103 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

That in and of itself sounds like an exaggeration, not to mention impossible, and Shepard doesn't necessarily trust Jacob. But yeah.

 He has no reason to exaggerate.

[ThomasBlaine]

 He has no reason to exaggerate.

 

No, but the statement could easily be taken as such. No matter what you'd been up to, if you came out of a coma fit for combat and some soldier told you that you were just "meat and tubes" when he first saw you, you'd assume that he was either exaggerating, simply had no idea what he was talking about or that you'd at least been relatively intact under the "meat". The only reason I gave that statement the slightest credit when first playing ME2 was the opening scene where we really see Shepard's crushed skeleton and desiccated heart. Which Shepard obviously didn't get to see for him/herself.

 

The logs around the base make it clear that Shepard was very badly damaged and beyond saving by conventional medicine, but that could mean anything and no specifics are mentioned.

[JohnDoe60]

Actually, if you want to get that scientific about it, people come back from technical, medical death all the time. But I know what you mean, so I'm just being silly here.

 

Anyway, you're wrong. The cutscene shows that Shepard's heart stopped beating entirely and either dried up or hardened. Shepard's blood not only stopped flowing, but the cells became encrusted to the sides of the blood vessels. The video in ME3 has the technician tell TIM that Shepard is "brain dead." This is ignoring the atmospheric reentry and slamming into a planet, by the way. Shepard died.

 

There is something called Lazarus Syndrome, but those people revived shortly after being declared dead. With all that happened before Shepard even started to be revived, even only counting what Liara tells us and ignoring what the books explain since they are not in the game, the extreme hypothermia idea doesn't work here.

 

As for your last paragraph, that's why it's such a failure. Without making it matter to the story, it's just melodrama and players notice that it was just a way to get them emotionally involved. And personally, the opening scene worked. However all of that emotional involvement was destroyed by Shepard's immediate return (the same is true of the Normandy) and by Shepard and everyone but Tali barely noticing.

The goal post for when someone is considered dead keeps changing as medical science evolves. At one time it was the cessation of breathing, then it was when the heart stops, currently it is brain-dead... Cerberus appears to have moved the goalpost once again by figuring out how to restore normal brain function.

 

The shriveled heart and dried blood is some of the damage they needed to repair.

 

As for its failure or not - I guess that depends on whether you think it is there as an important part of the story or simply a device to hook you with. If you believe it was important (in spite of it not really mattering, they could have had Shepard working with Cerberus simply because the Council didn't believe in the Reapers) then it was a failure; if you believe the latter then it was very effective.

 

The atmospheric reentry thing is a bit of a problem, but then do we know that was what happened? We see what appears to be a reentry, but does anyone state that was the case or could the Shadowbroker's team have scooped Shepard's body into a stasis pod before it burned up in the atmosphere?

 

Personally, I gloss over that bit of ME2 by considering Aria's statement that the supposed death was down played by the Alliance (her response to Shepard's, `one scan and down to business', comment)... if there wasn't a big heroes funeral then maybe lots don't even know what happened. Ya, it's a stretch.

 

[edit: misspelling]

[Little Princess Peach]

lol, I cant help it if  I want my FemShep and Liara to have a happy ending...they both deserver it

I say leave it alone bioware already messed up shepards story I feel sorry for the new sucker thats pulled into the new games

[themikefest]

No, but the statement could easily be taken as such. No matter what you'd been up to, if you came out of a coma fit for combat and some soldier told you that you were just "meat and tubes" when he first saw you, you'd assume that he was either exaggerating, simply had no idea what he was talking about or that you'd at least been relatively intact under the "meat". The only reason I gave that statement the slightest credit when first playing ME2 was the opening scene where we really see Shepard's crushed skeleton and desiccated heart. Which Shepard obviously didn't get to see for him/herself.

 

The logs around the base make it clear that Shepard was very badly damaged and beyond saving by conventional medicine, but that could mean anything and no specifics are mentioned.

Like I said. He had no reason to exaggerate. If he told me that, I would look at it as the best way he would describe what he saw. Someone else may use different words to  descirbe what he/she saw. Heck. I probably say something similiar to Shepard.

[ThomasBlaine]

Like I said. He had no reason to exaggerate. If he told me that, I would look at it as the best way he would describe what he saw. Someone else may use different words to  descirbe what he/she saw. Heck. I probably say something similiar to Shepard.

 

Ah, you're right. Turns out that if you ask in his very first conversation, Jacob makes it pretty clear that Shepard was destroyed along with the Normandy and thoroughly dead. In the light of that, his later "meat and tubes" comment obviously wouldn't seem like an exaggeration.

