6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Death]

If ME story is suppose to be bad, then I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Well said.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

So why did you referenced them then? To troll your audience? What do you even mean by "ressurection technology"? People wake up from comas they've had for twenty years. Was that also "ressurection technology"? Unless you know what exactly was the procedure that cured Shepard, why do you keep making **** up? I'm beggining to think it's beyond your own will, it's an itch that you have.

By ressurection technology I mean exactly that:  A Cure for Death.  The ability to bring dead people back to life.  A coma is not death.  It may not be life that can sustain itself on its own, but it is still life.  

Now, I'd like to believe that Shepard was "only mostly dead".  If there was still a spark of life in him that modern medicine could work with, I'd have been much happier.  It would make the whole process much much easier to swallow.  But Bioware bent over backwards making it clear that Shepard was dead and gone.  

Shepard was caught in an explosion which, while not instantly fatal, caused burns and internal injuries as noted by Miranda

In that explosion, Shepard's suit was ruptured, causing him to suffucate and probably explains the vacuum exposure also noted by Miranda

Next Shep got smacked by a planet.  People may debate factors such as gravity, atmosphere, speeds, but the fact is, Shepard hit a planet.  From space.  Anything else is just details 

He then lay there untreated for days if not weeks, causing the damage from prolonged exposure to subzero temperatures also noted by Miranda

There are other details that one could debate, but I think we can agree on these factors at least.

Finally, Casey Hudson himself says about the Collector attack "You see Commander Shepard dying"  (about 3:35)  

We are not talking about degrees of death.  We are talking about death. At no point did Bioware try to sugarcoat it save as some sort of running gag about how "I got better"  Shepard died.  Painfully and thoroughly.  I am not making this up.  Even the very name of the project is named after a man in the Bible who was brought back to life after being dead and buried for days. (ME2 sure likes its biblical references)
 

You need wrong ideas but transmitted with confidence so that you may approve. You need that correct ideas that you find impossible to believe not to be transmitted at all so that you may approve. And all in the name of "realism", that must be the punch line, I'm sure.

I need science fiction ideas transmitted in a manner consistent with the world I am currently inhabiting.  The term isn't "realism" it's "verisimilitude"  

It's amazing the things you "know" just because you .... ahhh.... you know! I love the way you pound on the table, as if it brings some strenght to your position at all. You know nothing at all about what happened to Shepard, and you are already making pronounciations about his metaphysical encounter with his relatives and creator(s) (before you tell me it was a joke, I assure you I got it perfectly).

I know what the game told me:  Shepard died.  The opening segments tell me that.  Wilson and Miranda's logs tell me that.  Jacob, Miranda and the Illusive man tell me that.  Shepard himself says so, though he's only repeating what others had already told him.  Casey Hudson himself says so (though if anyone can link an interview or tweet that says otherwise I'll happily retract that statement)  I see no wiggle room here.  Shepard was not unconcious or in a coma.  He was dead.  I wish it were not so, but it's true.  Show me something in the game that says Shepard was not a slab of meat on a table and I'll happily reevaluate my conclusions

There are multiple definitions of being "dead". Some peculiar ones are still possible to retrieve to "non-dead status". Clearly Shepard was in one of those. This is utterly uncontroversial and simple to explain, were it not for the amazing stubburness of yourself and some others who are adamant to prove themselves right by saying inane things like "BuT SHEpard's DEAD!!" what a facepalm.

If it was so simple to explain, they probably should have explained it, huh?  Becuase to poor unscientific laymen like me, there's alive, and there's dead.  And the only "in-between places" are strange dream sequences involving aliens asking you if you have anything worth living for.  

I mean, they took the time to explain QEDs and why they're not more common in the ME universe, and that's pure sf.  And on the other end of the spectrum, they explain Vrolik's Syndrome, which is an actual condition.  Surely the Lazarus Project could have met somewhere in the middle?

Exactly.

Bioware went out of their way, in game and out, to make it clear that Shepard was dead, dead, dead. 

This is starting to remind me of The Dead Parrot Sketch.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 18 septembre 2011 - 12:54 .

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Exactly.

