476 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

It's apparently only stocked with dextro-friendly liquor.

"Dextro-friendly" implies it's a levo-liquor that a dextro can drink. Otherwise they would have plainly stated it was dextro liquor.

[Arcian]

And narratively, that problem goes with the alliance. Otherwise, you'd have to say that everything wrong with (or right with) everybody is to blame on the writers. While that is true in a meta-sense, in-universe, it doesn't follow logically that the alliance would have some omnipotent, omniscient writer to blame when their actions and creations are flawed.

But they're not flawed because the Alliance have inept engineers, they're flawed because the writers didn't do their research.

 

There is a difference between out of character stupidity (which is the writer's fault) and in-character stupidity (which is the character's fault). The retrofitted Normandy's design falls squarely in the former, because we have no reason to believe the Alliance's engineers are stupid. Quite the contrary.

[Vortex13]

One of the things I disliked about the ME series as it went on, was how humanity; but mostly Cerberus; could do the same things that all of these 1,000 year + spacefaring civilizations could, only better.

 

Cerberus could figure out how to make advanced medical care that was many times more effective at healing Turians than the combined knowledge of the rest of the galaxy, and yet they are a human supremacist group. The space age equivalent of the KKK is able to reverse death (the Lazarus Project), when no one else could. A human only organization is able to dig up information vital to the location of the Shadow Broker, despite the other's use of multiple species and diverse individuals as agents; and the profession existing for longer than humanity have been able to cross the Atlantic on wooden ships let alone achieve interstellar travel. Etc.

 

Humans have always been the Mary Sues of numerous works of fiction, but its doubly annoying when its the racist/supremacist humans that are beating the aliens at their own games.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

But they're not flawed because the Alliance have inept engineers, they're flawed because the writers didn't do their research.
 
There is a difference between out of character stupidity (which is the writer's fault) and in-character stupidity (which is the character's fault). The retrofitted Normandy's design falls squarely in the former, because we have no reason to believe the Alliance's engineers are stupid. Quite the contrary.

As I said, that's not a logical argument. In-universe you can't blame a problem that happens in-universe solely on what happens outside of it, then claim that there is no flaw in-universe. The logical conclusion is that, yes the alliance engineers made a technological blunder with how they redesigned the Normandy. It's poor construction in-universe and the only way to blame it, in-universe, is to say that the (re)-builders were inept.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

That was their practical purpose, yes, but they did scan for weapons before anyone entered into the designated diplomatic areas. That's something.

you have to wonder what good that would do on that single portion of the ship. It's insular, so any assassin would have no means of escape past the main entrance, and it's damn inefficient to scan that particular area for weapons. A determined assassin, especially if on the Normandy with his prey, has many other options available. There's no living space or quarters in the war room, so it's not like they could stay in that part of the ship. In-universe, I chalk it up as a scanner for listening devices. That might be the best explanation for it. Otherwise, it's a redundant feature, and another engineering blunder for the alliance.

[Wulfram]

The War room is completely unnecessary. You already have a war-room; it's called the CIC. That's what the CIC is supposed to function as.

 

The war room is basically a flag bridge, which makes some sense because IIRC Anderson was planning to have the Normandy as his flag ship.  It'd enable him to do his admiralling without stepping on the toes of the ship's captain.

 

I mean, it's not a very efficient use of space on a ship that size, but the Normandy SR2 has always been absurdly spacious.

[Dubozz]

Well.. Cerberus was ok in ME1 and even ME2 imo. Agree about ME3, it was a disaster. Also I wouldn't go that far to call it "The worst thing to happen to the entire Mass Effect Franchise" if you know what I mean.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The war room is basically a flag bridge, which makes some sense because IIRC Anderson was planning to have the Normandy as his flag ship.  It'd enable him to do his admiralling without stepping on the toes of the ship's captain.

 

I mean, it's not a very efficient use of space on a ship that size, but the Normandy SR2 has always been absurdly spacious.

 

It doesn't work well as a flag bridge either, considering that the flagship command center is still typically commanded by the flag officer. He is the one who dictates course and actions within the battle. As well, Anderscum is wasting the Normandy by making it a flagship, considering that he'd have a fleet with him in support. Normandy is wasted on any mission that involves it participating in a fleet action, especially as a Command ship.

[Arcian]

As I said, that's not a logical argument. In-universe you can't blame a problem that happens in-universe solely on what happens outside of it, then claim that there is no flaw in-universe. The logical conclusion is that, yes the alliance engineers made a technological blunder with how they redesigned the Normandy. It's poor construction in-universe and the only way to blame it, in-universe, is to say that the (re)-builders were inept.

