Biggest plot holes in games

TheMan2203

New member
Sep 14, 2010
63
0
0
My biggest one at the moment would be in Halo 4, why did the forerunners kill every single reasonable member of their race but decide to keep the most maniacally murderous shithead of their number alive and untouched by the halo array?
Thats like if humanity irradicated itself but left Hitler in cryostasis to act as an ambassador for anyone that comes across our legacy in the future.
Also Gears 3, apparently Prescott had known about the deus ex machinaomatic for years before the events of gears 3, so what the fuck guys really?

EDIT: Bloody hell there is a lot of ME3 stuff, here I need to check this out for myself.
 
Aug 7, 2012
10
0
0
wolf thing said:
The Elephant of Lies said:
wolf thing said:
halo 4, how did chief and cortana know who the didact was? this with the bad plot and writting in the game is what made its story total shite, it makes no sense, chief was in crystaisis for years and we had never met a forerunner before and it doesnt help that no one in the story asks any question of anykind about the forerunners. just a terrible story.
It could be that the Chief read the terminals in Halo 3, which, are supposed (never read them myself) to tell stories of the Didact and Librarian, and I'm sure there was something in the books about it, but I could be wrong.
i never read the terminals because they were an optional extra which were hidden for the player, you never hide story content from the player ever. so i discount it and i should also not have to read a below average book to enjoy the story in the game.
Regardless of whether or not you count the terminals as part of the story or not, they were, it still counts as an explanation, perhaps a poorly delivered one, but one none the less; and while I agree you shouldn't have to read a book to understand the story to game, you don't, it gives insight and better back story, but it is not required to understand what's going on. I do wish they would have included his motives as something in the campaign though. I have read several Halo books, and enjoyed them, but if you rely on the book to explain motives for the villain in the game, that's just getting lazy imo, and I have been caught up in other books, I would rather read, so I still have no idea why the Didact did anything in Halo 4.

Another quick note on hiding story from the player, they still aren't required to understand "The big orange vampire looking dude is trying to destroy all of the humans" plenty of games have hidden collectibles that give insight to the universe, given they usually don't contain a huge plot point for the next game, but still.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
I don't know if it's a plot hole or a side effect of the terrible writing which, among other things, resulted in a two dimensional caricature of a villain, but Lazarevic in Uncharted 2 really should have used his helicopters to search the area where Flynn thought Shambhala was located instead of wasting them on Nate. Somehow, I don't think the big glowing gobs of resin would have been all that difficult to see from the air.

But then the adventure couldn't have happened of all these insensible impossible things didn't happen! No, it couldn't have. Now where did I put that shoehorn polish...
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
In dishonored why does killing weepers raise chaos? I can get that It would count as a kill but why does killing plague infected zombie people spread the plague?

In uncharted how did the diary end up in Francis drake coffin? Francis drake faked his death he actually died on that island thanks to those zombie things so how did his diary get in that coffin?

In shin megami tensei devil survivors how did the government ever managed to cover everything up. Hundreds of people were killed the entire sky turned red and a giant tower came from the sky and crashed right into a building you can?t cover that all up by saying it was a mass hallucination caused by a gas leak there has to be evidence somewhere.

there are so many plotholes in touhou its impressive I play the game for the gameplay sure but I don?t skip the story for the same reason why most people don?t look away from a train crash.
 

hooglese

New member
Feb 14, 2011
104
0
0
The gap between all the Crysis games, although I don't know if it's more of a plot hole or the writers ignoring the previous cannon entirely.
 

Proverbial Jon

Not evil, just mildly malevolent
Nov 10, 2009
2,093
0
0
The fact that you can become the leader/head/commander of every faction in every Elder Scrolls game despite having only been a member of said group for a few hours/in-game days.

What's that? You saved the Mage's Guild in Cyrodil from Mannimarco, King of Worms? Without using a single spell? You don't even know any magic? Well who cares! You killed our biggest threat so you MUST be qualified to LEAD our guild. Our guild of magic users, of which you are not one.

