197 réponses à ce sujet

[Yougotcarved1]

Rasofe wrote...

How does the firing ship know where the target will go? No matter what its current velocity vector is, it can have an unlimited number of potential accelerations. Sensor data also having light-speed timelag, and space being big, an instant travel weapon shouldn't hit unless the target is literally travelling at uniform velocity or something else unlikely.

what? your DEW will move at the speed of light, so it doesnt need to know where the target will go. the target cant possibly move fast enough for a lightspeed weapon to miss it

[Rasofe]

Well, that's true, I guess, but how do they know where the target is with such perfect precision? In space, being off by even a fraction of an angular second will make you miss the intended target heavily.

[Yougotcarved1]

Rasofe wrote...

Well, that's true, I guess, but how do they know where the target is with such perfect precision? In space, being off by even a fraction of an angular second will make you miss the intended target heavily.

because they have sensors and computers. todays computers and sensors would be able to achieve that level of precision if they had a lightspeed weapon in a vacuum

[Rasofe]

They would? I don't think the size and dimensions of empty space have been tested with modern equipment. I know that satellites-to-Earth footage like on google maps has a infinum resolution of 15 cm. Can't go lower than that.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...

Ah.
But if it is not I who is inflexible, how can my vision be the one that's limited? My advocation is NOT the rule of cool. My advocation is partially that of a balanced breakfast making everyone's day better, and partially something a little more important.

I'm a believer in the balanced idea as well. Make something that makes sense with the lore and is internally consistent with its own science, and externally consistent or at least plausible in the future. Once that criteria is met, then you can make something compelling or interesting. It doesn't detract from the possibilites for the story to take, it merely eliminates the impossibilities.

Erez didn't deserve the treatment you lot gave him. He posted his original thread by just expressing his explanation for what the circumstances were of Shepard's death. As aware as you are of its errors, what makes it a brute necessity of life to confront him about it? Hell, I'd asked him why the topic really mattered and suddenly I was the new target for his opponents.

Being stubborn and stalwart and condescending? He posted his explanation (which is entirely his own headcanon, as well as completely inconsistent with modern physics) and, when presented with a counter argument, dismissed it without really giving any kind of counter-example why and changing goalposts. 

Anyway, what makes it so necessary is that he made a thread about it, he expected answers for it. He got answers, just not what he wanted. If he didn't want us to confront him about it, he shouldn't have made the thread.

I don't know who targeted you over this, but simply put, we, or at the very least I, see importance and relevance here where you don't. And that's ok. As I've said repeatedly, we get different things out of this.

This whole stuff you're saying now, Massive, about how it's really because you're a practical person, that wasn't present in that thread. What I saw was you guys tearing him a new one because he dared to be wrong about something that you have now admitted is a personal issue with YOU, not a global offence.

I was tearing him a new one because he did indeed dare to be wrong about something that was scientifically absurd, both in game physics and real life physics. And he proceeded to be condescending and dismissive of arguments that proved him wrong, and claiming not only his interpretation to be objectively valid, but also that events depicted in the game as being false and fake, even criticizing others when they posted their incredulity over the topic.

Now on to the strawman; You're attributing my tearing him a new one over what I've said to what I believe is necessary for a story. It's not that his interpretation is a problem with me, it's that his obstinate claim as to the scientific veracity of it (to the expense of others' counter-arguments) became obtuse and preachy. Yes, I take this seriously. And when someone claims something absurd, I am going to tear it down. And if said person behaves absurdly (as erezike did), then yes, I will tear him down as well.

Then it became a gif-and-image fest to which he reacted by slurring your military status. That's not mature behaviour. Neither is half-targetting anyone else who could be just passing by for expressing their indifference.

As I can see it (which I can very easily show you), I didn't start treating the thread with absurdity until after I was personally attacked with the slur against my military status. I didn't start posting gifs until I was slighted. When the OP started to dismiss evidence against his theories, he started to become obstinate and bulwart. It showed he wasn't willing to be proven wrong. It shows he wasn't looking for intelligent discussion, but simply validation. He wanted people to approve his idea. And when it wasn't he became erratic. And thus, the purpose of the thread become apparent. There was no point to intelligent discussion, thus there was no point except to screw around.

By the way, you can show me where I verbally insulted or disparaged you personally. I may have attacked your argument, but I never attacked you.

