If you have an understanding of the topic, you should be perfectly able to give me an explanation yourself instead of relying on links to Wikipedia.
And if you don't understand the topic...well...you'd be very silly to be posting such things with no understanding, wouldn't you?
The physical complexities are a little wordy and no one wants to type it out, so they link to an article which is written by someone with the time and space to write it.
If you have an understanding of the topic, you should be perfectly able to give me an explanation yourself instead of relying on links to Wikipedia.
And if you don't understand the topic...well...you'd be very silly to be posting such things with no understanding, wouldn't you?
Not really. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fact-check things and provide other evidence. He never claimed to be an expert. He did acknowledge the work of experts with his evidence.
Calling him out on not being an expert on the physics of long-term vacuum exposure does not devalue the presented evidence.
Back to the Lazarus project I see.
Your mask isn't just slipping, Bob, it has completely fallen off!
Not really. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fact-check things and provide other evidence.
Calling him out on not being an expert on the physics of long-term vacuum exposure does not make the evidence presented any less true.
I guess it stems from David's aversion to science.
Space radiation + no oxygen + extreme temperature would result in cell and DNA destruction.
Quite a number of things result in cell and DNA destruction. Many of which humans are exposed to on a daily basis.
You're going to have to be a lot more through than this.
As Harbinger says "Bob from Accounting. You have become an annoyance"
Quite a number of things result in cell and DNA destruction. Many of which humans are exposed to on a daily basis.
You're going to have to be a lot more through than this.
If you don't understand the difference between stuff we're exposed on a daily basis and space radiation, zero oxygen or space temperatures then it's not like more details will help you.
Quite a number of things result in cell and DNA destruction. Many of which humans are exposed to on a daily basis.
You're going to have to be a lot more through than this.
...
Because other things result in cellular degeneration and destruction of DNA, it somehow negates the effect that long-term hard vacuum exposure on body cells? (in this case, long-term exposure to vacuum is any length longer than 90 seconds)
You're going to have to explain how because UV rays from the sun can be damaging, or how a smoker's second-hand smoke is toxic, it somehow lessens the effects on the human body from long-term exposure to vacuum.
This is a straw-man/red herring fallacy hybrid. A Red-straw-fish-man. I like it. David should copyright it.
If you don't understand the difference between stuff we're exposed on a daily basis and space radiation, zero oxygen or space temperatures then it's not like more details will help you.
Quiet fool! Can't you see David is scoffing at you?
Quiet fool! Can't you see David is scoffing at you?
I'd forgotten how quiet these forums had gotten in that brief period he was banned....
I'd forgotten how quiet these forums had gotten in that brief period he was banned....
He does liven up things around here.
I'd forgotten how quiet these forums had gotten in that brief period he was banned....
I missed him when he was gone. I now realize nostalgia painted the past with rose-tinted goggles... now I miss the quiet days.
He does liven up things around here.
I'm getting older though; I much preferred the idyllic David free forum of days of yore, as brief as they were.
You didn't read what I wrote.
I didn't understand the game? The potential you talk about is just several endings, good and bad endings, exactly what the developers didn't want because it goes against their own work, the idea of the ending. Maybe understanding the game means under-stand the game to see its own writing instead of ignoring what is written and basing criticism on expectations.
And that potential I described could have been amazing. No two endings identical. Some where Shepard lived and is hailed as a hero. Others where Shepard lived but whose name was cursed for millenia. Some where Shepard was a saint, a god-king. A soldier for the Alliance, a Spectre, a hermit, an ambassador, a new Illusive Man (or Woman)
And the galaxy could have been shaped in so many different ways: fragmented by the loss of relays, plunged into a new dark age. Or united, both organic and synthetic, by their shared experience in fighting the Reapers, not needing their DNA rewritten. Or they could have turned on each other once the Reapers were dealt with. The Reapers could have been destroyed, or enslaved, or freed, or simply left.
I understand that the game gave me hundreds of choices (perhaps more) over three games. We were shaping a story, not being told how it's supposed to go.
And every freaking one of these shapes led to Shepard burning in the end, with exactly one outcome hinting that Shepard may live.
Different choices should lead to different results. Good. Bad. Okay. Meh. Otherwise why are we given choices?
IF their message was "Life sucks. Then you die" Message received. But I'd like to think the Bioware writers have a less grim outlook on life, or at least leave such baggage at home next time.
This type of response is a typical one from the pro-ending group.
So maybe you can explain what I fail to understand. Maybe you'll be the first to adequately explain what the devs were trying to convey to players.
I'm at work now but rest assured I'm following this thread in eager anticipation of your tutorial since you understand.
Take your time. I can wait.
Ps: I'm so glad you are here to explain things.
The last time I've tried to explain something it was the "post modernism" aesthetic and the one I was explaining (with an official definition and several examples from different arts) it to didn't want to understand, so I've wasted my time...
I did not ask for a Wikipedia link. I asked for an explanation.
How about NASA?
http://imagine.gsfc....ers/970603.html
Or Scientific American?
http://www.scientifi...ected-possible/
Not really. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fact-check things and provide other evidence. He never claimed to be an expert. He did acknowledge the work of experts with his evidence.
Calling him out on not being an expert on the physics of long-term vacuum exposure does not devalue the presented evidence.
