364 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

Iakis, I'd be amazed if you could explain more than 20% of those terms to me. How does that prove that Shepard's brain cells would be beyond function or replication?

It's a freaking wikipedia entry.  And the big words have links to their definitions.


But if you need me to dumb it down a little more:

Increased carbon dioxide levels leads to acid buildup in blood and tissues, including brain tissue.  This is bad.  It kills the cells.  In addition, even if oxygenated blood flow was restored eventually, the sudden restoration could lead to further damage as previously starved tissues are suddenly inflamed.  A common danger in stroke victims

[David7204]

osbornep wrote...

[TL;DR Warning] I'm not much of a nitpicker about plot details myself; I seriously doubt that our enjoyment of most works hinges on the details of cell biology, plot logic or whatever. Quick example: How, in Terminator 2, does the T-1000 go back in time? Answer: He can't, because it was clearly explained in the original film that "nothing dead can go back," and the T-1000, being composed entirely of liquid metal, is certainly not living matter. Did that just make you hate T2? If not, then you have to concede that plot mechanics are not the be-all end-all of storytelling. Having said all of that, I'm not a big fan of Lazarus for a couple of reasons:

1. It just doesn't mean anything. Killing and resurrecting the protagonist is something that can be mined for all sorts of interesting themes and symbolism; any cursory examination of world religion and comparative mythology will reveal that much. For instance, death and resurrection of the protagonist can be a way of signifying that protagonist's ultimate triumph (this is fairly standard within the Hero's Journey, which has always been Bioware's bread and butter); hey, the good guy (or gal) just conquered death. But what is the nature of Shepard's triumph in the Lazarus arc? Shepard dies rescuing a secondary character and then is resurrected by a bunch of scientists. What exactly is the nature of Shep's victory here? Shepard doesn't do anything; stuff just happens to him, almost entirely as a result of the actions of characters we barely know.

2. Lazarus doesn't set up any interesting plotlines that are payed off later, or at least, it doesn't set up any plot lines that couldn't be set up in an alternative way (like Shepard falling into a coma, or spending two years in a Batarian prison camp, etc.). For instance, you might have a running thread whereby Shepard wants revenge on whoever killed him or her, and then Shepard later has the opportunity to take this revenge or not. Maybe not a good example, but the point is that Lazarus should set up a plot or theme that's paid off later.

3. Shepard tells TIM: "You could have trained an army for what you paid to bring me back." My response was, "That's a really good question!" Because Only Shepard Can Do It? That's not a very satisfying answer. I love the original Terminator film, but it always bothered me that a crucial plot point is that only John Connor of all people can save humanity. There's always been an appeal in the idea that even if you kill the leader of a great movement, that leader can be replaced by another, who can be replaced by yet another, because that spark of greatness somehow exists within all of us, or some romantic notion like that. I just didn't need to be beaten over the head with the idea that Shepard is the Only One Who Can Save Us.

4. No one cares: Shepard dies and comes back to life. Death has been solved. This doesn't seem like a big deal to anyone at all. That struck me as a bit odd.

What it comes down to for me is that Lazarus is purely a plot device and little more. It's the difference between the Genesis Device in Star Trek II and Red Matter in Star Trek 2009 (which I actually did enjoy). The Genesis device is bad science, but is operating at a number of symbolic levels. There's the whole business about Spock dying at the same moment the Genesis planet is created, calling to mind familiar ideas about cycles of death, rebirth, etc. The Genesis reference also ties in to the Milton-ian aspects of Khan's story. Red Matter, by contrast, doesn't do any of this stuff. It's a red blob that has whatever properties the writers need it to have to move the story forward. Lazarus falls mostly into that second category for me (despite the obvious religious reference of its name), and I think that's a weakness of the story.

#1. The victory is Shepard's reunion with the old crew and the character development that comes with it.

#2. The entire new crew, the break up of the old crew, new Normandy, working with Cerberus, EDI, the Illusive Man...That fact that those circumstances could have arisen from alternate circumstances is true of pretty much anything.

#3. Perhaps the Illusive Man understands that there are things more important and more valuble than muscle. After all, he's only a single man himself.

#4. Lazarus is not a cure for death.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:36 .

[Steelcan]

And he gives up?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

It's just so perfect...

[CrutchCricket]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
And that is not "incomprehensible motives." That's just, "I'm not telling you because (I think) you wouldn't get it."

People look back at the previous games and see things they want to see that were never there. Like, "the Reapers were incomprehensible(, now they're just toys)." They were never "incomprehensible." In ME1, they were simply mysteries for which we had no clues. In ME2, we started getting clues. In fact, ME2 revealed why they harvest (some) organics: reproduction. That is a hint that can narrows things down to a lot of plenty comprehensible motives.