You all have a good day now, you hear?

Later bro.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 23 novembre 2013 - 05:15 .

[Yougotcarved1]

Rasofe wrote...

They would? I don't think the size and dimensions of empty space have been tested with modern equipment. I know that satellites-to-Earth footage like on google maps has a infinum resolution of 15 cm. Can't go lower than that.

and a spaceship would be at LEAST a few square meters. 15cm margin of error is more than capable

[Reorte]

Rasofe wrote...

Personally I think that barring thematic pitfalls, anything inplausible in fiction can just as easily be overlooked. It's only self-destructive to worry too much about these thngs.

I disagree with that because getting things right is all part of producing good-quality fiction. Shrugging off things like Egypt having an arctic climate is just letting really sloppy laziness get through. I appreciate quality and effort put into making things work properly, and don't like being fobbed off by authors who couldn't care and rely on other peoples' ignorance to cover their own. If you're too ignorant in an area to do a good job then don't write in that area. Sure, there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I wouldn't nit-pick a historical novel for every single anacrhronism but I'd expect a reasonable effort to be made to avoid them, and would be very disparaging of an author who made really obvious, glaring errors because they thought it their story was better with the Roman Army having an airforce, and hoped their readers either didn't know or didn't care that there wasn't a Roman Air Force.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Reorte wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Personally I think that barring thematic pitfalls, anything inplausible in fiction can just as easily be overlooked. It's only self-destructive to worry too much about these thngs.

I disagree with that because getting things right is all part of producing good-quality fiction. Shrugging off things like Egypt having an arctic climate is just letting really sloppy laziness get through. I appreciate quality and effort put into making things work properly, and don't like being fobbed off by authors who couldn't care and rely on other peoples' ignorance to cover their own. If you're too ignorant in an area to do a good job then don't write in that area. Sure, there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I wouldn't nit-pick a historical novel for every single anacrhronism but I'd expect a reasonable effort to be made to avoid them, and would be very disparaging of an author who made really obvious, glaring errors because they thought it their story was better with the Roman Army having an airforce, and hoped their readers either didn't know or didn't care that there wasn't a Roman Air Force.

Emphatically this.

[Yougotcarved1]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Personally I think that barring thematic pitfalls, anything inplausible in fiction can just as easily be overlooked. It's only self-destructive to worry too much about these thngs.

I disagree with that because getting things right is all part of producing good-quality fiction. Shrugging off things like Egypt having an arctic climate is just letting really sloppy laziness get through. I appreciate quality and effort put into making things work properly, and don't like being fobbed off by authors who couldn't care and rely on other peoples' ignorance to cover their own. If you're too ignorant in an area to do a good job then don't write in that area. Sure, there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I wouldn't nit-pick a historical novel for every single anacrhronism but I'd expect a reasonable effort to be made to avoid them, and would be very disparaging of an author who made really obvious, glaring errors because they thought it their story was better with the Roman Army having an airforce, and hoped their readers either didn't know or didn't care that there wasn't a Roman Air Force.

Emphatically this.

but this alchera thing isnt akin to egypt having an arctic climate...its akin to someone saying one egyptian word with a slightly misplaced accent

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Yougotcarved1 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Personally I think that barring thematic pitfalls, anything inplausible in fiction can just as easily be overlooked. It's only self-destructive to worry too much about these thngs.

I disagree with that because getting things right is all part of producing good-quality fiction. Shrugging off things like Egypt having an arctic climate is just letting really sloppy laziness get through. I appreciate quality and effort put into making things work properly, and don't like being fobbed off by authors who couldn't care and rely on other peoples' ignorance to cover their own. If you're too ignorant in an area to do a good job then don't write in that area. Sure, there's a line to be drawn somewhere; I wouldn't nit-pick a historical novel for every single anacrhronism but I'd expect a reasonable effort to be made to avoid them, and would be very disparaging of an author who made really obvious, glaring errors because they thought it their story was better with the Roman Army having an airforce, and hoped their readers either didn't know or didn't care that there wasn't a Roman Air Force.

Emphatically this.

but this alchera thing isnt akin to egypt having an arctic climate...its akin to someone saying one egyptian word with a slightly misplaced accent

Not really. 