The problem here is that you insist on sanctioning the errors and mistakes in BioWare's writing. The Alliance's engineers are not supposed to be inept. They would not be given responsibility for the Normandy retrofits if they were inept, the same way doctors in the Huerta Memorial Hospital would not be given responsibility for patients if they lack the knowledge of how to treat them. When characters perform mistakes or errors they are not supposed to perform (and I really mean not supposed to; a stupid character written to be stupid is performing exactly as intended), that is a writing error and the fault belongs with the writer. Claiming that crappy writing is the characters fault is giving the crappy writer a pass.

[ImaginaryMatter]

What to do we do though when we have in-universe explanations that contradict each other? From the outside looking in we can say that the Normandy redesign makes very little sense and everyone involved needs to go back to school or be fired (or round up for the firing squad?), but on the other hand does any one in universe ever acknowledge the redesign to be terrible? I don't recall much of anything being said but I think the redesign generally went over positively with everyone involved in the game.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The problem here is that you insist on sanctioning the errors and mistakes in BioWare's writing. The Alliance's engineers are not supposed to be inept. They would not be given responsibility for the Normandy retrofits if they were inept, the same way doctors in the Huerta Memorial Hospital would not be given responsibility for patients if they lack the knowledge of how to treat them. When characters perform mistakes or errors they are not supposed to perform (and I really mean not supposed to; a stupid character written to be stupid is performing exactly as intended), that is a writing error and the fault belongs with the writer. Claiming that crappy writing is the characters fault is giving the crappy writer a pass.

 

Crappy writing is the fault of the writers. I never said it wasn't. That said, in-universe, the characters don't have that excuse. That's the point you're missing.

 

Thus, the characters are inept and incompetent engineers. In-universe, it is the characters fault.

 

That's all that can be said. The ending, from a meta-perspective, is an ideologically thematic and narrative mess. In game, it can't be explained away as that.

[KaiserShep]

"Dextro-friendly" implies it's a levo-liquor that a dextro can drink. Otherwise they would have plainly stated it was dextro liquor.

While I wasn't being serious, thanks for clarifying.

[Arcian]

Crappy writing is the fault of the writers. I never said it wasn't. That said, in-universe, the characters don't have that excuse. That's the point you're missing.

 

Thus, the characters are inept and incompetent engineers. In-universe, it is the characters fault.

 

That's all that can be said. The ending, from a meta-perspective, is an ideologically thematic and narrative mess. In game, it can't be explained away as that.

 

The only point I've been missing is that everything you've said so far strongly implies you are eagerly handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards to BioWare's writing department whenever you get the opportunity. It's like you don't even care that the story is rife with bad writing, you take it all seriously without batting an eye.

 

Why accept the retarded engineers instead of saying "This is f**king stupid and shouldn't be in the game"? By not doing the latter, you are giving BioWare's writing mistakes a free pass. They don't deserve a free pass, they deserve a figurative kick in the ass for not doing their research about proper ship design.

 

I have to be completely honest with you here, I'm seriously concerned the next thing coming out of your mouth is going to be that you take the clusterf**k of a plot in Deception seriously as well.

[KaiserShep]

Proper ship design never really mattered in Mass Effect anyway. Maybe warships in space make no sense at all. Perhaps the inside of the Normandy should look more like the inside of the space shuttle (admittedly I would LOVE that).

[ImaginaryMatter]

Proper ship design never really mattered in Mass Effect anyway. Maybe warships in space make no sense at all. Perhaps the inside of the Normandy should look more like the inside of the space shuttle (admittedly I would LOVE that).

 

I always thought it would have been cool if the artificial gravity was turned off during combat so that power could be directed towards shields, weapons, and mobility.

[Arcian]

I always thought it would have been cool if the artificial gravity was turned off during combat so that power could be directed towards shields, weapons, and mobility.

As a matter of fact...

 

http://masseffect.wi..._Considerations
 

Warships normally turn off their a-grav systems during combat, reducing heat generated by systems and increasing combat endurance. To provide a point of reference for navigating in zero-gee, floors are painted a different color from the walls and ceiling.

[Charcolt]

Now I'm kind of upset that there weren't any big zero gravity moments in the games. Boarding a ship with no/variable gravity (like the ME2 Reaper) or fighting outside of a ship would have been extremely cool

[ImaginaryMatter]

As a matter of fact...

 

http://masseffect.wi..._Considerations

 

Oh. I guess that's what I get for not reading my Codex.