ME3 just provided an answer. In a rather sloppy way, sure, but merely doing so does not "invalidate" what they were before.

Actually, yeah it is. Sovereign's tone and manner in which it addressed us totally sold it too.

You do realize denying that at the time of ME1 is no different than denying the ending bull**** now right? ME2 did provide hints as to the motive behind the harvest and frankly, I think that is motive enough. It would not be the overarching purpose however. Machines are built for a reason they don't aimlessly self-propagate like organics do. So ME2 really provided the "how" of Reapers but the "why" could still be out there. And that ultimate purpose very well could, nay should be beyond our sphere of understanding (given how advanced and alien the Reapers should be).

AlanC9 wrote...
Right. And like I said, I think it's an obvious and contemptible cop-out. That sort of lame hand-waving belongs in fantasy where it's OK for stuff to be irrational.

A realistic consequence of our limited human perspective is a contemptible cop-out and a fantasy handwave to you?

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:55 .

[Jorji Costava]

David7204 wrote...

#1. The victory is Shepard's reunion with the old crew and the character development that comes with it.

#2.The entire new crew, the break up of the old crew, new Normandy, working with Cerberus, EDI, the Illusive Man...That fact that those circumstances could have arisen from alternate circumstances is true of pretty much anything.

#3. Perhaps the Illusive Man understands that there are things more important and more valuble than muscle. After all, he's only a single man himself.

#4. Lazarus is not a cure for death.

1. My original point is that this victory isn't earned by any of the protagonists' actions; it simply happens to him or her as a result of off-screen events (Liara recovering the body, the Lazarus research, etc.), none of which Shepard has a hand in. I don't want to say that death and rebirth always has to signal a victory, but the point is that there should be some meaning to such a gesture; I'm struggling to find it.

2. I agree with you that there are always an infinite number of ways to move any plot from point A to point B. But I think that some ways just work better than others, and unless you're working a specific thematic angle, it's best to keep things simple, lest you raise more questions than you're prepared to answer.

Another nerdy example: Luke is spurred by the influence of Obi-Wan and the death of his aunt and uncle to join the Rebellion after an initial Refusal. Alternatively, Lucas could have written the script so that Luke is recruited by an alternative reality version of himself who comes through a tear in reality created by a fuschia-matter-induced singularity, but that would be pretty dumb. If you want to go with this seemingly silly version of Star Wars, it better be because you want to bring certain themes to the forefront, like something about ways our lives could have been but weren't, the dangers of fuschia matter, etc. Again, I didn't see this with Lazarus.

3. The point I tried to make here is that I'm not particularly fond of the idea that of all sentient beings in the whole galaxy, only Shepard has more to offer than muscle. Maybe you're okay with that idea; if so, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

4. This looks like it could get into a really trivial semantic debate, so I'll pass.

EDIT: Fixed the quote and punctuation.

Modifié par osbornep, 31 juillet 2013 - 04:09 .

[David7204]

The reunion with Liara in LotSB is a direct result of Shepard's actions. Saving Tali on Haestrom and Garrus on Omega was directly because of Shepard. Wrex's success on Tuchanka is due to Shepard. None of those things would have occured without Shepard's death. Except maybe Wrex, I guess.

My favorite moment in all fiction is the kiss in Lair of the Shadow Broker. And it's a tremendous moment because its the ultimate triumph of love, determination, and hope over fear, misery, and lonliness. And none of that fear, misery, or lonliness would have been present without Shepard's death. Great triumph requires a great obsticle.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 04:05 .

[Ravensword]

Davey, you mentioned before that Lazarus was created for a very specific death, and now you say it's not a cure for death.

Modifié par Ravensword, 31 juillet 2013 - 04:05 .

[David7204]

Yes, exactly. Lazarus was created for a very specific death, and is therefore not a cure for death in general.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

The reunion with Liara in LotSB is a direct result of Shepard's actions. Saving Tali on Haestrom and Garrus on Omega was directly because of Shepard. Wrex's success on Tuchanka is due to Shepard. None of those things would have occured without Shepard's death. Except maybe Wrex, I guess.

My favorite moment in all fiction is the kiss in Lair of the Shadow Broker. And it's a tremendous moment because its the ultimate triumph of love, determination, and hope over fear, misery, and lonliness. And none of that fear, misery, or lonliness would have been present without Shepard's death. Great triumph requires a great obsticle.

Ugh Davey stop gushing about heroic makeouts and get back to mocking people for not understanding HEROISM!