[Natureguy85]

 He has no reason to exaggerate.

 

No, but the statement could easily be taken as such. No matter what you'd been up to, if you came out of a coma fit for combat and some soldier told you that you were just "meat and tubes" when he first saw you, you'd assume that he was either exaggerating, simply had no idea what he was talking about or that you'd at least been relatively intact under the "meat". The only reason I gave that statement the slightest credit when first playing ME2 was the opening scene where we really see Shepard's crushed skeleton and desiccated heart. Which Shepard obviously didn't get to see for him/herself.

 

The logs around the base make it clear that Shepard was very badly damaged and beyond saving by conventional medicine, but that could mean anything and no specifics are mentioned.

 

It's not an exaggeration; it's a simple, non-technical explanation from an outside observer that has nothing to do with Project Lazarus itself. Jacob is just a security guard. As someone who has worked in security for years and always tried to understand what it is my clients actually do at the facilities where I've worked, Jacob always came off as an dope to me. To make matters worse, it's really obvious that those comments are the writers telling the player to not worry about it.

 

 

 

The goal post for when someone is considered dead keeps changing as medical science evolves. At one time it was the cessation of breathing, then it was when the heart stops, currently it is brain-dead... Cerberus appears to have moved the goalpost once again by figuring out how to restore normal brain function.

 

The shriveled heart and dried blood is some of the damage they needed to repair.

 

As for its failure or not - I guess that depends on whether you think it is there as an important part of the story or simply a device to hook you with. If you believe it was important (in spite of it not really mattering, they could have had Shepard working with Cerberus simply because the Council didn't believe in the Reapers) then it was a failure; if you believe the latter then it was very effective.

 

The atmospheric reentry thing is a bit of a problem, but then do we know that was what happened? We see what appears to be a reentry, but does anyone state that was the case or could the Shadowbroker's team have scooped Shepard's body into a stasis pod before it burned up in the atmosphere?

 

Personally, I gloss over that bit of ME2 by considering Aria's statement that the supposed death was down played by the Alliance (her response to Shepard's, `one scan and down to business', comment)... if there wasn't a big heroes funeral then maybe lots don't even know what happened. Ya, it's a stretch.

 

[edit: misspelling]

 

This is true but Shepard is clearly burning up in the cutscene. I'm sure you meant to suggest the Shadow Broker's people grabbed him in orbit and not while he was burning up in the atmosphere. Also remember that his helmet was recovered on the planet, only for the Cerberus guy in the next game to say the helmet is what preserved his brain.

 

Again, the destruction of the Normandy and Shepard's death did get me hooked... until I got both back immediately. I loved Tali's response to seeing Shepard for the first time, ignoring the fact that his face might be obscured, but then nobody else reacted appropriately. It destroyed all that drama and made it melodrama. It was like I could hear the author telling me to feel sad. But as I always say, if Shepard doesn't care, why should I?

[JohnDoe60]

This is true but Shepard is clearly burning up in the cutscene. I'm sure you meant to suggest the Shadow Broker's people grabbed him in orbit and not while he was burning up in the atmosphere. Also remember that his helmet was recovered on the planet, only for the Cerberus guy in the next game to say the helmet is what preserved his brain.

Forgot about that... darn, all the head cannoning has just crumbled and the game will never be the same, all that's left is detonating Reapers.

[ThomasBlaine]

It's not an exaggeration; it's a simple, non-technical explanation from an outside observer that has nothing to do with Project Lazarus itself. Jacob is just a security guard. As someone who has worked in security for years and always tried to understand what it is my clients actually do at the facilities where I've worked, Jacob always came off as an dope to me. To make matters worse, it's really obvious that those comments are the writers telling the player to not worry about it.

 

Obviously it's not an exaggeration, Shepard took a fall from orbit, it's a miracle that there was even meat left to put tubes in. My point was that Shepard could easily take it as an exaggeration because that's what it sounds like if you've just woken up mostly fine and haven't actually seen your own demolished body in a previous cutscene. Which is semi-moot, because it turns out that Jacob makes it clear that Shepard really was deader than dead in an earlier conversation if Shepard badgers him, which would make him/her much less likely to believe he was just playing it up with the "meat and tubes" comment. 

[Pasquale1234]

True, you've made it clear that good writing isn't a priority for you, which is perfectly fine. You like what you like.

Or it could be that we just disagree about the quality of the writing, since that judgement is, you know, subjective.
 

