[quote]Seival wrote...
FAQ[/quote]
I'm in stiches right now. You've made my day with this.
[quote]Q: Why do you think the scene is not some symbolical "Adam and Eve allegory"?
A: I believe that if BioWare really wanted to make a symbolical scene, they could do something like this:
http://social.biowar...ndex/12575608/1[/quote]
This is just hilarious.
They couldn't have made it more obvious if they tried. Two figures standing alone as the sun rises amid a green and verdant land. Wow, you certainly nailed that symbol, BioWare. Anyone who doesn't see it or doesn't agree that's the purpose is in denial.
Like you.
[quote]Q: But the scene was look like happened just after the Cricible's explosion. Color of the shockwave confirms that.
A: Shockwave's color could be some long-term post-effect of Crucuble's explosion. So the scene could take place years or decades after the Battle for the Earth.[/quote]
Complete imagination. Occam's Razor gains a point.
I'd like you to have a pop at explaining why the wave is traveling behind joker. During a Mass Effect jump, a corridor is created, so why is there not a corridor?
[quote]Q: Decades? But why Joker is not old then?
A: Humans live till 150 years in ME Universe, remember? 20 or 30 years will not change Joker's face a lot.[/quote]
They're very lucky to reach thate age.
Specifically, Joker looks literally no different to how he does on the Normandy.
[quote]Q: Why Javik can be aboard during the scene?
A: He could change his mind about the suicide.[/quote]
That's just laughable.
Why would he be aboard? He's not a useful member of the crew, he performs no duties and has no expertise. He does not value the Normandy or the people that operate it.
He has literally no reason to be on it.
Occam's Razor leads two to zero.
[quote]Q: Why Joker eyes aren't glowing inside the Normandy during the Synthesis ending before the crash?
A: Those eye glows could be visible only in some special conditions (like adept's eye glows when he uses abilities).[/quote]
That's just your imagination. Logic would assume his eyes turn green because the wave overtakes him.
But oh no, not for you, it's just another assumption.
And Occam's Razor scores a hatrick!
[quote]Q: How could the jumps be even possible? The Relays were destroyed.
A: Relays were clearly not destroyed completely, especially in the Control ending. They could be reconstructible.[/quote]
They are reconstructible. You have to assume they've been reconstructed, which in 20 years seems wonderfully stupid.
[quote]Q: Jump is possible only between two working Relays, so the Relay on the other side was also reconstruced? How?
A: Yes, Relays were reconstruced on the both sides. Teams from different clusters could coordinate the process via QAC communicators, which were not harmed during the Crucible's explosion.[/quote]
Where's he going then, and why does it fail midway?
[quote]Q: Why making test-jumps at all if the Relays were reconstructed?
A: The Relays could not work properly just after the reconstruction. They will definitely require proper recolibration, which can't be done without test-jumps.[/quote]
It can be done without sending a fully crewed and highly advanced war-ship with pointless passengers in it.
[quote]Q: Why not use empty and cheap ships, controlled by VIs for such tests?
A: Many of unmanned tests were clearly made before launching a full-staffed ones. [/quote]
Assumption. Occam's Razor roars on with a double double.
[quote]But fully-staffed tests on different types of ships are also important. And the Normandy with its crew could take part in the very first full-staffed test-jump.[/quote]
Doesn't explain why one: they're using the Normandy, and two: why it's fully crewed by people with no relevant skills.
[quote]Q: Why fully-staffed tests are so important?
A: First of all, fully-staffed ships have different payload and profile, which affects a lot of ship's flight properties.[/quote]
That's just nonsense, that makes pretty much no sense at all.
Different playload and profile, different flight properties? What the f*ck does any of that even mean?
[quote]Second, living crew members has specific physiology, which differ them from each other and animals. Some tests just have to be made with real people involved.[/quote]
There's no reason to have a ship filled with irrelevant passengers.
