706 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You see, as long as I can treat it as an amazing technological achievement, I absolutely love it. The thing is, it wasn't treated as such. Shepard wasn't allowed to ask "how the hell was this possible". It was treated as a singular, nonrepeatable event with no significance other than "Shepard is back", as close as you can come to a miracle without actually saying it, and it was left completely unexplained.

As a concept, it isn't evocative of mysticism, no (I explained in the OP). In execution, however, it is.

That would fall under 'divine intervention', David. An Act of God saved the character from death itself. In terms of the narrative, this would fall under Deus Ex Machina.

[David7204]

Well, a lot of that is going to come with posting in a thread a title like the one this one has...not really your fault.

I didn't have any problems with Lazarus. I thought it handled exceptionally well. I still do. I never saw it as 'solving death'...Shepard was revived from a specific death with a great amount of money, time, expertise, and in all likelihood, luck. It's not ignored. Shepard's death is brought up by most of the squadmates at one time or another, and there are some very well-done emotional moments based off of it. Yes, there might be and probably is significant discussion of it off-camera, but unless it adds to the story, I see no reason to show it to the player.

[David7204]

Lazarus is not left unexplained at all. The motives behind it, the resources invested into it, the people involved were all well explained. The only thing that's left unexplained is the actual technology involved, which as I posted earlier, is impossible for science fiction.

[Ieldra]

One more attempt to explain the main point of my criticism, which appears to have escaped a few people:

Invoking a theme well: Mordin's death. Mordin takes a plausible in-world action which means his death. The sacrifice has meaning to us as players, but in-world, the fact that it's a sacrifice has no effect on the genophage cure.

Invoking a theme badly: Legion's death. The necessity of Legion's death is just stated without giving a reason, against the very plausible objection that it shouldn't be necessary according to established in-world logic. Thus, the impression is given that sacrifice has an ontological meaning, that it changes the world because it is the giving of a life. It is suggested that the psychological effect the sacrifice has on us who read it exists in-world as a physical reality.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 février 2013 - 12:51 .

[David7204]

I see no reason how bringing Shepard back to life invalidates any kind of established in-world logic.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus is not left unexplained at all. The motives behind it, the resources invested into it, the people involved were all well explained. The only thing that's left unexplained is the actual technology involved, which as I posted earlier, is impossible for science fiction.

I disagree. The motives behind it: bring Shepard back to stop the Collectors. Is that it or is there a means to an end thing going on?

The resources invested into it: enough to hire an army. Is that a significant investment or a flick of the wrist for Cerberus?

The people involved: Miranda, Wilson and some other nameless people. What role did Wilson fill? How involved was Miranda in the process?

These are examples rather than an argument of their own. There also are other issues outside those you brought up.

Is this easily replicable? Have we beaten death or discovered immortality? Are all of the processes involved already discovered or is this a completely knew type of surgery? And then there's Shepard: What did death feel like? Was there an afterlife? Are there lingering doubts regarding his humanity? Are there any doubts regarding this reality?

So much left unexplored in favour of 'you work for Cerberus now'.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Lazarus is not left unexplained at all. The motives behind it, the resources invested into it, the people involved were all well explained. The only thing that's left unexplained is the actual technology involved, which as I posted earlier, is impossible for science fiction.

Not exactly. Maybe, some impossible or untested claim has to be made about the nature of memory. For instance, it could've been "holographic memory". It wouldn't be needed though. "Shepard's brain was frozen" or "Shepard had a greybox implant" works just as well. Any explanation that allowed us to conclude, with some degree of certainty, that yes, this is comprehensible technology, that it's not supposed to invoke literal mysticism even while invoking it on a psychological level. It is something anyone would ask, right? How is this possible? That we weren't allowed to ask is part of the problem.

BTW, I do like Lazarus as a plot element, and I treat it as a technological achievement. It's certainly not the element most pertinent to this topic. It was, however, badly executed, as outlined by Indy_S above.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 février 2013 - 01:00 .

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

I see no reason how bringing Shepard back to life invalidates any kind of established in-world logic.

That would be a plot hole if it did. In-world logic doesn't support it, either. What we have is something out-of-the-blue and never reflected on.

[David7204]

Those questions are all answered. The nature of Cerberus and the character of the Illusive Man make clear that Shepard is a means to end. Miranda says point-blank that, yes, bringing back Shepard was a significant investment. Jacob tells Shepard that Wilson is the Chief Medical Technician. Miranda personally and very closely oversaw the project.

The story answers the questions of it being easily replicable or not. The answer is clearly no, given the attitude of the Cerberus staff towards the project and the fact that the technology isn't existent elsewhere. We can very safely guess that whatever Cerberus did to restore Shepard's brain was new technology. As for questions about Shepard, as I posted the other day, those aren't really that appropriate.

[FlyinElk212]

Echoing sentiments of various others in this thread:

The Lazarus Project's main flaw wasn't in its mysticism. I actually thought that, through various codex entries, investigative options, and datalogs left by Miranda in the opening mission, the game explained the main process without overcomplicating it and dragging down the pacing of the story. Perhaps the inherent flaw with that is that Mass Effect up until that point never saw overexplanation as an issue, but the fact that the game does indeed try to explain the science behind it at all is good enough for me.

But back to the major issue with the Lazarus Project- its irrelevance to the story. The Lazarus Project accomplished a feat that has NEVER BEEN ACCOMPLISHED before in the galaxy. It's a gigantic colossus of a scientific achievement, and yet the galaxy reacts as if it's no big deal. Hardly anyone questions Shepard's miraculous resurrection, and the only moments in which the Lazarus Project's accomplishments are in question are at the final moments in ME3, when attacking the Cerberus Base.