3: People telling you that what's a big problem for you isn't such a big problem for them is not the same thing as people telling you that that problem is a good thing. Or even irrelevant. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that a scene or two dealing seriously with Shepard's very real death wouldn't have corrected a flaw and made the game better, or that it being glossed over somehow benefits the plot. We're telling you why we can deal with it since you're so insistent on convincing us that we shouldn't be able to. We get it, this relatively minor plot point is something you're really missing in the games. We agree, but don't feel as strongly about it as you do. The games aren't perfect. Deal with it.

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, mate, but I actually think it's best that the writers didn't delve into the serious issues surrounding death and resurrection. Frankly, I suspect the writers did make some attempts at including such content, but ultimately decided not to go there.

People have some very deeply held, very personal beliefs about what happens when you die, and what might happen if a dead body is brought back to life. Things having to do with religion, spirituality, a person's soul essence, and the like. We frequently see NPCs express their religious / spiritual beliefs, as it contributes to characterization and world-building. RPG writers tend to back away from having the player's character express any beliefs or expectations about such matters, and rightfully so, imho.

And then, too, I suspect that a lot of players would rather not see their character express much in the way of doubt, conflict, inner turmoil, or go through the process of emotional catharsis. While those things are sometimes expressed in cinematic storytelling, the characters showing us their inner world are not controlled by the audience. In a role-playing game, it is up to the player to know and define the character's thoughts and feelings.

Finally, the whole concept of death + resurrection is so far out there - I don't know how they could possibly have dealt with it in a way that would have really satisfied the majority of the player base. It would probably have been a lot easier to have had Cerberus recover the body while Shepard was still clinging to life - but for whatever reason, that isn't what they chose to do.

So I'm glad the writers chose not to have Shepard outwardly express how she was internally dealing with the trauma of having been essentially resurrected.

[Andrew Lucas]

Stopped reading at Liara.

[Andrew Lucas]

Or it could be that we just disagree about the quality of the writing, since that judgement is, you know, subjective. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, mate, but I actually think it's best that the writers didn't delve into the serious issues surrounding death and resurrection. Frankly, I suspect the writers did make some attempts at including such content, but ultimately decided not to go there.People have some very deeply held, very personal beliefs about what happens when you die, and what might happen if a dead body is brought back to life. Things having to do with religion, spirituality, a person's soul essence, and the like. We frequently see NPCs express their religious / spiritual beliefs, as it contributes to characterization and world-building. RPG writers tend to back away from having the player's character express any beliefs or expectations about such matters, and rightfully so, imho.And then, too, I suspect that a lot of players would rather not see their character express much in the way of doubt, conflict, inner turmoil, or go through the process of emotional catharsis. While those things are sometimes expressed in cinematic storytelling, the characters showing us their inner world are not controlled by the audience. In a role-playing game, it is up to the player to know and define the character's thoughts and feelings.Finally, the whole concept of death + resurrection is so far out there - I don't know how they could possibly have dealt with it in a way that would have really satisfied the majority of the player base. It would probably have been a lot easier to have had Cerberus recover the body while Shepard was still clinging to life - but for whatever reason, that isn't what they chose to do.So I'm glad the writers chose not to have Shepard outwardly express how she was internally dealing with the trauma of having been essentially resurrected.

So...censorship? I heavily disagree, having the option of make your Shepard give his/hers thought about death would have felt very organic instead of just ignoring it like the games did.

"So, Shep how are you feeling after being brought back from the dead?"

"Good! Where can I shoot Geth now?!"

That's how it happened, and it was lame.

[ThomasBlaine]

Or it could be that we just disagree about the quality of the writing, since that judgement is, you know, subjective.
 

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, mate, but I actually think it's best that the writers didn't delve into the serious issues surrounding death and resurrection. Frankly, I suspect the writers did make some attempts at including such content, but ultimately decided not to go there.

People have some very deeply held, very personal beliefs about what happens when you die, and what might happen if a dead body is brought back to life. Things having to do with religion, spirituality, a person's soul essence, and the like. We frequently see NPCs express their religious / spiritual beliefs, as it contributes to characterization and world-building. RPG writers tend to back away from having the player's character express any beliefs or expectations about such matters, and rightfully so, imho.

And then, too, I suspect that a lot of players would rather not see their character express much in the way of doubt, conflict, inner turmoil, or go through the process of emotional catharsis. While those things are sometimes expressed in cinematic storytelling, the characters showing us their inner world are not controlled by the audience. In a role-playing game, it is up to the player to know and define the character's thoughts and feelings.