 

Still would have been fun to see (or better yet, play) that in game.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

 

 

The only point I've been missing is that everything you've said so far strongly implies you are eagerly handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards to BioWare's writing department whenever you get the opportunity. It's like you don't even care that the story is rife with bad writing, you take it all seriously without batting an eye.

 

Why accept the retarded engineers instead of saying "This is f**king stupid and shouldn't be in the game"? By not doing the latter, you are giving BioWare's writing mistakes a free pass. They don't deserve a free pass, they deserve a figurative kick in the ass for not doing their research about proper ship design.

 

I have to be completely honest with you here, I'm seriously concerned the next thing coming out of your mouth is going to be that you take the clusterf**k of a plot in Deception seriously as well.

 

 

You don't know how to argue at all it seems. You're getting mad at me because I don't give every ounce of blame in-universe and out to BW. There's a reason people here don't argue with you or take you seriously it seems. Anything that isn't a scathing remark on BW makes you an apologist who eats all the crap that comes out of their mouth. That's just sad.

 

You don't seem to be capable or willing to discuss the different contexts of in-universe flaws vs. meta-flaws. So I'm not willing to discuss them with you.

[Arcian]

 

You don't know how to argue at all it seems.

It's pretty difficult to argue with someone who just wants to bury his head in the sand regarding the glaring invalidity of the Normandy's retrofit design.

 

You're getting mad at me because I don't give every ounce of blame in-universe and out to BW.

You don't seem to give ANY blame to BioWare.

 

There's a reason people here don't argue with you or take you seriously it seems.

I have never gotten the feeling people have avoided to argue with me, or that they don't take me seriously. On the contrary, I find that some people are a little bit too eager to argue with me and that they take me more seriously than they should.

 

Anything that isn't a scathing remark on BW makes you an apologist who eats all the crap that comes out of their mouth. That's just sad.

Within the context of this discussion, my only concern is that you don't have a scathing remark against their failure or inability to research proper ship design. That's the problem. You believe the notion of inept engineers working on the Normandy retrofits is acceptable within the story. I take offense to that. because that notion makes no sense, and nonsense has no place in a narrative (unless it is for comedic effect). I believe Mass Effect 3 deserved better.

 

You don't seem to be capable or willing to discuss the different contexts of in-universe flaws vs. meta-flaws. So I'm not willing to discuss them with you.

They are not in-universe flaws. The Normandy retrofits weren't wildly inefficient because the engineers were written to be complete retards, they were wildly inefficient because the designers and writers didn't research proper ship design. For some reason, you have a strong aversion to accepting this fact. Of course this leads me to assume you're a BioWare apologist who refuses to give them their due criticism.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

It's pretty difficult to argue with someone who just wants to bury his head in the sand regarding the glaring invalidity of the Normandy's retrofit design.

 

By saying that in-universe, by blaming the alliance engineers for bad designs, I'm ignoring the glaring problem of the bad design of the Normandy and sticking my head in the sand? Yeah, we'll see who's really ignorant, since I apparently don't hate BW enough for you...

 

You don't seem to give ANY blame to BioWare.

 

I've already said I do give BW their share of the blame. Just because I'm not ranting and raving about it like you does not make it any less so, nor does your ranting and raving tantrum actually indicate accuracy behind your assessment or claims.

 

I have never gotten the feeling people have avoided to argue with me, or that they don't take me seriously. On the contrary, I find that some people are a little bit too eager to argue with me and that they take me more seriously than they should.

 

I see it a lot. And the reason people argue with you, I suppose, is because of how incredulous your points usually sound. You hate the ending: I get it. I don't like it much either. But you don't need to run around and whack the 'I'm right, you're stupid' stick because people say and think otherwise.

 

Within the context of this discussion, my only concern is that you don't have a scathing remark against their failure or inability to research proper ship design. That's the problem. You believe the notion of inept engineers working on the Normandy retrofits is acceptable within the story. I take offense to that. because that notion makes no sense, and nonsense has no place in a narrative (unless it is for comedic effect). I believe Mass Effect 3 deserved better.

 

Well, that's the only sense that can be added to the game. What, is it some kind of miracle universe where bad ship design isn't somehow bad ship design? If I was on the Normandy in the ME universe, would I somehow have to blame some metaphysical beings called 'the writers at BW' for all the poor decisions in the game?

 

Your point is nonsense. I don't care how much offense you take from it. The alliance has inept engineers. That it deems such engineers acceptable makes themselves inept. 