It's more of a person saying that relatively lightly armored human body would survive both atmospheric re-entry and high velocity impact into the ground. If he wasn't incinerated, he would have been splattered. That his body survived relatively intact is something that shows the writers weren't really doing their homework.

And yes, I believe BW should have gone with something more plausible. As I've said, having Shepard simply ejected into space, with his air gone and frozen, would have been much more scientifically believable. His body would have been intact and completely preserved. It would mean less hand-waiving into how his body survived at least 1300 Celcius of heat, friction, and aerodynamic physics, and 200 mph+ impact velocities.

[Reorte]

Yougotcarved1 wrote...

but this alchera thing isnt akin to egypt having an arctic climate...its akin to someone saying one egyptian word with a slightly misplaced accent

Hitting Alchera and just being meat and tubes is probably that, I admit I was wandering off into generalities. Being able to put Shepard back together is rather more like the climate thing; I could've probably managed suspension of disbelief if he'd just been floating around in space and Lazarus had that to work with. Arthur C Clarke managed that one. Maybe I wouldn't if I knew a lot more about medecine but I'd much rather not be in the position of only being able to be hapy about something due to my ignorance.

These things don't necessarily ruin a story for me but the best works of science ficiton manage to have the fewest absurdities and the best usual parts of fiction (drama, characterisation etc.) The best that can be said with such glaring implausibilties is managing to look past them. Some are easier than others; it's fairly easy to accept FTL travel if you want a story involving interactions between different worlds.

[Rasofe]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

[


Anyway, what makes it so necessary is that he made a thread about it, he expected answers for it. He got answers, just not what he wanted. If he didn't want us to confront him about it, he shouldn't have made the thread.

I don't know who targeted you over this, but simply put, we, or at the very least I, see importance and relevance here where you don't. And that's ok. As I've said repeatedly, we get different things out of this.

This whole stuff you're saying now, Massive, about how it's really because you're a practical person, that wasn't present in that thread. What I saw was you guys tearing him a new one because he dared to be wrong about something that you have now admitted is a personal issue with YOU, not a global offence.

I was tearing him a new one because he did indeed dare to be wrong about something that was scientifically absurd, both in game physics and real life physics. And he proceeded to be condescending and dismissive of arguments that proved him wrong, and claiming not only his interpretation to be objectively valid, but also that events depicted in the game as being false and fake, even criticizing others when they posted their incredulity over the topic.

Now on to the strawman; You're attributing my tearing him a new one over what I've said to what I believe is necessary for a story. It's not that his interpretation is a problem with me, it's that his obstinate claim as to the scientific veracity of it (to the expense of others' counter-arguments) became obtuse and preachy. Yes, I take this seriously. And when someone claims something absurd, I am going to tear it down. And if said person behaves absurdly (as erezike did), then yes, I will tear him down as well.

Then it became a gif-and-image fest to which he reacted by slurring your military status. That's not mature behaviour. Neither is half-targetting anyone else who could be just passing by for expressing their indifference.

As I can see it (which I can very easily show you), I didn't start treating the thread with absurdity until after I was personally attacked with the slur against my military status. When the OP started to dismiss evidence against his theories, he started to become obstinate and bulwart. It showed he wasn't willing to be proven wrong. It shows he wasn't looking for intelligent discussion, but simply validation. He wanted people to approve his idea. And when it wasn't he became erratic. And thus, the purpose of the thread become apparent. There was no point to intelligent discussion, thus there was no point except to screw around.

By the way, you can show me where I verbally insulted or disparaged you personally. I may have attacked your argument, but I never attacked you.

You all have a good day now, you hear?

Later bro.

You couldn't have attacked my argument because my initial statements weren't arguments, they were blank subjective statements. When you intentionally commented toward MY opinion of good story - saying good is subjective - as opposed to the claim Agentoid made (his opinion coincided with yours) it wasn't a refutal of an argument, but a reaction to personal taste - a personal attack.
Either way, your behavior is quite ordinary for a forum poster. I'd just like to see if you keep that in mind while you... eh... preside over these boards. You're not at all different from people like me, Erezike and David. You've got a keyboard and you do what you want with it. So do we.

[Yougotcarved1]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Not really. 