Finally, the whole concept of death + resurrection is so far out there - I don't know how they could possibly have dealt with it in a way that would have really satisfied the majority of the player base. It would probably have been a lot easier to have had Cerberus recover the body while Shepard was still clinging to life - but for whatever reason, that isn't what they chose to do.

So I'm glad the writers chose not to have Shepard outwardly express how she was internally dealing with the trauma of having been essentially resurrected.

 

Hmm. That's true, I hadn't thought of that.

 

 

So...censorship? I heavily disagree, having the option of make your Shepard give his/hers thought about death would have felt very organic instead of just ignoring it like the games did.

"So, Shep how are you feeling after being brought back from the dead?"

"Good! Where can I shoot Geth now?!"

That's how it happened, and it was lame.

 

Not censorship, the writers knowing their limits. If the developers thought seriously about what to do with the issue and felt they probably wouldn't be able to do it justice then it might be for the best that they didn't try to make a bigger deal of it. Remember how hard they tried to push our buttons with the slavery themes in DA2 without ever getting to the meat of the issue? I'm all for controversy in video games, but the devs really have to know what they're doing with it to benefit the narrative instead of dragging it down.

 

That calls the decision to include the Lazarus project at all into question though, if they weren't prepared to go all the way. I personally like the mystery and uncertainty of Shepard being rebuilt at ridiculous expense with what is most likely highly illegal and unethical medicine, but I'm not convinced they couldn't have found a more watertight way to set him/her up with Cerberus. Something slightly less extreme than burning up during reentry and crashing unprotected to the ground from orbit might have separated Shepard from everyone else and knocked him/her comatose for a few years with no need for resurrections.

[Andrew Lucas]

I fail to see how Shep expressing his/her thoughts about his/her death is controversial, and why the writers would be pushing their limit. That's nothing of controversial. You know, you could always say nothing.

[Natureguy85]

No, what we've been doing is trying to explain to you why we can live with it and still enjoy the games, not why we think that it isn't an oversight or that it's a justifiable one. It's just not a big deal, and we've figured out ways to play around it. Look, there seem to be some key points you're missing here:

 

No, you have not. You have not been saying "Yeah, X is bad but it's not a big deal for me." You have been saying "Actually X makes more sense than Y."

 

 

No, what we've been doing is trying to explain to you why we can live with it and still enjoy the games, not why we think that it isn't an oversight or that it's a justifiable one. It's just not a big deal, and we've figured out ways to play around it. Look, there seem to be some key points you're missing here:

 

1: A game can not be "objectively bad". There can be an overall consensus that it sucks, which isn't the case for any of the Mass Effect games if you haven't noticed, it can be a mixed bag with significant though not necessarily even amounts of players disagreeing on the game's general quality, which also isn't really the case for any Mass Effect games, and there can be a consensus that it's great with some subjective opinions that it or parts of it suck, which is apparently the case here.

 

2: You don't have the moral, legal or principle right to demand that a game be exactly the way you want it to be. You just don't. You pay for it, you play it and you can state your opinions afterwards, but the game's developers aren't responsible for catering to your personal taste and making everything absolutely perfect in case something bothers you so much that it ruins the game for you even though everyone else can live with it. They make the game as best they can and want to, and you have zero right to blame them for it. Nobody forced you to play or spend money on Mass Effect, certainly not its writers and certainly not other players who enjoy it more than you did.

 

3: People telling you that what's a big problem for you isn't such a big problem for them is not the same thing as people telling you that that problem is a good thing. Or even irrelevant. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that a scene or two dealing seriously with Shepard's very real death wouldn't have corrected a flaw and made the game better, or that it being glossed over somehow benefits the plot. We're telling you why we can deal with it since you're so insistent on convincing us that we shouldn't be able to. We get it, this relatively minor plot point is something you're really missing in the games. We agree, but don't feel as strongly about it as you do. The games aren't perfect. Deal with it.

 

1) Well, I think at some point we can say it's objectively bad, such as if it doesn't work, but I see what you mean. Elements can be objectively bad, such as ME2's main plot, but you could still call ME2 a good game depending on what you thought of the other parts of it.

 

2) This is just stupid nonsense and the last gasp of a lack of argument. I haven't tried to enslave Bioware by force and have them make a game I want at gunpoint. I have every right to say how they should have designed a game to be better than what they produced and they have every right to accept, reject, or ignore my suggestions should they ever even encounter them. I sure as heck can blame them for doing a bad job, particularly as a paying customer. What do you think critics, editors, and reviewers do?

