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. 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.
The example you outlined does not represent what I posted. The prosecution would provide overwhelming scientific evidence that would suggest his body could not survive either scenario, let alone his brain be intact to rebuild an identical variation, which is the crux of this debate. Can the brain survive?
Now your immediate rebuttal will be we do not know if science has evolved to such an extent to claim the human body could sustain itself under those circumstances. Here is where we have our qualm. The game in no way offers anything to indicate this is probable despite ample opportunity and hence solidifies the argument it is a plot hole due to lack of exposition. When questions arise in the second act, it is the responsibility of that act to provide an answer, especially when of a contradictory nature. You boldly cite this as excellent writing, yet this is one of numerous instances where the questions are left to linger and handwaved aside.
What particularly irks me is when BioWare takes a jab at JRPGs for their stories and yet that very genre has handled resurrection better than they have. It would have required a mere minute or two of dialogue at best unless they wisely abandoned this plot angle in lieu of the more believable escape pod/coma design.
We are shooting the breeze on a forum. This is a debate and I opted to drive home why this specific scene lacks consistency in the narrative. You are free to deduce your own theories however Almostfaceman was essentially disregarding what the definition of a plot hole is. No one has to care about them but they were there regardless whether or not you wish to deny them.
Kooper said it best in another topic. The occasional slip is acceptable and often brought up for amusement sake; Miranda appearing after Jacob's loyalty mission despite potentially being dead for one. ME2 just steps well beyond occasional and has a plethora of them. The individual missions is where this game shines from a story perspective. The main plot frankly might fall short against Halo's.
squee913 wrote...
First of all, big levels have absolutely nothing to do with the writer. Secondly, none of my team was cannon fodder. I valued all of them... well, Jacob is debatable... Are you suggesting that just because they can die, they are cannon fodder? What kind of sense does that make? So, every soldier in the world is just cannon fodder? It just means you have to actually take risks and understand that you CAN"T use them as cannon fodder because they won't come back. If they were cannon fodder to you, that sounds more like a personal choice than a fault of the writer.
I believe he meant because they have no relevance in the plot, they are merely fodder or tag along buddies. Personally I would disagree - which I find immensely ironic because I've basically watched sides debate wise here - because I determine cannon fodder as generic grunt (no pun

) soldiers with no depth, personality were worth as fodder. When I play any RTS game much of my officers will fit this definition unless I roleplay them otherwise. In Total War, I couldn't care less about my sons so long as they win battles. My legion of troops are equally just numbers, fodder for my conquest. With the crew of ME2, not even remotely similar, hence why I have yet to complete a file where I kill off any of them.
... well not files I intend to keep. :innocent:
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 13 avril 2011 - 02:05 .