476 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

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.

The retrofits are sloppy regardless of whether the narrative acknowledges it or not. What's the issue is where the blame falls. If the narrative acknowledges the retrofits as sloppy, BioWare intended for the retrofits to be sloppy, meaning the engineers are to blame.

 

If the narrative doesn't acknowledge the retrofits as sloppy, that means BioWare has made a design error, and that they are to blame.

 

Since the latter is true, the Normandy's sloppy retrofits are BioWare's fault, and the sooner we can make them understand that, the sooner they can design the ME4 protagonist's ship to make sense.

[Fixers0]

The retrofits are sloppy regardless of whether the narrative acknowledges it or not. What's the issue is where the blame falls. If the narrative acknowledges the retrofits as sloppy, BioWare intended for the retrofits to be sloppy, meaning the engineers are to blame.

 

You make an interesting statement. When something what is considerd sloppy in the real world but is of no consquence to the fictional world, is it still sloppy? In the purest form of literary analysis we disregard some real life logic in favour what the writer intended. If as you say the writer did not intened for the retrofits to be sloppy, then they aren't. Given there is no evidence inside the narrative to suggest the contrary, this is likely the case (If using literary analysis).

[Arcian]

You make an interesting statement. When something what is considerd sloppy in the real world but is of no consquence to the fictional world, is it still sloppy? In the purest form of literary analysis we disregard some real life logic in favour what the writer intended. If as you say the writer did not intened for the retrofits to be sloppy, then they aren't. Given there is no evidence inside the narrative to suggest the contrary, this is likely the case (If using literary analysis).

The sloppy retrofits haven't had consequences because the situations in which they would have consequences have yet to arise. That doesn't mean there are no flaws with the design. As far as intentions go, I can design a car with the intention of making it completely safe, but that on its own is no guarantee. I have to do some research to find out the best specifications for my car to be safe. Just calling it safe doesn't make it so, and I don't see why fictional cars should be given a free pass in this regard. Of course, it's unrealistic of us to demand thorough explanations for everything in the ME universe, but when the Normandy retrofits are presented as design choices meant to improve the safety of the Normandy, and they don't, well, then there's a problem.

[KaiserShep]

The game makes it clear that the sloppiness of the retrofits is on account of the reapers cutting the project short. If the Alliance was finished before the invasion, Samantha Traynor and others would likely have not been aboard the ship at all. As for safety, the only thing that really stands out is Traynor's mention of the removal of Cerberus tech, some of which we learned beforehand is comprised of bugs the Illusive Man placed aboard to keep an eye on the team. Anyway, this stuff is really trivial. Leave it to BSN to really pick apart the minutia of the Normandy's design, when the narrative itself doesn't really make a big deal about it.

[Han Shot First]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I prefer the ME3 Normandy over ME2's. I thought ME2's Normandy was way too brightly lit and sterile looking. I liked that ME3's Normandy looked more like a lived-in submarine.

[KaiserShep]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I prefer the ME3 Normandy over ME2's. I thought ME2's Normandy was way too brightly lit and sterile looking. I liked that ME3's Normandy looked more like a lived-in submarine.

 

So do I.

[Mordokai]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I prefer the ME3 Normandy over ME2's. I thought ME2's Normandy was way too brightly lit and sterile looking. I liked that ME3's Normandy looked more like a lived-in submarine.

 

I think it was tvtropes that mentioned that this was in fact the whole point. ME2 Normandy is basically a civilian design(I believe Joker mentions something to this effect, even if it concers leather seats) and as such, built with fewer military restrictions in place. Come ME3, Normandy is back in the Alliance's hands and they retrofit it to match the miliatary standards, thus, as you mentioned, the submarine feeling.

 

Tvtropes also elaborates this is on the account of, if ever neccesary, the crew would be used to minimal lighting and there wouldn't be panic in case of lights going out, in case of attack or something similar. Fridge logic, basically.