 

3) You're right, they are not the same. You've been doing the latter while claiming it's the former, so maybe you should go back and reread your posts. Your phrasing here is ironic: Shepard's death being a "relatively minor plot point" is the problem.

 

 

 

 

3:  Nobody is saying that a scene or two dealing seriously with Shepard's very real death wouldn't have corrected a flaw and made the game better, or that it being glossed over somehow benefits the plot.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

After thinking about it, I've determined that the only reasonable thing for Shepard to do under the circumstances really is to pretend that it never happened.

 

 

 

 

Or it could be that we just disagree about the quality of the writing, since that judgement is, you know, subjective.

 

Well it's subjective to a point, but it can be objectively analyzed in certain ways as well.

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, mate, but I actually think it's best that the writers didn't delve into the serious issues surrounding death and resurrection. Frankly, I suspect the writers did make some attempts at including such content, but ultimately decided not to go there.

People have some very deeply held, very personal beliefs about what happens when you die, and what might happen if a dead body is brought back to life. Things having to do with religion, spirituality, a person's soul essence, and the like. We frequently see NPCs express their religious / spiritual beliefs, as it contributes to characterization and world-building. RPG writers tend to back away from having the player's character express any beliefs or expectations about such matters, and rightfully so, imho.

And then, too, I suspect that a lot of players would rather not see their character express much in the way of doubt, conflict, inner turmoil, or go through the process of emotional catharsis. While those things are sometimes expressed in cinematic storytelling, the characters showing us their inner world are not controlled by the audience. In a role-playing game, it is up to the player to know and define the character's thoughts and feelings.

Finally, the whole concept of death + resurrection is so far out there - I don't know how they could possibly have dealt with it in a way that would have really satisfied the majority of the player base. It would probably have been a lot easier to have had Cerberus recover the body while Shepard was still clinging to life - but for whatever reason, that isn't what they chose to do.

So I'm glad the writers chose not to have Shepard outwardly express how she was internally dealing with the trauma of having been essentially resurrected.

 

 

 

Not to agree or disagree with any particulars of this post, I find it interesting that both you and Blaine are supporting how ME2 handled Shepard's death but Blaine is adamant that it's a roleplaying game while you are advocating for the lack of ability to actively role play the most important issues in the game.

 

 

 

Not censorship, the writers knowing their limits.

 

I see what you mean and I agree, but that didn't stop them in other areas.

[Natureguy85]

 

To be fair, nobody actually saw him/her die, or even the Normandy's final explosion. Except for Liara, nobody knew for an absolute fact that Shepard hadn't survived somehow, and if you already believe someone capable of the "impossible" it's not inconceivable to accept that person turning out not to be dead after all at face value. Most of them - and those in the rest of the galaxy who even know that much - probably assume that Shepard found some way to protect him/herself after Joker's escape shuttle launched and that Cerberus just managed a last-minute rescue and spent the intervening years treating his/her wounds. It's obviously what Kaiden and Ashley assume. Shepard might even believe that him/herself on some level, as it turns out s/he didn't realize the full extent of his/her wounds until Cronos station in the third game.

 

Again, this is not an excuse or justification, just another way one could think about it to get around the plot hole without blowing a fuse. In case pointless and counterproductive outrage isn't one's thing.

 

It's a stretch but you could make it work. However, I was discussing how it impacts the player, not the characters.

[GDICanuck]

You have to admit, it's pretty funny that the person who is the most worked up over Shepard's death is Conrad Verner.

[ThomasBlaine]

I fail to see how Shep expressing his/her thoughts about his/her death is controversial, and why the writers would be pushing their limit. That's nothing of controversial. You know, you could always say nothing.

 

It's not about controversy, it's about how complicated, personal and many-faceted the concept actually is and how to analyze and implement it so it respects the actual issue, fits with the game's atmosphere and allows different Shepards to feel differently about it. They also completely breeze over the cloning issue with only a little choice given to Shepard as to how s/he feels about his/her clone in the Citadel DLC. Really going into things like that is a tall order for a pretty light action rpg. If what they were worried about was resurrection being a controversial theme then they wouldn't have done it.

 

 

No, you have not. You have not been saying "Yeah, X is bad but it's not a big deal for me." You have been saying "Actually X makes more sense than Y."

 

1) Well, I think at some point we can say it's objectively bad, such as if it doesn't work, but I see what you mean. Elements can be objectively bad, such as ME2's main plot, but you could still call ME2 a good game depending on what you thought of the other parts of it.