It's more of a person saying that relatively lightly armored human body would survive both atmospheric re-entry and high velocity impact into the ground. If he wasn't incinerated, he would have been splattered. That his body survived relatively intact is something that shows the writers weren't really doing their homework.

And yes, I believe BW should have gone with something more plausible. As I've said, having Shepard simply ejected into space, with his air gone and frozen, would have been much more scientifically believable. His body would have been intact and completely preserved. It would mean less hand-waiving into how his body survived at least 1300 Celcius of heat, friction, and aerodynamic physics, and 200 mph+ impact velocities.

Noone said he survived (in fact its clearly stated he died) or that his body was relatively intact. Jacobs words were "meat and tubes".

Whether or not he burnt up depends on how high above Alcheras surface he was. You don't know that, I don't know that, but given that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation (say he was 20-40 miles or so above the surface, which would mean he wouldn't burn up plus it fits how the cutscene looked) means that you actively have to try and make it implausible.

He would have been splattered, sure, which fits Jacob's comments. Everythings consistent, everything works out fine.

Modifié par Yougotcarved1, 23 novembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I haven't read the entire thread. I'll just say the entire crash site thing is weird. The ship should have been scattered over a very wide area, and not bunched up like it was. The condition of Shepard's body would have varied depending upon if it landed in powder or on rock or ice. BW writers would have been better off saying Shepard was found drifting in space or hell even found on one of the moons with a .001g. Shepard could have had a spare helmet in the locker and that's what we found at the crash site. What we saw was stupid video game logic so we wouldn't have to make multiple landings all over Alchera or drive all over the place in the Mako searching, because if they did that they would have had to put Geth there or something for us to go pew pew pew at.

They wrote so many things in the game story that didn't make any sense from the beginning of ME1 that this is more of a futuristic fantasy game rather than science fiction. IMO Bioware went way overboard with the use of Clarke's Third Law. So we use Wile E. Coyote logic. We just need to accept the fact that ME1 and ME2 were just as badly written as ME3. We just need to accept that ME2 was nothing more than a RP-Arnold Movie and we don't go splat. We overlooked a lot with our head canons.

[Rasofe]

I hear Clarkes third getting invoked a lot. Why not just say space magic if you feel that way?
Clarkes law applies equally to things like people using light switches without knowing how they work as it does with say, element zero in the nerves letting people move things with their mind. It's not a euphemism for space magic, it's just the way technology works even today.

Modifié par Rasofe, 23 novembre 2013 - 05:34 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...
You couldn't have attacked my argument because my initial statements weren't arguments, they were blank subjective statements. When you intentionally commented toward MY opinion of good story - saying good is subjective - as opposed to the claim Agentoid made (his opinion coincided with yours) it wasn't a refutal of an argument, but a reaction to personal taste - a personal attack.

Is the fact that your opinion is subjective some kind of protection from criticism? Yes, your opinion is subjective. No, that does not mean I can't criticize it. There was no personal attack.

A personal attack is this (forgive me mods):

You're a ******.

Or:

Don't listen to Erezike, he's a crazy moron.

Thpse are personal attacks. I'm not saying that you are a ******, nor do I mean any intent as such. A blank subjective statement can still be responded too and even criticized and detracted. If you feel otherwise, well, aside from it being incorrect, I'm sorry that you feel that way and am telling you now to get used to it.

Either way, your behavior is quite ordinary for a forum poster. I'd just like to see if you keep that in mind while you... eh... preside over these boards. You're not at all different from people like me, Erezike and David. You've got a keyboard and you do what you want with it. So do we.

Thought never left my mind. Just to let you know though, that whatever you do will have a reaction. Be it good or bad, any action will have a reaction.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well then, substitute Space Magic, for Clarke's Third Law in my last post.

[Rasofe]

Replying to a blank subjective statement doesn't actually help build a good conversation. It's quite petty, especially if it's such a brick wall statement that it's clear the other party doesn't want to talk. So while it's obviously open to criticism like anything else, it's a waste of time to do so.

[Iakus]

Rasofe wrote...

I hear Clarkes third getting invoked a lot. Why not just say space magic if you feel that way?
Clarkes law applies to things like people using light switches without knowing how they work. It's not a euphemism for space magic, it's just the way technology works even today.

We have been saying it's space magic.  Because the science has become indistinguishible from magic.  And with about as much explanation for how it's possible.