Bioware went out of their way, in game and out, to make it clear that Shepard was dead, dead, dead. 

This is starting to remind me of The Dead Parrot Sketch.

Probably because yesterday I quoted it almost verbatim :

iakus wrote...

Because Shepard was dead!.  Not pining.  He's passed on!  The commander was no more!  He's ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his Maker.  He's a stiff!  Bereft of life, he rests in peace!  If they hadn't nailed him to the lab table he'd be pushing up the daisies!  His metabolic process were history!  He's off the twig!  He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible!  He's effing snuffed it!  This is an ex-Spectre!

With apologies to Monty Python.

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

One man's X is another man's Y. You are applying subjective criticism as an objective statement on realism. Talk to someone who believes in the mystical more than the scientific, and Star Wars might be more realistic than Star Trek (just as an example).

You accept the Force, but reject the Lazarus Project. Tis a silly place you live in.

[SpiffySquee]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

Then I have to ask what makes mass effect different? Mass Effect has never claimed to NOT be a space fantasy. Even the Lazarus was  presented as coherent and internally consistent manner as the force was. They explained what the force does, but never how it works (baring the silly prequel reason) Lazarus did the same. They explained exactly what it did, and since it only happened once, it cannot be said it was not done in a consistent manner.

The force does just as many impossible things as the Lazarus project, so why is it treated differently? You can't say that the Lazarus project is not consistent with the story simply because it was never mentioned before. People coming back as ghost through the force was never shown until the second movie, nor was the ability to see into the future.

[Iakus]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Then I have to ask what makes mass effect different? Mass Effect has never claimed to NOT be a space fantasy. Even the Lazarus was  presented as coherent and internally consistent manner as the force was. They explained what the force does, but never how it works (baring the silly prequel reason) Lazarus did the same. They explained exactly what it did, and since it only happened once, it cannot be said it was not done in a consistent manner.

The force does just as many impossible things as the Lazarus project, so why is it treated differently? You can't say that the Lazarus project is not consistent with the story simply because it was never mentioned before. People coming back as ghost through the force was never shown until the second movie, nor was the ability to see into the future.

Because the Lazarus Project is not the Force of the Mass Effect universe.  Mass Effect fields and its offshoots (relay network, biotics, etc) are.  That is the primary "Space Magic" of the series.  And as far as we know, they have nothing at all to do with the LP.  Tossing in the Lazarus Project is like Lucas deciding to add a different and totally unrelated type of space magic called the Animus to bring Obi-Wan back to life.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

One man's X is another man's Y. You are applying subjective criticism as an objective statement on realism. Talk to someone who believes in the mystical more than the scientific, and Star Wars might be more realistic than Star Trek (just as an example).

You accept the Force, but reject the Lazarus Project. Tis a silly place you live in.

The silly place is the one that says that once you accept one fantastic element in one setting, you must then accept all fantastic elements in all settings.  In the original Star Wars trilogy, the Force fit the setting, and the setting fir the Force.  It was internally consistent, it was coherent, it had verisimilitude.  Star Wars is space fantasy, not science fiction. 

Accepting that as part of the Star Wars setting does not mean, and never will mean, that the reader or viewer must then accept without question "because we said so" moments in all fictional settings no matter how much they run counter to the already-established tone and feel of those settings. 

Mass Effect had a much harder science fiction tone and feel.  It makes an effort to care about and explain things such as waste heat and how the Normandy is special because it can sink its waste heat for a time in order to not glow in the IR and give itself away.  It has the blue alien chicks who can have sex with you, but at least makes the effort to explain why, and what's really going on, and how they're not magically genetically compatible with humans.  It has firearms, not magic laser pistols.    It has aliens that are biochemically incompatible with each other.  It asks us to believe unlikely and/or speculative things in order to create a rich setting in which the story that they are telling along with the player. 

The death and resurection of Shepard asks us to believe five implausible things before breakfast for the sake of AWESOME COOL!


While I don't agree with Smudboy that Shep should spend big chunks of the game gazing at his navel about the greater meaning of a second life and what is Shep really now and what is it to be alive and to be human and blah blah lit fic BS blah blah...  you don't ask the reader to accept something like Shep being revived from a long time dead, and then DO NOTHING with it. 