 

2) This is just stupid nonsense and the last gasp of a lack of argument. I haven't tried to enslave Bioware by force and have them make a game I want at gunpoint. I have every right to say how they should have designed a game to be better than what they produced and they have every right to accept, reject, or ignore my suggestions should they ever even encounter them. I sure as heck can blame them for doing a bad job, particularly as a paying customer. What do you think critics, editors, and reviewers do?

 

3) You're right, they are not the same. You've been doing the latter while claiming it's the former, so maybe you should go back and reread your posts. Your phrasing here is ironic: Shepard's death being a "relatively minor plot point" is the problem.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Well it's subjective to a point, but it can be objectively analyzed in certain ways as well.

 

Not to agree or disagree with any particulars of this post, I find it interesting that both you and Blaine are supporting how ME2 handled Shepard's death but Blaine is adamant that it's a roleplaying game while you are advocating for the lack of ability to actively role play the most important issues in the game.

 

Wow, I can't believe how much time I wasted last year trying to argue with you about this. Enjoy wallowing in you violated sense of entitlement, "flexible" understanding of rhetoric and interesting concept of objectivity.

[jumpinghermit]

i would ... don't think bioware could do it though. i honestly don't think they are capable of something like that anymore. 

from the days of me2/da2, then onto me3 and then da:i ... it's clear that the quality level of their writing has dropped dramatically. 

[Andrew Lucas]

"It's not about controversy, it's about how complicated, personal and many-faceted the concept actually is and how to analyze and implement it so it respects the actual issue, fits with the game's atmosphere and allows different Shepards to feel differently about it. They also completely breeze over the cloning issue with only a little choice given to Shepard as to how s/he feels about his/her clone in the Citadel DLC. Really going into things like that is a tall order for a pretty light action rpg. If what they were worried about was resurrection being a controversial theme then they wouldn't have done it."

Okay. Still pretty easy.

[Natureguy85]

Wow, I can't believe how much time I wasted last year trying to argue with you about this. Enjoy wallowing in you violated sense of entitlement, "flexible" understanding of rhetoric and interesting concept of objectivity.

 

Ok, enjoy your self-satisfaction and shallow understanding of storytelling.

[DebatableBubble]

I was browsing for some FemShep pics and found a couple of cool pics (they are safe for work) that really fit into my own headcanon:
 
http://www.deviantar...rsion-291890744
 
http://www.deviantar...trait-351615600
 
And it got me wondering, would it be completely wrong for Liara, using her Shadow Broker skills, to dig up the Lazarus tech and bring Shep back to life so they can live a long and happy live together or even for BW to make another Shep based game?

NOOOOOOOO.

[wright1978]

I was browsing for some FemShep pics and found a couple of cool pics (they are safe for work) that really fit into my own headcanon:

 

http://www.deviantar...rsion-291890744

 

http://www.deviantar...trait-351615600

 

And it got me wondering, would it be completely wrong for Liara, using her Shadow Broker skills, to dig up the Lazarus tech and bring Shep back to life so they can live a long and happy live together or even for BW to make another Shep based game?

 

Well Shep's not dead in one variant(high ems destroy). So if Bioware really wanted to make another Shep game surely picking that as the default canon would make more sense.

 

In many endings there doesn't even seem to be a body to utlise if you did want to try to do Lazarus mk2.

[Iakus]

It's not about controversy, it's about how complicated, personal and many-faceted the concept actually is and how to analyze and implement it so it respects the actual issue, fits with the game's atmosphere and allows different Shepards to feel differently about it. They also completely breeze over the cloning issue with only a little choice given to Shepard as to how s/he feels about his/her clone in the Citadel DLC. Really going into things like that is a tall order for a pretty light action rpg. If what they were worried about was resurrection being a controversial theme then they wouldn't have done it.

Well, you're right that Mass Effect is a pretty light rpg.

 

So when it comes to weighty issues, they probably shouldn't go into them at all if they cannot/will not do them justice.  Sadly, Bioware not only did so, but treated the whole concept of death and being resurrected with SCIENCE!  rather flippantly.  

 

As has been repeatedly pointed out, there were far easier, less weighty methods of putting Shepard out of commission for a couple of years.  

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Shepard is an idiot. I have never liked Shepard's dialog. The ME3 ending simply proved that.

I do love the other characters though... But remember, Shepard is not dead in the destroy ending anyway. I like to imagine that my Shep and Tali are retired from military life, married, with a couple of children.