 

They are not in-universe flaws. The Normandy retrofits weren't wildly inefficient because the engineers were written to be complete retards, they were wildly inefficient because the designers and writers didn't research proper ship design. For some reason, you have a strong aversion to accepting this fact. Of course this leads me to assume you're a BioWare apologist who refuses to give them their due criticism.

 

As I said, you're the guy that's ranting and raving and getting belligerent at anyone not on your side.

 

I'll try, more slowly this time, and with a bigger font:

 

I don't think you have a capable grasp of the idea of 'in-universe'.

 

The writers don't exist 'in-universe'.

 

Therefore, they cannot be blamed 'in-universe'.

 

However, even though the writers don't exist 'in-universe' the transparency of their research into starship utility does exist 'in-universe'.

 

I'll repeat: the problems exist 'in-universe', but the writers don't exist 'in-universe'.

 

Therefore, the problem has to have an 'in-universe' solution.

 

The answer? Bad engineering.

 

Bad engineering comes from bad engineers.

 

It was the alliance that made the bad engineering.

 

Therefore, the alliance engineers are bad engineers.

 

Do you understand?

[KaiserShep]

The problem with arguments about "bad engineering" is that the story does not really reflect this in any way whatsoever, so it only comes down to what we see as the player, but it isn't what any of the characters ever express, with the sole exception of Rear Admiral Mikhailovich if you allow him to inspect the SR-1. If we want to get really hardcore with our understanding of how a spaceship should look, every version of the Normandy would probably be seen as unconvincing crap. The USS Enterprise isn't going to win any prizes if you want to argue on practical design. In any case, we don't have Shepard struggling or have issues with the ship because of the Alliance's shoddy work. The ship functions. There's never a case where these "inefficiencies" somehow impede upon the Commander or the other crewmembers' ability to do their jobs. In fact, the only time any issue with the ship itself ever comes up, it's with the Cerberus-built Normandy, and how seemingly basic things are lacking due to design oversight, like the FBA couplings and the thermal pipe. The rest are just trivial superficial stuff that is best ignored, just like how I ignore the fact that the door to the elevator in ME-2 retracts into a housing that could not possibly fit it. That the layout of the decks may not be up to the player's standard doesn't really matter, because it doesn't seem to matter to anyone in-universe anyway.

 

As another example of design, let's look at the skycar. I mean, who designed this crap? What is with that weird outrigger thingamabob sticking out the right side? That I think this weird, asymmetrical design would make for a pretty crappy vehicle doesn't seem to matter within the game universe, because everyone uses it and they all seem to get by without any problems whatsoever.

 

Well, that's the only sense that can be added to the game. What, is it some kind of miracle universe where bad ship design isn't somehow bad ship design? If I was on the Normandy in the ME universe, would I somehow have to blame some metaphysical beings called 'the writers at BW' for all the poor decisions in the game?

 

Problem is, the player has no choice in whether or not Shepard disapproves of the layout. If you explore all of the dialogue with Cortez, he/she can only express approval of the where the armory was placed. Now, is this a matter of bad ship design, Shepard's ineptitude when it comes to ship design, or the writers not meeting a certain standard for what good ship design actually is?

[Arcian]

By saying that in-universe, by blaming the alliance engineers for bad designs, I'm ignoring the glaring problem of the bad design of the Normandy and sticking my head in the sand? Yeah, we'll see who's really ignorant, since I apparently don't hate BW enough for you...

BioWare wants us to believe the Alliance's engineers are competent people. They've failed. That does not mean the Alliance engineers are supposed to be incompetent. They weren't written to be incompetent. The only reason they appear incompetent is because BioWare didn't do their research. Ergo, the bad design of the Normandy retrofits is BioWare's fault, not the engineers. The only time we can believe that the engineers are incompetent and blame them for the retrofit designs is if Shepard or another character is given the opportunity to criticize the retrofit designs, implying that the engineers actually made a crap job. This never happens. This is because their apparent ineptitude wasn't a design choice, meaning it's not an "in-universe" problem, meaning ALL of the blame belongs to BioWare.

 

I've already said I do give BW their share of the blame. Just because I'm not ranting and raving about it like you does not make it any less so, nor does your ranting and raving tantrum actually indicate accuracy behind your assessment or claims.

Their share is significantly larger than that, and you know it.

 

Let me put it this way. In ME4, the protagonist is thousands of light years away from Earth when he contacts his superiors, who have their HQ on Earth, to say he needs backup. Normally, the great distance between the two locations would suggest backup is a long time away. However, not five seconds after the protagonist has hung up, the backup arrives in a bunch of shuttles. Without changing scenes or anything. There is no explanation for why they arrived this fast.