 

Don't ask me to go looking for the exact quote, the ME3 entry on tvtropes is huge. But I always found it interesting.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Wauw, an actual Reaper invasion.

 

Now, about attacking that Cerberus outpost commander...

 

Because how is Commander Shepard and the Normandy going to fight this without a superweapon? I know...

 

"You know a single ship could really get lost up there. Find a planet far far away where we could spend the rest of our lives in peace and happiness."

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think it was tvtropes that mentioned that this was in fact the whole point. ME2 Normandy is basically a civilian design(I believe Joker mentions something to this effect, even if it concers leather seats) and as such, built with fewer military restrictions in place. Come ME3, Normandy is back in the Alliance's hands and they retrofit it to match the miliatary standards, thus, as you mentioned, the submarine feeling.

 

Tvtropes also elaborates this is on the account of, if ever neccesary, the crew would be used to minimal lighting and there wouldn't be panic in case of lights going out, in case of attack or something similar. Fridge logic, basically.

 

Don't ask me to go looking for the exact quote, the ME3 entry on tvtropes is huge. But I always found it interesting.

 

I feel like the ME3 Normandy though has even more recreational features.

 

As for the lights I just keep thinking everyone's eyesight is going to suffer from working in such a dimly lit environment.

[Arcian]

The game makes it clear that the sloppiness of the retrofits is on account of the reapers cutting the project short. If the Alliance was finished before the invasion, Samantha Traynor and others would likely have not been aboard the ship at all. As for safety, the only thing that really stands out is Traynor's mention of the removal of Cerberus tech, some of which we learned beforehand is comprised of bugs the Illusive Man placed aboard to keep an eye on the team. Anyway, this stuff is really trivial. Leave it to BSN to really pick apart the minutia of the Normandy's design, when the narrative itself doesn't really make a big deal about it.

I'm not talking about the retrofits being incomplete, you're right about the Reapers cutting that short and that was intentional by the writers. I'm talking about the retrofits as a whole, the changes they made. I will refer you to the post that started the whole argument between me and the Greeting Doctor.

 

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. It's completely redundant. Same with the conference room. There was no point to moving it at all either, especially now that it's transparent glass instead of an entire room (which also could have functioned as a communications system. And the entire gate-guard concept is entirely pointless. BW definitely sacrificed military concepts (something which Drew K. admittedly was no better at, but he acknowledged it and at least tried to add some realism rather than SuperMac's fantasy comic book military)

 

Not sure what the alliance techs were thinking to move the armory down to the hangar level. I suppose they're morons though. Cortez is an idiot if he thinks that it's better to have the armory closer to the easiest point of infiltration and soft security, plus the rest of the crew has to go all the way down to the armory now if they need any kind of equipment.

 

Plus, now you have an entirely redundant and useless closed portion of the Normandy that used to be the armory. I wish Shepard hadn't turned over the Normandy to the alliance. I wish he made Joker run with it, and come and get him on Earth once the war reached Earth.

You see, he isn't wrong, he's just blaming the characters for the Normandy's retrofit design when the retrofit designs was BioWare's doing. They're the ones crafting this game, so they're the ones responsible for making unsound design decisions. Pinning that on the characters is a pretty stupid way of cutting BioWare undeserved slack for not doing what they were supposed to.

 

 

I feel like the ME3 Normandy though has even more recreational features.

 

As for the lights I just keep thinking everyone's eyesight is going to suffer from working in such a dimly lit environment.

The idea that low light conditions damage eyesight is a myth. It does strain the eyes and can lead to headaches if you're sensitive to it, but it's not going to harm their sight.

 

That said, it's easier to work in well-lit conditions, and we would have presumably seen better lighting if the retrofits had been completed.

[AlanC9]

I feel like the ME3 Normandy though has even more recreational features.

 

 

The ME2 Normandy's bar was DLC. Other than that I don't see a difference.