[quote]Q: But why not use some cheap ship with some unimportant people for the very first flight?
A: There are no unimportant people in post-Crucible age.[/quote]
Yes because every single one of those several billion people has an important job to fulfill.
[quote]Normandy is not just a stealth-frigate. It's very survivable and heavily upgraded ship. [/quote]
A slightly upgraded stealthship. Not very durable at all. Why not send a regular frigate or a cruiser through? Both will take more damage. Why not send a dreadnought through? That way you can fill the entire ship with people of different ages and occupations to run those idiot test you babbled on about. Why not send a regular old freighter with thousands of civilians?
[quote]And the Normandy's usual crew is very skilled and well-trained to act effectively in different extremal situations. Normandy and its crew is a perfect choice for such a dangerous task.[/quote]
Still doesn't explain why Javik, James, Liara, Garrus, Ashley, and Tali are on board, who fulfill no relevant jobs on the ship.
[quote]Q: But why not keep performing unmanned flights till some acceptible level before launching full-staffed test?
A: As I said, there definitely were such unmanned flights. But the full-staffed tests are different. If everything was good during 100 unmanned flights, it doesn't guarantee that there will be no accidents in the very first full-staffed one.[/quote]
There's no reason to believe accidents will suddenly happen when you put people through it.
[quote]Q: Why not replace usual Normandy's crew with some engineers? They will definitely do better.
A: Actually they will not. Test-flight (especially the very first one) needs a team that can act effectively in extremal situations, not scientists. Military crew is much more preferable.[/quote]
Well that's wrong, but sure.
Why is Garrus there? He doesn't operate the ship. Neither does Liara. All they can do is stand and watch the actual crew do some stuff.
I mean, you have a massive armada of ships with the best of the best in that number, Geth, Asari, Turians, but they choose the Normandy and some people with irrelevant skills there just because.
Sauraz had a good analogy. What we're describing is putting experienced pilots in the fighter planes to test them. What you're describing is putting people who have survived a plane crash to fly it, despite have no relevant skills. It's moronic.
[quote]Q: Then why not use some other millitary crew on the same ship?
A: Do you really believe that Liara or James will prefer to miss such an important task? Or that Dr. Chakwas will abandon her "children"?[/quote]
Yes, because they have no reason to.
[quote]Q: Ok, so they did it! And crashed on some unknown world... So they all died in the end?
A: The jump is possible only between two working Relays. Which means that there are enough men, resources and ships on the other side of the jump. Which means that help will come soon enough. Normandy and its crew will be saved.[/quote]
They have no way of knowing where they are.
[quote]Q: Why do you think BioWare really meant the test-flight? What was the purpose of the scene?
A: First of all, scene could prove that the Relays were reconstructible. [/quote]
That doesn't need proof.
[quote]And galactic civilization will not be doomed to be separated forever, or for a very long time. [/quote]
See, this was their intention: to have people separated for a very long time.
[quote]Second the scene could mean that the Relays are the only way to travel between clusters fast enough.[/quote]
That's already the case.
[quote]Even if galactic civilization will get rid of the Reaper tech, it will eventually lead to inventing their own mass relays. So, basically, the scene might be a proof that Mass Relays will always be a part of games, based on ME universe.[/quote]
Then destroying them has literally no meaning.
[quote]Q: Why didn't Shepard exit the Normandy after crash in case of 4000 EMS Destroy ending?
A: She could have some other important tasks on the Earth for example. Or she is just inside the Normandy, and planned to exit later.
[/quote]
Everything fell apart after the first question, but really?
You basically just contradicted yourself by saying Shepard wouldn't be on the ship, but the Normandy crew is valued and would volunteer. Why not Shepard?
And that second point is just f*ck tastically stupid. Completely invalid as any form of explanation.
Time for the hammer blow.
With too low EMS, Earth is destroyed, but the Normandy survives. Explain.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 juin 2012 - 03:41 .
Retour en haut