 

A normal person would say "It's impossible that they could get here so fast."

You, on the other hand, say "Well, they obviously teleported or had an FTL drive that can go thousands of light years per second."

 

You are justifying a logical error by assigning to it a no more logical explanation of your invention. You can't point out a logical error and at the same time try to explain it. That's trying to eat the cake and have it at the same time. It's an argument to moderation. You can either pick a side or don't pick one at all, but you can't pick both sides. By "sharing" the blame between BioWare and their characters, that's exactly what you are doing.

 

I see it a lot. And the reason people argue with you, I suppose, is because of how incredulous your points usually sound.

Don't backtrack and tell me people argue with me right after you've said people don't argue with me. Make up your mind.

 

But you don't need to run around and whack the 'I'm right, you're stupid' stick because people say and think otherwise.

Of course I don't need to. I could do like some other people and just stick my head in the sand whenever reality becomes to scary for me. I don't, because I love Mass Effect and because I want BioWare to get their sh!t together and make the next Mass Effect worthy of the Mass Effect name. They won't be able to do that with a bunch of Yes Men A-OKing all their bad design decisions by justifying them with in-universe explanations. That line of thinking is what birthed the abomination that is the Indoctrination Theory.

 

Your point is nonsense. I don't care how much offense you take from it. The alliance has inept engineers. That it deems such engineers acceptable makes themselves inept.

The only way the engineers can be inept is if BioWare deliberately writes them to be and lampshades the fact within the story. This never happens. If the engineers are inept as a result of BioWare's mistakes, then their ineptitude is BioWare's ineptitude, and you have to blame BioWare for it.

 

A narrative isn't the real world. Everything that happens in a narrative is the responsibility of its creators. If the narrative is broken, it's because the writers broke it, not the characters. This is a fact you seem unwilling or unable to grasp.

 

As I said, you're the guy that's ranting and raving and getting belligerent at anyone not on your side.

Funny coming from someone who sits on the fence and wants to partially support both sides of the argument to avoid having to deal with opposition.

[Arcian]

 

I'll try, more slowly this time, and with a bigger font:

 

I don't think you have a capable grasp of the idea of 'in-universe'.

On the contrary, I believe you're the one who is having problems grasping things here. 

 

There is no "in-universe". It's just an illusion meant to suspend your disbelief. What characters say or do, they don't do of their own volition, but the deliberate planning of their writers. If the character says or does something it's not supposed to, it's because the writers messed up, not because the character made a blunder. A character can only be blamed for a blunder if he was intended to make the blunder.

 

The writers don't exist 'in-universe'.

The "in-universe" doesn't actually exist, so the only thing that actually exists are the writers.

 

Therefore, they cannot be blamed 'in-universe'.

On the contrary, they are responsible for everything that happens "in-universe". Their job is literally to make the "in-universe" behave as intended. When it doesn't, that means they've done a mistake.

 

However, even though the writers don't exist 'in-universe' the transparency of their research into starship utility does exist 'in-universe'.

That is some impressive cherry picking right there.

 

I'll repeat: the problems exist 'in-universe', but the writers don't exist 'in-universe'.

The problems don't exist "in-universe", otherwise characters would point them out. The fact that the characters don't point them out is another problem. Chalking it all up to character stupidity is a cop out.

 

Therefore, the problem has to have an 'in-universe' solution.

"It can't be a logical error because BioWare doesn't exist to make a logical error, doi."

 

The answer? Bad engineering.

 

Bad engineering comes from bad engineers.

 

It was the alliance that made the bad engineering.

 

Therefore, the alliance engineers are bad engineers.

That was the most impressive display of mental gymnastics I have ever seen. No, seriously, I'm not even mad, that was amazing.

 

Do you understand?

I'm starting to understand that maybe you don't want to understand. That's okay.

[Fixers0]

Depending on the methods one uses to analyse fiction, both stances can be considerd valid; If one treats the fictionial world as merely as a creation by the writers, then obviously the cause of the supposedly bad engineering lies with the writers. On the other hand, If you treat the fictional world as real and thus analyse it as a first hand observation, then the cause of the supposedly bad engineer lies with the engineers themselfs. 

 

Keep in mind though that we're talking about a fictional universe in which we only have a superficial understanding of it's workings. A problem in the real world might therefore not be a problem in the fictional world. As mentioned earlier, if the refit of the Normandy was such a sloppy work than the narrative should have made it clear by itself. Not that there aren't genuinly mindbogling cases, such how EDI was able to fool Alliance engineers because it pretended to be a VI.