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, exactly. Lazarus was created for a very specific death, and is therefore not a cure for death in general.

.  Uses to be cars only were used by specific individuals.  Its only a matter if time before the tech becomes more widespread and cheaper.  Miranda cured death.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, exactly. Lazarus was created for a very specific death, and is therefore not a cure for death in general.

Which is stupid

[David7204]

It's certainly possible. In the real world as well as in Mass Effect.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

David7204 wrote...

The reunion with Liara in LotSB is a direct result of Shepard's actions. Saving Tali on Haestrom and Garrus on Omega was directly because of Shepard. Wrex's success on Tuchanka is due to Shepard. None of those things would have occured without Shepard's death. Except maybe Wrex, I guess.

A coma wouldn't have achieved the exact same plot point, without ten times less stupidity?

Generally-speaking, narratives try to follow the path of least resistance. Don't implement a contrived, half-assed explanation when a much simpler one does the job.

[David7204]

There's no stupidity. I'm still waiting on anything remotely resembling proof as to why Shepard's brain cells are beyond function or replication.

[spirosz]

David7204 wrote...

There's no stupidity. I'm still waiting on anything remotely resembling proof as to why Shepard's brain cells are beyond function or replication.

Because his body flew into a planet.  He ain't no Super Saiyan. 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, exactly. Lazarus was created for a very specific death, and is therefore not a cure for death in general.

Which is stupid

Don't be silly! We all know Shepard's HEROISM gives him an extra +3 to all of his death saves, he also gets a +10 to all contrived stupidity checks.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

David7204 wrote...

There's no stupidity. I'm still waiting on anything remotely resembling proof as to why Shepard's brain cells are beyond function or replication.

Dreamgazer's wonderful quote at the top of the last page comes to mind.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

There's no stupidity. I'm still waiting on anything remotely resembling proof as to why Shepard's brain cells are beyond function or replication.

.  Because they were oxygen deprives dor an extended period of time.  This results in the build up of harmful compounds and ions in the brain which causes damage to neural tissue.  Damaged neural tissue cannot be used by the brain so any memory or information is lost.  Simply replacing the cell, while possible, would not restore the previous memories ir even previous function of the cell, it would need to re-specialize.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]David7204 wrote...

The reunion with Liara in LotSB is a direct result of Shepard's actions. Saving Tali on Haestrom and Garrus on Omega was directly because of Shepard. Wrex's success on Tuchanka is due to Shepard. None of those things would have occured without Shepard's death. Except maybe Wrex, I guess.

[/quote]

They all would have appeared had Shepard not died. You didn't need to kill Shepard to achieve all of this. That said, all of it was underwhelming. That's a croc of dung if I ever saw it. 

My favorite moment in all fiction is the kiss in Lair of the Shadow Broker. And it's a tremendous moment because its the ultimate triumph of love, determination, and hope over fear, misery, and lonliness. And none of that fear, misery, or lonliness would have been present without Shepard's death. Great triumph requires a great obsticle.
[/quote]

It's not the ultimate triumph of love, determination, and hope. I rather wish she was eaten by the Yahg.

And all of it most certainly would have been present without Shepard's death. And if it wasn't? BFD

Great triumph does require obstacles yes, but this isn't much of an obstacle. Just poorly contrived writing. And I say this as a person who actually does like what Lazarus does for Shepard as a character.

[David7204]

Wow, that sounds suspiciously like that passage grey-whathisname posted on the previous page with all the definitions you pretended to know.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

There's no stupidity. I'm still waiting on anything remotely resembling proof as to why Shepard's brain cells are beyond function or replication.

You've been presented with consistent, credible, logical, and scientific evidence and proof.

You're the one consistantly denying it. That's not how arguments work. That's not how real life works.

Denying something because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

My long search is finally over, I have found a fool to claim Wulfie's vacant throne!

I await your command my lord! Enlighten us with your HEROISM!!!!!!!:wub:

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 31 juillet 2013 - 04:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Wow, that sounds suspiciously like that passage grey-whathisname posted on the previous page with all the definitions you pretended to know.

So you resort to strawmanning now? Along with the standard genetic fallacy?

Whether or not he's knows the information is irrelevant (and he'd have to have some knowledge of it to be able to use it). 

It fits the context of the argument quite clearly.

If you don't want to acknowledge evidence and an argument against you, that's your problem. You're the one making yourself look stupid, not us.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 juillet 2013 - 04:20 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Wow, that sounds suspiciously like that passage grey-whathisname posted on the previous page with all the definitions you pretended to know.

.  You truly are something special.  It must be so great living in a world where only science you like is true.