As a writer, If you're going to ask the reader to just accept that a person in that state of damage for that long is revived, in a setting where there's never been a hint that it's possible, then you do so for a reason, not because you thought it would be really kewl to do. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:01 .

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


The silly place is the one that says that once you accept one fantastic element in one setting, you must then accept all fantastic elements in all settings.  In the original Star Wars trilogy, the Force fit the setting, and the setting fir the Force.  It was internally consistent, it was coherent, it had verisimilitude.  Star Wars is space fantasy, not science fiction. 

Accepting that as part of the Star Wars setting does not mean, and never will mean, that the reader or viewer must then accept without question "because we said so" moments in all fictional settings no matter how much they run counter to the already-established tone and feel of those settings. 

If everything is possible, then everything is a little less magical.

[Killjoy Cutter]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

Then I have to ask what makes mass effect different? Mass Effect has never claimed to NOT be a space fantasy. Even the Lazarus was  presented as coherent and internally consistent manner as the force was. They explained what the force does, but never how it works (baring the silly prequel reason) Lazarus did the same. They explained exactly what it did, and since it only happened once, it cannot be said it was not done in a consistent manner.

The force does just as many impossible things as the Lazarus project, so why is it treated differently? You can't say that the Lazarus project is not consistent with the story simply because it was never mentioned before. People coming back as ghost through the force was never shown until the second movie, nor was the ability to see into the future.

Because in its presentation, the original Mass Effect was different from Star Wars.  It said, in its presentation, "This is a world that makes sense to a perfectly rational approach, so long as you play along with just a couple of conceits, and we're trying to be consistent and coherent and rational."  It didn't just randomly throw things at you that didn't make sense based on what we currently know about how the world works.  

The death and restoration of Shep starts how ME2 by saying "pay no attention to how all the following things don't actually make any sense, just sit back and enjoy the AWESOME!"

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


The death and restoration of Shep starts how ME2 by saying "pay no attention to how all the following things don't actually make any sense, just sit back and enjoy the AWESOME!"

I think I have a new favorite phrase 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


You keep saying it, and you're still not getting it. 

"The ship turned into a planet."
"The catapillar turned into a butterfly." 

Sheesh. 


Wait, the explosion is irrelevent?  So now you're just going to ignore whatever doesn't fit your pet hypothesis and keep insisting that the rest of us are idiots? 

You're like Smudboy, only without the basic smarts or the reading comprehension, then.   Congrats. 

You know what it mean...
As for the explosion it would not stop the fall. Making it irrelivent to the desent out side of fall point....But we already stated that.

[dreman9999]

[quote]Killjoy Cutter wrote...

[[/quote]

It takes longer to freeze even in an evironment like Alchera, than it does for serious damage to occur.   The lack of oxygen can cause human cells to suffer biochemical damaged... not just death, DAMAGE.   The brain is fragile and complicted, probably still the most complicated thing we've ever studied as a species. 

And where is this "reaper tech" you're going on about?  Nothing in the game or codex even hints at "reaper tech" involved in Shep's resurection.  Nothing Miranda, Jacob, or Wilson says during the Lazarus escape even hints at "reaper tech".   If you're just going to say "reaper tech could do it" to any hurdle or complication or contradiction that comes up in the game, you might as well just call up spirits from the vasty deeps and call it magic, for eff's sake. 


The core problem is that they could have told the same story without the contrived Bruckheimer / Bol / Bay bull$#!+ cyberjesus nonsense. 


[/quote]
Again, the side that is in the dark ofthe planet is always colder. You stating that Shepard landing on the night side of the planet is like saying night is not colder then day.

[111987]

dreman9999...you do realize your entire argument is based on a long list of increasingly implausible events right?

Seriously, just drop it.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

Then I have to ask what makes mass effect different? Mass Effect has never claimed to NOT be a space fantasy. Even the Lazarus was  presented as coherent and internally consistent manner as the force was. They explained what the force does, but never how it works (baring the silly prequel reason) Lazarus did the same. They explained exactly what it did, and since it only happened once, it cannot be said it was not done in a consistent manner.