[AlanC9]

 

That said, it's easier to work in well-lit conditions, and we would have presumably seen better lighting if the retrofits had been completed.

 

 

I dunno. I prefer a relatively dim office environment unless I've got a lot of hardcopy to look at.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The idea that low light conditions damage eyesight is a myth. It does strain the eyes and can lead to headaches if you're sensitive to it, but it's not going to harm their sight.

 

That said, it's easier to work in well-lit conditions, and we would have presumably seen better lighting if the retrofits had been completed.

 

Oh my goddess, did I just learn something on BSN?

[Arcian]

Oh my goddess, did I just learn something on BSN?

[themikefest]

As for safety, the only thing that really stands out is Traynor's mention of the removal of Cerberus tech,

When does Traynor mention that? The only line that comes close to that is her mentioning "The ship is in line with Alliance regs now, and it has new top-of -line QEC's".

[themikefest]

The idea that low light conditions damage eyesight is a myth. It does strain the eyes and can lead to headaches if you're sensitive to it, but it's not going to harm their sight.

 

That said, it's easier to work in well-lit conditions, and we would have presumably seen better lighting if the retrofits had been completed.

Really? I live in my house with the lights very dim all the time with no strain on my eyes and get no headaches. I do get headaches  in brightly lit areas that put a strain on my eyes and if I don't wear prescrption glasses when its sunny outside, I get headaches.

 

When people come over for whatever reason, they complain I have my tv brightness too dim.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

This is senseless, but ok, here it goes. Again.

 

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.

 

Yes. Bioware wants us to believe that the alliance engineer's are competent people. They failed. No, it doesn't mean that the alliance engineers are meant to be incompetent, but that is how they end up being perceived. In the meta-sense of the game, with we being external, separated entities judging it as such, yes, this is the problem of poor research and design by the developers. I never denied this. But take a moment and make a thought experiment here. It's a stretch for you, I know. Place yourself in the game universe. You don't want to because that would mean I have a point, but try it: If you were in-universe (yes, it really does exist; to say otherwise is to undercut the story for your own ideology, which, as you have accused me of, is cherry picking, since you don't want to acknowledge an interpretation that questions your interpretation of 'BioWare is bad'), who would you blame? There are no writers within this universe, no external organ that dictates the lore and plot. As far as things go, who would be to blame? You happen to know such things as starship security and infiltration and basic design. The alliance Normandy looks like a shoddy piece of work. Who would you blame? Cerberus? They had a good thing going with it. Or the alliance? They tore the ship apart and rebuilt it with redundant, useless features and moved the armory to a lowly populated area of the vessel that is the easiest route of infiltration and boarding. The alliance for sure is to blame for this shoddy work. Thus, the alliance engineers, while not touted as such, have made a critical mistake, a design oversight that you and I, non-engineers have seen. This leads me to question the true level of capability of alliance engineers, and the fact that the alliance doesn't see this strikes me as concerning. The alliance has a low-standard if it allows such glaring security oversights. Therefor, in-universe, since I'm placing myself vicariously into the context of the game, the blame is with the alliance, since it would be silly to blame a meta-physical being called 'The BioWare' for all the problems.

 

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.

 

 

Is it? I'm glad to see that you came to that conclusion for me. Honestly, I think my original division of blame was appropriate and I'm going to stick with it.

 

Well, yes, it would actually be rather simple to logically explain away all of this. It's a lot easier than just calling the writers bad at every opportunity or saying that every problem is illogical. I can come up with rational explanations that you can't or won't.

 

A normal person would reason that there was some kind of reserve force that was outside the scope of engagement, waiting for the call to arrive to reinforce a position. That's the position I'd take. If there's a logical explanation, why ignore it? Because I'm not bashing the writers at every opportunity? Rather, I think that you are intentionally closing yourself off from any kind of reason that interferes with nigh vitriolic hatred. I'm sorry I can think outside the box and you can't. On a meta-scale, yes, the writers were lazy. In-universe, that excuse has less range than than a brick thrown by a two-year-old.