They don't even bother to give the thin reasoning of "magic rocks with electricity" to explain the science.  It's just "resources" or "Rule of Cool"  Heck even the stuff that is thinly explained like botics don't function the way they're explained (like Aria tearing open a plasma-filled magnetic curtain with biotics in Omega) 

So Shepard doesn't burn up or splatter on Alchera not becuase that's how gravity and the human body work, it's because it's a much more awesome way to go.  Shep doesn't just need cybernetic enhancements, Shep needs to come back from the freaking dead as part of the transformation into a Space Messiah.

It's not science.  It's not even soft science.  It's magic.  It makes Star Wars look like hard science.

[Yougotcarved1]

iakus wrote...
So Shepard doesn't burn up or splatter on Alchera not becuase that's how gravity and the human body work, it's because it's a much more awesome way to go.  Shep doesn't just need cybernetic enhancements, Shep needs to come back from the freaking dead as part of the transformation into a Space Messiah.

It's not science.  It's not even soft science.  It's magic.  It makes Star Wars look like hard science.

He doesn't burn up, because he wasn't far enough above Alchera, and he does splatter, nobody said he doesn't. Again, Jacob said "meat and tubes" which fits with splattering.

Though I agree on your Aria biotic part

[Rasofe]

Science becoming indistinguishable from magic - the statement expressed by Clarke's law - is not equivalent to space magic. Clarke's law is applicable to ANY real life or future technology. If we don't understand it, it's indistinguishable from magic because it's beyond our comprehension.
Space magic is what people mean when they know the author themselves didn't understand it. That doesn't mean that in ME2 Shepard survived because of some advanced form of technology that was beyond the scope of understanding (2001 style), but because he had to die spectacularly and then be brought back to life.

Modifié par Rasofe, 23 novembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Yougotcarved1 wrote...

Noone said he survived (in fact its clearly stated he died) or that his body was relatively intact. Jacobs words were "meat and tubes".

I know no one said he survived. It's made pretty damn clear that he died and was as dead as dead can be. However, people have said that, yes, Shepard's body was indeed intact. Which is true from a game canon perspective. I'm not going to dispute it.

What I am disputing is the writing. This was a really bad idea of death for Shepard. It's not plausible for a corpse to survive the death from a real scientific perspective. It's jarring from an external consistency standpoint. The writers, in my opinion, did not handle this as well as they could and should have.

Whether or not he burnt up depends on how high above Alcheras surface he was. You don't know that, I don't know that, but given that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation (say he was 20-40 miles or so above the surface, which would mean he wouldn't burn up plus it fits how the cutscene looked) means that you actively have to try and make it implausible.

I have a fairly good idea of how high he was: They were in orbit. Pieces of the ship, and the chairs in the CIC were freely in orbit around the Normandy. The images that I see such as here indicate to me that the Normandy is in a low orbit above the planet, anywhere from 300 to 2000 km above the planet:



This is a comparative image of the orbital altitudes of Earth.



Here is the higher resolution image of the above.

Your claim of it being 20 - 40 miles above the surface would mean that the pieces of the Normandy, as well as the Normandy itself once it has been attacked, would be in freefall immediately.

Also, Shepard's falling body clearly has a heat trail that is seen when objects fall through the atmosphere.

He would have been splattered, sure, which fits Jacob's comments. Everythings consistent, everything works out fine.

He wasn't splattered. Or incinerated. Which means they had a body to work with. If he was splattered, there would not have been a usable body to rebuild him from. As I said, there was indeed a body. But this would not have been the case realistically. And there's nothing in the ME lore that says a person can survive an unassisted freefall through the atmosphere of a planet and impact with its surface. Which means that external consistency of the our universe comes into play. Which means that this incident creates a paradox with physics. Which tells me the writers didn't do a very good job on this issue.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 23 novembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...

Replying to a blank subjective statement doesn't actually help build a good conversation. It's quite petty, especially if it's such a brick wall statement that it's clear the other party doesn't want to talk. So while it's obviously open to criticism like anything else, it's a waste of time to do so.

Then why post it? Why post something at all if you aren't looking for a response of some kind?

[Rasofe]

Got a keyboard, got to use it mate. You know how it is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...

Got a keyboard, got to use it mate. You know how it is.

Then why expect to not get a response?