The force does just as many impossible things as the Lazarus project, so why is it treated differently? You can't say that the Lazarus project is not consistent with the story simply because it was never mentioned before. People coming back as ghost through the force was never shown until the second movie, nor was the ability to see into the future.

Because in its presentation, the original Mass Effect was different from Star Wars.  It said, in its presentation, "This is a world that makes sense to a perfectly rational approach, so long as you play along with just a couple of conceits, and we're trying to be consistent and coherent and rational."  It didn't just randomly throw things at you that didn't make sense based on what we currently know about how the world works.  

The death and restoration of Shep starts how ME2 by saying "pay no attention to how all the following things don't actually make any sense, just sit back and enjoy the AWESOME!"

Science fiction is a genre that usually allows the impossible it happen but the
impossible is usually done with technology. What makes Science fiction stand out is the
fact that it usually takes theories, concepts and current experiments that need a
cretin some thing to work and add the thing into the story to allow it to
happen. Science fantasy has the tech but no explanation how it works. The thing
with ME and ME2 is if you look in the lore and stories you'll find why thing
worked out the way they did. Like Cerberus working with tech that is for
bio-synthetic fusion and in ME2 they just happen to use bio-synthetic fusion to
bring back Shepard.... Also, current scientific concepts...like the planet
Shepard fell on.

[dreman9999]

111987 wrote...

dreman9999...you do realize your entire argument is based on a long list of increasingly implausible events right?

Seriously, just drop it.

I'm not saying everyone need to adopt my theory.  It just that I find it odd that the collectors/Reapers choose that planet to take down the normandy..... A planet that happens to allow a softer landing than normal then other planets.

No one ever asked....Why Alchera of all places? It can't be coincidence with the reapers wanting Shepard's body so badly and we know they have the tech to make him their tool.

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[111987]

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999...you do realize your entire argument is based on a long list of increasingly implausible events right?

Seriously, just drop it.

I'm not saying everyone need to adopt my theory.  It just that I find it odd that the collectors/Reapers choose that planet to take down the normandy..... A planet that happens to allow a softer landing than normal then other planets.

No one ever asked....Why Alchera of all places? It can't be coincidence with the reapers wanting Shepard's body so badly and we know they have the tech to make him their tool.

I'm pretty sure it was just a coincidence. But to each their own.

[dreman9999]

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999...you do realize your entire argument is based on a long list of increasingly implausible events right?

Seriously, just drop it.

I'm not saying everyone need to adopt my theory.  It just that I find it odd that the collectors/Reapers choose that planet to take down the normandy..... A planet that happens to allow a softer landing than normal then other planets.

No one ever asked....Why Alchera of all places? It can't be coincidence with the reapers wanting Shepard's body so badly and we know they have the tech to make him their tool.

I'm pretty sure it was just a coincidence. But to each their own.

So your say they just happen to pick a planet that has a surface of carbon and ice water.....With ammonia, a chemical used for flash freezing, in the atmosphere?

[Esquin]

this guy needs to be less bitter and learn to enjoy things.

[111987]

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999...you do realize your entire argument is based on a long list of increasingly implausible events right?

Seriously, just drop it.

I'm not saying everyone need to adopt my theory.  It just that I find it odd that the collectors/Reapers choose that planet to take down the normandy..... A planet that happens to allow a softer landing than normal then other planets.

No one ever asked....Why Alchera of all places? It can't be coincidence with the reapers wanting Shepard's body so badly and we know they have the tech to make him their tool.

I'm pretty sure it was just a coincidence. But to each their own.

So your say they just happen to pick a planet that has a surface of carbon and ice water.....With ammonia, a chemical used for flash freezing, in the atmosphere?

I'm saying they didn't "pick" a planet at all. They just showed up where the Normandy was when they decided to attack, and the Normandy happened to be at Alchera.

If they cared so much about preserving the body, why attack them near a planet at all? Why not just in empty space, where they wouldn't have to worry about it being splattered or incinerated?

[SpiffySquee]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right, so because there isn't actually The Force then Star Wars sucks?

Sound logic.