You don't understand. David is studying physics. Therefore we're supposed to be physicists and be able to type all this stuff out. I suppose I could go to the links and copy and paste the abstracts. I'm not a physicist. I'm a musician. All I know is that bad s*** happens if you're without air at near absolute zero, and then you enter a thick atmosphere (atm pressure .85 at the surface) of ammonia and methane then impact the surface of a planet with a gravity of .85 g. The average surface temperature is -22 C. Now that's the average temperature, not the daytime high, not the temperature at the equator, but somewhere between the polar lows and the equatorial highs. This means that some days Shepard, if frozen, could have thawed, depending upon the weather. That would have been very bad.
Hence, ass pulls 'R us.
Now David is going to say I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe I don't, but I don't think he does either. All I see him do is scoff. He never offers an explanation. So I challenge David or "Bob from Accounting" to offer an explanation in layman's terms.
The last time I've tried to explain something it was the "post modernism" aesthetic and the one I was explaining (with an official definition and several examples from different arts) it to didn't want to understand, so I've wasted my time...
Well that was that guy.
Plus, a think a few of us want a precise reasoning of why you think the ending was good, or artistic (or both?). How do the plot holes fit in? Are they miniscule mistakes or do they serve to better the dramatic moment of the ending? How does the Synthetic vs Organic conflict as laid out by the Catalyst fit into every thing? What about the endings handling of central conflict, the antagonist, story structure, themes, etc?
It's rare for me to encounter an argument when someone admits they don't know what they're on about.
The first time playing through I thought the big twist at the ending would be that the Crucible was an elaborate trap of sorts built by the Reapers. Given that more than half of the game is built gathering forces for a conventional type of warfare while the Crucible is almost entirely ignored up until Thessia after it's introduction. That would have explained why next to nothing is known about it and how it was so conveniently found.
Understandable, the story was rather unfocused and the Crucible was poorly handled as well.
In corner #1: Shep's body in a punctured suit exposed to space vacuum for a long time
In corner #2: Shep's injured body in Citadel rubbles in breathable area
Which one has greater chance of survival & recovery in any form?
What breathable area? We don't know where the torso is or its condition. The kid's statements actually make the whole thing ridiculous. I know Bioware wants you to infer that Shepard is alive and found, that's a given, but the fact is based on what the kid says, s/he shouldn't be. And based upon what we see happen, s/he shouldn't be. Shepard gets hit by a blast at point blank range. The kid makes it clear that at the very least all tech will be damaged. How much, he doesn't say, but the Charon relay sure looks pretty banged up and it's tech and so are much of Shepard's innards. All synthetics will be targeted. The subject of much speculation for all as it relates to say, oh everyone that has tech inside them because that is synthetic stuff. To make matters worse, the Citadel is also in terrible shape from a blast that likely radiated out from where the kid's playroom was. It seems pretty clear that the area Shepard was in and ends up in would more than likely not have any atmosphere at all. All of this, and especially the damaged tech that was inserted inside Shepard to bring him/her back to life only makes sense if the torso is a pile of burnt mush. But it gasps, exactly once.
And sure, the Lazarus Project can be torn apart and said to be highly improbable if not impossible (science fiction allows for it to be possible), but there have been discussions by those with larger scientific minds than mine that have opened the door to possibility. And it was not an ending cliff hanger. We were shown and told what happened. It was also done well. As opposed to a narrative that said Shepard should die from what happened after and then an exposition that does not satisfyingly tell AND show us how s/he could live and that s/he does live. We understand one thing because that is what everything tells us will happen, but are shown another and then THE END. We have no appropriate context to make the two fit together even though we know BW was trying to be cute and ambiguous. It just does not work. It is not that we don't largely understand that the torso gasp can mean Shepard lives-it is that all leading up to it, as well as it gasping is a poor excuse for the end of Shepard's story. Treated like garbage with no discernible face-great way to say goodbye.
In corner #1: Shep's body in a punctured suit exposed to space vacuum for a long time
In corner #2: Shep's injured body in Citadel rubbles in breathable area
Which one has greater chance of survival & recovery in any form?
I'd say neither. But I've been told I'm occasionally a pessimist by my husband.
I can blindly accept the space magic in ME2 because I saw the results, Shepard walking around shooting things. I can't accept the magic in ME3 because when the game was over, all I had was the body, a smile and instructions to decide for myself whether or not someone found Shepard in time.
bla I play video games to have fun. I play video games with more then one ending to feel super happy when I see my character standing at the end of the game thinking about their future and those who didn't make it, and sad when they sacrifice them self because it had to be done.
If the only option is many ways of dying, all I think of is the many times I've had to watch family being buried. Downer man. Not fun.
It's rare for me to encounter an argument when someone admits they don't know what they're on about.
That's because they usually do David.
Also, there is a big difference between admitting to not knowing the specifics or fine details as one is not a professional or hobbyist in an activity, and admitting that one has complete ignorance of what is being discussed but still putting in their two cents anyway. Really, nobody except yourself has done the second one. And even then, you're demanding that one be an expert before being allowed to explain something, even if they defer to the science of other people who are experts.
That's because they usually do David.
Also, there is a big difference between admitting to not knowing the specifics or fine details as one is not a professional or hobbyist in an activity, and admitting that one has complete ignorance of what is being discussed but still putting in their two cents anyway. Really, nobody except yourself has done the second one. And even then, you're demanding that one be an expert before being allowed to explain something, even if they defer to the science of other people who are experts.
not only that but he was given direct quotes from these scientist etc.
Retour en haut