So the issue I see with Lazarus isn't so much the mysticism as much as the irrelevance. Why bring up a huge plotpoint like the seemingly impossible resurrection of a main character if it has no further resonance to the storyline?

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 19 février 2013 - 01:08 .

[Fixers0]

Ridiculous reasoning is ridiculous.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...
Those questions are all answered. The nature of Cerberus and the character of the Illusive Man make clear that Shepard is a means to end. Miranda says point-blank that, yes, bringing back Shepard was a significant investment.

A means to what end?

[Indy_S]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

So the issue I see with Lazarus isn't so much the mysticism as much as the irrelevance. Why bring up a huge plotpoint like the seemingly impossible resurrection of a main character if it has no further resonance to the storyline?

That would be contrivance.

[FlyinElk212]

Indy_S wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

So the issue I see with Lazarus isn't so much the mysticism as much as the irrelevance. Why bring up a huge plotpoint like the seemingly impossible resurrection of a main character if it has no further resonance to the storyline?

That would be contrivance.

lol, thank you, that was the word I was looking for. It's a little early over here...

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Am I the only one who thinks Bioware could have avoided alot of problems it they simply had of stated that Shepard was retrieved before he was brain dead.

[Indy_S]

DinoSteve wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks Bioware could have avoided alot of problems it they simply had of stated that Shepard was retrieved before he was brain dead.

They could have fixed a lot of it by not positioning that scene near a planet. Some of the issues regarding suspension of disbelief are based on Shepard getting pulverised on impact or burning up in the atmosphere.

[David7204]

No. Having the story harp on for hours about everything that goes on and went on would be frustrating, dull, and poor storytelling. Mass Effect is filled with events that have never occurred in the galaxy before. Characters talk about them and acknowledge them and develop off them, but that's it. That's how it should be. As I said, there very well might be a lot going on off camera, but there's no reason to show it to the player.

That's the way it is for every RPG.

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 01:17 .

[David7204]

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Those questions are all answered. The nature of Cerberus and the character of the Illusive Man make clear that Shepard is a means to end. Miranda says point-blank that, yes, bringing back Shepard was a significant investment.

A means to what end?

The preservation and domination of humanity.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

No. Having the story harp on for hours about everything that goes on and went on would be frustrating, dull, and poor storytelling. Mass Effect is filled with events that have never occurred in the galaxy before. Characters talk about them and acknowledge them and develop off them, but that's it. That's how it should be. As I said, there very well might be a lot going on off camera, but there's no reason to show it to the player.

Elements outside the scope of the narrative that are introduced into it suddenly are Deus Ex Machinas. And having the story explore what it did would be boring? That's not a problem for the audience to solve.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Those questions are all answered. The nature of Cerberus and the character of the Illusive Man make clear that Shepard is a means to end. Miranda says point-blank that, yes, bringing back Shepard was a significant investment.

A means to what end?

The preservation and domination of humanity.

That's what T.I.M. claims in the prologue.

HOW will Shepard ensure this?

[David7204]

Dying and coming back to life is not outside the scope of the narrative for a story that takes place 200 years in the future and has organizations such as Cerberus.

Video games and plenty of stories in general are filled with protagonists who kill hundreds of people, destroy property, buildings, or even cities, accomplish incredible deeds, things of that sort. And yet stories very rarely focus on any of those things afterwards. Is that because those events are trivial or unimportant? Is it because all stories of the sort are filled with bad writing? No. It's because the story isn't about those things.

Modifié par David7204, 19 février 2013 - 01:27 .

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Dying and coming back to life is not outside the scope of the narrative for a story that takes place 200 years in the future and has organizations such as Cerberus.

Video games and plenty of stories in general are filled with protagonists who kill hundreds of people, destroy property, buildings, or even cities, accomplish incredible deeds, things of that sort. And yet stories very rarely focus on any of those things afterwards. Is that because those events are trivial or unimportant? Is it because all stories of the sort are filled with bad writing? No. It's because the story isn't about those things.

First, plausibility of the narrative and scope of the narrative are different. Lazarus remains firmly outside the scope until it's thrust into the limelight and pulled right back out of it.

Second, if the story fails to integrate those things well, it is bad writing. Exploring the means involved in the story is a part of the story. It has been parodied quite a lot: scenes of arbitrary gunfights in parody westerns, for instance. If what we're shown isn't narratively tied to what we're told, something is wrong.

[MB957]

I never had any problems with the science fiction of ME. I have never understood peoples wanting science fiction to mirror their own real world science. its fiction. its made for dreaming and imagination.

I dont need it all explained to me. I can go with :make believe" I am more interested in the characters journey and the fun factor of the game!

I wouldnt call it a "descent" into mysticism, but rather an "ascent". I enjoy the mystical tones flowing in and out of the story. I find it gives it more depth and relevance.

for me, if a story is all hard sci fi, with everything having to relate to our everyday now world, then its comes off a bit dry.

I prefer the sci fi to stretch more, and reach for the impossible and dream big so my creative spirit can take flight!

[Mouton_Alpha]

Ieldra2, I hate you, that is exactly the thread I wanted to make/take part in and now it is 12 pages in only 24 hours, before I even noticed.

For now, I agree with the OP. The game started as shaky but okay sci-fi and then veered into destiny, messiahs, ascension, and culminating in at least two Jesus figures. This is nice, I guess, for those who like this kind of narrative - less so for those who don't.