 

And yes, yes you can justify a logical/technical error in-universe and out. Out of universe, it was writer laziness. In-universe, it was alliance incompetence. There, I just justified it. There is not argument to moderation; that's a fallacious fallacy-fallacy (since 1) it's assuming a point is wrong just because of a fallacy induced, and 2) was never fallacious to begin with). There is very much room to assign blame to their proper course, and I do so in-universe and out. I'm not buying into your fantasy.

 

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.

 

Well, I argue with you for starters. I've seen Psychevore, Dreamgazer, and Alan all denounce you as unwilling to lose but unable to win to a point where argument is a frustration. I can see why.

 

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.

 

I'm not sticking my head in the sand or being a yes-man to BW. There are very, exceedingly few people who actually do that in fact. I love Mass Effect as well, and I'd like to see a return to form from BW myself. Justifying something in universe is not being a yes-man. It's not saying 'Oh BW is automatically fantastic at everything they do because they're BW!' And really, who are you to judge people for holding that opinion? You seem to have the same problem as many of the anti-anti-enders who deride the oppositions opinion and interpretation as worthless and stupid, and tout yours as if it's better because it 'shows them BW bastards what-for!'.

 

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.

 

 

That's certainly not true in the slightest. In-universe is very much its own world. You seem to be unwilling to grasp that the universe is its own setting, that, while created by external developers, isn't a part of our universe. If something goes wrong with the narrative or the lore or the story, out-of-universe, yes, the writers are responsible for said problems. In-universe on the other hand, that explanation simply doesn't work. You don't seem to want to be able to interpret this that way since it is an effective counter-argument.

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't support both sides of the argument. I'm just calling out the 'with-me-or-against-me' antics that you've been driving and assessing how they aren't true.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

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.

 

 

 

That's hardly true at all. That defeats the entire concept of character analysis and personality constructs, and denying that characters, organizations, entire universes, aren't their own systems worth looking at or studying. You're basically denying the entire concept of vicarious narrative positioning by saying that you can't put yourself in-universe and observe it from within, only from outside. That's a pretty dismissive interpretation of narrative, and I believe it's poised so that you can throw it at the writers for doing a 'bad job'.

 

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

 

That's entirely dismissive of an entire universe then. I doubt you'd disagree with me at all if this was any other topic. You think this way because you want to blame the writers for your own emotional distress. As I said, it negates the concept of vicarious positioning in the story. It's a shallow point and judgement to say that all stories are just the person making them.

 

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.

 

That only works out-of-universe. Their job is to make the story work. Externally, that is their fault when it fails. Internally, something must be explained by a valid in-universe source. You can't blame 'the writers' for flaws that happen when inflecting into the story (vicarious positioning). They have to have an internal cause. It's like the people who blame 'god' for some problems and issues that seem inherent in humanity.

 

That is some impressive cherry picking right there.

 

Not really. Their out-of-universe failure to do proper research translates to poor engineering in-universe. An out-of-universe explanation does not suffice for an in-universe flaw internally.

 

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.

 

If the problem didn't exist in-universe, then you couldn't blame the writers for the problem not existing. Since you blame the writers for a problem that can't logically exist, then it means that the problem must indeed exist in-universe. And if the characters don't recognize that in-universe, then they're in-fact inept at recognizing the problem, whether the narrative chooses to address the problem or not.

 

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

 

It can't be an external logical error in an internal setting. It has to have an in-universe explanation. If you cannot provide one, that's when the writers can be blamed for the destruction of verisimilitude. Since it can be explained away in-universe (if you bother to think hard enough) about it, then it's not a major issue for which all blame can be placed upon the writers shoulders.

 

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

 

 

It's more logical than saying that an in-universe issue can be explained in-universe by the inept creator gods of the franchise.

