs out of oxygen.

And i think that's about all i wanted to point out this time >.>