Star Wars is space fantasy, with mysticism.  (The pathetic attempt to scientific-ize the force with a dumbed-down Parasite Eve ripoff in the prequels is to be ignored thoroughly.)

The viewer knows that it's space fantasy.  As long as the Force is presented in a coherent and internally consistent manner, it's part of the setting. 

It's not about realism, it about the feeling of realness. 

Then I have to ask what makes mass effect different? Mass Effect has never claimed to NOT be a space fantasy. Even the Lazarus was  presented as coherent and internally consistent manner as the force was. They explained what the force does, but never how it works (baring the silly prequel reason) Lazarus did the same. They explained exactly what it did, and since it only happened once, it cannot be said it was not done in a consistent manner.

The force does just as many impossible things as the Lazarus project, so why is it treated differently? You can't say that the Lazarus project is not consistent with the story simply because it was never mentioned before. People coming back as ghost through the force was never shown until the second movie, nor was the ability to see into the future.

Because in its presentation, the original Mass Effect was different from Star Wars.  It said, in its presentation, "This is a world that makes sense to a perfectly rational approach, so long as you play along with just a couple of conceits, and we're trying to be consistent and coherent and rational."  It didn't just randomly throw things at you that didn't make sense based on what we currently know about how the world works.  

The death and restoration of Shep starts how ME2 by saying "pay no attention to how all the following things don't actually make any sense, just sit back and enjoy the AWESOME!"

Mass effect never said anything of the sort. Almost every piece of tech in the game is based off an impossible idea with no explanation as to how it is possible. There is nothing in any codex or lore that even attempts to explain how Element Zero does what it does when subjected to electricity. Everything simply explains the results, or happen happens because of it. The Lazarus has the same level of detail applied to it, except the results are much more simple and do not have the varying uses ME fields do. So, it does not need enormous amount of explanation on what the effects allow people to do.

The Lazarus project is not random, nor does it goes against per-established lore. It is a new concept. There is nothing in the first game that says it was impossible to develop a technique to resurrect people. The truth is, we know very little about medical tech in the ME universe.  That is like saying Halo decks are lore breaking because the original Star trek never said this was possible. It was a new concept. That is all.

I love how you accuse ME2 for saying "pay no attention to how all the following things don't actually make any sense, just sit back and enjoy the AWESOME!" When ME1 does exactly the same thing. We can change mass. I know it's impossible, but we found a miracle element that does it. Just stop thinking about it and enjoy the awesome!

The thing I find funny, is that if we had been told of the Lazarus project in ME1 I don't think there would have been near as many complains. It seems as though it is ok to introduce impossible concepts in the first chapter, but not in the second.

[dreman9999]

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999...you do realize your entire argument is based on a long list of increasingly implausible events right?

Seriously, just drop it.

I'm not saying everyone need to adopt my theory.  It just that I find it odd that the collectors/Reapers choose that planet to take down the normandy..... A planet that happens to allow a softer landing than normal then other planets.

No one ever asked....Why Alchera of all places? It can't be coincidence with the reapers wanting Shepard's body so badly and we know they have the tech to make him their tool.

I'm pretty sure it was just a coincidence. But to each their own.

So your say they just happen to pick a planet that has a surface of carbon and ice water.....With ammonia, a chemical used for flash freezing, in the atmosphere?

I'm saying they didn't "pick" a planet at all. They just showed up where the Normandy was when they decided to attack, and the Normandy happened to be at Alchera.

If they cared so much about preserving the body, why attack them near a planet at all? Why not just in empty space, where they wouldn't have to worry about it being splattered or incinerated?

...Um......It wan not random.  The Normandy was their looking  to see what happened  to ships that "Disappeared" in that area thinking it was baecause of the Geth. It's a basic trap. The collectors made a lure to draw in the Normandy and waited  till the ship came in then attacked.

[111987]

dreman9999 wrote...

...Um......It wan not random.  The Normandy was their looking  to see what happened  to ships that "Disappeared" in that area thinking it was baecause of the Geth. It's a basic trap. The collectors made a lure to draw in the Normandy and waited  till the ship came in then attacked.

Okay, so answer my question; why did they attack the Normandy so close to a planet, rather than in empty space?