How the hell did Jensen survive the shuttle? (Spoilers)

#1 Posted by beepmachine (617 posts) -

Okay, so I finished this game recently, and I really enjoyed it. Despite its bugs and some instances of oldgame-itis, I enjoyed my time with it and am currently playing through it again. However, something has been bothering me.

How in the hell does Jensen survive that shuttle crash? You get it in the LEO shuttle to travel to Panchaea, and on the way down out of orbit the cinematic clearly shows the shuttle's parachute system failing, and Jensen's "oh shit" look as he sees it. The shuttle slams into the ocean surface, the cutscene ends, and all of a sudden Jensen is on Panchaea all hunky dory and in perfect health. I know he's a transhuman and capable of great feats of strength and survivability, but he should have been flattened like a pancake.

I don't really care, but I am curious to know what happened there. I think I heard the cinematics were made by another studio (like the boss fights), but I don't know if that is true or not. Did Eidos just not have time to fix that continuity error? I can accept that the shuttle had some kind of safety system for just such a crash, but the lack of explanation in the game had me laughing at the absurdity.

Here's the cinematic:

#2 Posted by TheKramer89 (423 posts) -

So it's not a spoiler that Jensen survives the shuttle?

#3 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4988 posts) -

Nanomachines.

#4 Posted by august (3866 posts) -

He's a robot man!

#5 Posted by triviaman09 (804 posts) -

Augments, bro. Augments.

In all seriousness, I also remember thinking this was weird.

#6 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -

If he survived what happened to him at the start he can survive anything. 

#7 Posted by valrog (3648 posts) -

Icarus Landing System?

#8 Posted by Korwin (3039 posts) -

What is oldgame-itis, especially in the context of a 9 month old title?

#9 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

He never asked to die in a shuttle crash

#10 Posted by BoOzak (999 posts) -

It's the future..

Well it's 10 or so years into the future but still.. space.

#11 Posted by Heylook (235 posts) -

Aliens man... Aliens...

#12 Edited by Tennmuerti (8174 posts) -
  • It's an aerodynamic missle for one, it's entry into the water is going to be as smooth as possible, limiting the sudden deceleration.
  • Secondly how high you are doesn't really matter after a point, your terminal velocity is going to be the same for a given object shape, meaning limited.
  • Solid foam tech can potentially fill the entire shuttle and protect it from both becoming a metal harmonica while at the same time protecting the person inside.

I was a physics nerd at an earlier point in my life ^.^

There feel better now? :P

#13 Posted by killacam (1278 posts) -

he was actually indoctrinated.

#14 Posted by Gabriel (4082 posts) -

@OllyOxenFree said:

Nanomachines.
#15 Posted by beepmachine (617 posts) -

@Tennmuerti: Sort of, but I still think it is odd. More so the complete lack of explanation. It's the future so I thought "yea okay I guess there's some future-tech safety thing that saves his butt" but it's just funny how the cinematic makes a point of showing you that the parachute fails and then it has no consequences.

#16 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -
#17 Edited by valrog (3648 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

  • It's an aerodynamic missle for one, it's entry into the water is going to be as smooth as possible, limiting the sudden deceleration.
  • Secondly how high you are doesn't really matter after a point, your terminal velocity is going to be the same for a given object shape, meaning limited.
  • Solid foam tech can potentially fill the entire shuttle and protect it from both becoming a metal harmonica while at the same time protecting the person inside.

I was a physics nerd at an earlier point in my life ^.^

There feel better now? :P

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have a question regarding your second point. Surely the air draft slowed the missile to a constant velocity, but how do we know that the shuttle was not accelerating, i.e. it wasn't merely a "free fall"?

Glad to see another Physicist around these parts (Though I'm going to change from Physics and Mathematics now because... Well, Modern Physics is where I draw the line, really).
#18 Posted by Tennmuerti (8174 posts) -

@valrog:

I guess we don't really. But the propulsion jet we see when it is falling seems much smaller then it was at takeoff, i assume it's only on for trajectory control anyway.

Honestly tho, i really don't think that people who made the cinematic gave this much thought overall. @dennisthemennis: I guess that last sentence also kind of answers your question why it's odd, if it was outsourced there were bound to be inconsistencies, especially when it's not just rote action cinematic, fuck even Hollywood can hardly ever get their physics right during big budget sci-fi popcorn flicks.

#19 Posted by beepmachine (617 posts) -

If you pause it at 1:06 the timer says 25 000 kph. Don't know if he's going that fast, but you can also see the thrusters firing.

#20 Posted by valrog (3648 posts) -

@Tennmuerti: No one seems to care about the laws of physics this days. Oh, don't get me started on Hollywood...

#21 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11412 posts) -

He didn't ask for this...thread.

#22 Posted by Daiphyer (1352 posts) -

Video games.

#23 Posted by jillsandwich (760 posts) -

I don't know, video games.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.