 

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

 

I want to understand why you think everything is a problem with BW and that things can't be explained away by in-universe solutions since they have to be taken to be leveled at BW.

 

Honestly, most of the blame BW gets is very largely undeserved.

 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

You see, he isn't wrong, he's just blaming the characters for the Normandy's retrofit design when the retrofit designs was BioWare's doing. They're the ones crafting this game, so they're the ones responsible for making unsound design decisions. Pinning that on the characters is a pretty stupid way of cutting BioWare undeserved slack for not doing what they were supposed to.

 

In-universe, it is the characters fault for a bad re-design. You seem to be adamant and stubborn that the concept of vicarious positioning doesn't exist. I think you're doing it in an effort to lay a lot of undeserved blame on BioWare for not doing what you wanted them to.

[KaiserShep]

Plans or designs that we the audience may perceive to be bad are often considered good from the viewpoint of the characters themselves. Anderson's battle plan for getting Shepard to the beam doesn't seem like a particularly good one, yet everyone cheers it on like it's a great strategy.

[Arcian]

I want to understand why you think everything is a problem with BW and that things can't be explained away by in-universe solutions since they have to be taken to be leveled at BW.

Because making games is their job, and if they do a half-assed job, they should be accountable for it instead of having their consumers come up with stupid in-game justifications to cover their ass. If an actor acts badly, I don't "position myself in the universe" and try to justify his wooden acting as part of his character's personality. A bad actor, bad director or bad producer will get criticized for not doing a good movie and therefore a good job. Why in the hell should game developers be treated any differently?

 

Honestly, most of the blame BW gets is very largely undeserved.

Let's flip it around then: what have they done to deserve praise?

 

In-universe, it is the characters fault for a bad re-design. You seem to be adamant and stubborn that the concept of vicarious positioning doesn't exist. I think you're doing it in an effort to lay a lot of undeserved blame on BioWare for not doing what you wanted them to.

I'm not angry at BioWare for not doing what I wanted them to, I'm angry because they didn't do what THEY said they were going to do. It's all the lies, the deceitful marketing talk from Casey and Super MAC, their complete absence of integrity and the extremely nonchalant manner in which they responded to the ending controversy. BioWare doesn't respect its products, its staff or its consumers. So tell me, why should I respect BioWare?

 

Plans or designs that we the audience may perceive to be bad are often considered good from the viewpoint of the characters themselves. Anderson's battle plan for getting Shepard to the beam doesn't seem like a particularly good one, yet everyone cheers it on like it's a great strategy.

I believe I said this earlier, but a story (and by extension, its characters) are only as smart as its writers.

[KaiserShep]

When does Traynor mention that? The only line that comes close to that is her mentioning "The ship is in line with Alliance regs now, and it has new top-of -line QEC's".

 

This dialogue occurs upon first meeting Traynor outside Shepard's cabin, but will only be said if you choose "Report, Officer." instead of "It's OK."

[themikefest]

This dialogue occurs upon first meeting Traynor outside Shepard's cabin, but will only be said if you choose "Report, Officer." instead of "It's OK."

She sure does say that. Its been a long time since I chose that option.

[KaiserShep]

I like the "short" responses to first meeting the characters, then progressing to friendliness from that point onward.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Plans or designs that we the audience may perceive to be bad are often considered good from the viewpoint of the characters themselves. Anderson's battle plan for getting Shepard to the beam doesn't seem like a particularly good one, yet everyone cheers it on like it's a great strategy.

 

In-universe, that leads me to a conclusion that everyone in the alliance (and apparently all the non-Salarian forces) are morons. There's a reason I tend to stick with Cerberus and the Salarians. Granted, they never explain how the hell all the other aliens and pirates and miscellaneous forces get into position. Or why they waste their time attacking the Reaper when they very easily could have moved past it en masse to get to the beam. Without the big-ass Reaper protecting it noticing.