BatmanTurian wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
You're rediculous. The beam on Earth grazes Shepard. We never actually see it hit. Shepard never survives a direct hit by the reaper on tuchanka or Rannoch. Those end in critical mission failures.
He survives being directly hit by Harbinger's beam - even if you believe the IT, you clearly see the beam hit him before the dream/hallucination/whatever starts.
What we're talking about at the end is an explosion at least 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb
Source?
I don't need a source, look at the explosion and the scale next to the citadel. It dwarfs the explosion that the meteor made in Siberia in 1919 (or sometime around that date) and it makes the hiroshima bomb look like a firecracker.
and you're suggesting Shepard would survive that. Come on!
Shepard surviving being grazed by a beam that one-shot a dreadnaught is somehow fine, but him surviving a beam of energy that, as we see in the best ending, doesn't actually hurt people isn't? or are you talking about the Crucible exploding? In which case, I agree - Shepard surviving is pretty unlikely, but seeing as most of the Citadel is intact after the explosion its hardly unreasonable to assume he was shielded by debris.
Its the double-standard that astounds me. Ignoring basic physics is all fine during the game, but all of a sudden becomes a massive issue in the endings.
No you're being illogical saying Shepard can survive a megaton explosion and use reaper beams as the strawman to say he can survive that because physics is already broken in the game. keep grasping emergency induction ports and ignoring physics.
The question is not whether "basic physics" were ignored. they have been ignored from the start of the first game. It's science FICTION, not science. The question is about whether the game's own "rules" of fictional physics are consistently applied.
Although Shep survives crap that, in real life, would kill him deader than disco, the game establishes from the start that he can survive some things that should kill him but not others. So he survives, for instance, the pieces of Sovereign crashing into the council chambers (should have crushed, or died from space exposure when the walls were busted), but he doesn't survive exposure after the SR-1 is blown up because his suit ruptures. You can use all the fiddly bits of explanation that you want to explain one or the other, but in these cases Shep's survival is a matter of plot, not "physics." he also runs around in low gravity in ME1 with no problem, but moves slowly in low grav in ME2 and 3. and so on.
So the argument that "No way he/she could have survived the explosion of the Crucible/Citadel" is a tad moot. Since ME1, the kinds of things Shep can survive or not is largely driven by plot. Now, you can argue this has been a weakeness in the writing since the first game, and that is probably true. It's also a mainstay of fiction writing, particularly science fiction or fantsy where the "rules" don't apply in some circumstances. (For instance: Why doesn't kirk beam the Genesis device into deep space in ST2 instead of having Spock kill himself? Because they wanted to give Spock a grand death, and so they ignore what the television show had already established when it came to solving such problems).
So, could Shep logically survive the big blast at the end of the game? No. Not logically. Not realistically. Maybe not even not by everything else we have seen in ME3 and perhaps even ME2 (and there is where you can find something to say, "no way he survives that") He should be a fine mist freezing in space at that point. But it's plot driven not physics driven, so whether or not he survives depends on what the writers, who have played fast and loose with "physics" since the first game, want to do.
Retour en haut