Please. At least give us an option to graciously turn the offer down and hand control over to someone who's actually worthy of the title.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
ME3. Pretty much the whole core plot, though individual parts like Tuchanka were great. How would all those scientists and engineers not only build the crucible, but improve upon it with whatever weird tech you found and finish a design that didn't work when the Protheans did it, but fail to figure out what it was doing? They weren't just following somebody else's design blindly, they has to reverse engineer the failed project and then make their own design based on continuing that. For that matter, how did the Protheans even work on the Crucible? ME1 established that they were hit from the Citadel first, and barely had time to leave a warning behind before they were isolated and under total control of the Reapers. I won't even go into the ending (nature of the Reapers being flipped for no reason, idiot child plot, okayI'mshuttingupnow) because that's less of a plot hole and more of a gaping, festering abcess, but the central macguffin to the whole story of the third game just does not work.

And they didn't even need it; you proved in the first game that even Sovereign, the most powerful of the Reapers, can be killed but it takes a good distraction and the combined firepower of the combined pre-war Council fleet to do it. The Reapers relied on surprise and total control of the Relay network for every previous invasion; without Sovereign and the Citadel they're incredibly powerful, but nowhere near enough to make fighting them hopeless. They could totally have done the whole game as a conventional war, with Shepard's missions being to recruit more allies, develop/discover new technologies to lessen the power gap between the sides, hitting targets of opportunity, etc. instead of making the whole story about this shitty magic rock that's suddenly the only hope of the galaxy even though nobody has any idea what it does. The game could have been the story of one man uniting the galaxy against a common foe and beating impossible odds through sheer power of getting shit done. Instead they made it about the entire galaxy heroically running and hiding while the big damn hero does some irrelevant (but heroic) stuff on the side and then the magic Crucible that can't possibly exist anyway ends everything without your input.

Don't get me wrong, outside a few tiny annoyances (thermal clips, [space] to do everything, most sidequests are just fetching something, shoehorning in gay options with people you've never heard of and barely interact with to try to make up for removing them from the first two games for no good reason, just dropping all the Dark Energy foreshadowing, Vega, etc) everything that didn't touch the core plot was beautiful. They clearly had a lot of brilliant writers on this, and they made one of the best games I've seen in a long while... for 90% of it. And then the Crucible gets mentioned or I think about the ending and it all turns to shit. Honestly it would be easier if the whole game was just crap so I could pretend it didn't happen and keep playing the first two, but ME3 was so much fun and it's so obvious that they were doing it right until somebody came along with too much power and too little sense and screwed everything over.


canadamus_prime said:
One that's been bugging me since the end of Mass Effect 2 (haven't played 3, so maybe someone who has can sort this out for me), but it's established in the first game that the Citadel is the only (known) way for the Reapers to get into our Galaxy from Dark Space and yet at the end of Mass Effect 2 it's implied that a huge invasion is on it's way and that was the whole plot of Mass Effect 3 was it not? My question is how the hell did they get here? We shut down their only known way in in the first game.
The Citadel was a shortcut, a way to go straight from their lair beyond the galactic rim to the core of civilization, cet all the communication lines and throw people into a panic, and then kill or experiment at their leisure like they did to the Protheans. In ME1 Shepard cut off their plan A and killed the one they left behind to keep a watch on things and open the door for them.
Two years of slow, non-relay based travel later the Reapers got to the nearest mass relay with their normal drives (about twice as fast as the best ships currently being built, but not as good as a Relay) and prepared for a conventional invasion, but Shepard got there in the Arrival DLC and destroyed the relay with hours to spare. This forced them to take several months getting from there to the next nearest relay the slow way, which the Council could use to finally act on Shepard's advice... but instead chose to arrest him for killing the Batarians in the system with the relay.
They arrive at the next relay at the start of ME3, and can suddenly get anywhere on the network almost instanlty, but since they didn't take the Citadel first and everyone was warned (even if the biggest governments ignored it) the Reapers had to actually fight, giving you enough time for the events of the third game.


Devoneaux said:
Also let's deal with the fact that as a Major (on par with generals), Kaiden has authority over Shepard who is only a Commander, so why isn't Kaiden giving the orders?
Kaiden's rank is 'Major'. Shepard's rank is 'Motherfucking Spectre'. Spectre outranks everyone in council space except Councilor (and until they revoke your status you don't even need to take orders from them) and other Spectres, and has full diplomatic privilige toward all foreign governments. Shepard technically has the authority to order around anyone from a raw recruit to a Fleet Admiral to a corporate private security guard if they're under the rule of the Council, and only common sense, politness, or the contrary nature of those around you prevents this. And most of those who specifically deny you things end poorly (the old admin on Noveria, for example) because a Spectre in a hurry can literally cut them down without legal repurcussions and a Spectre with morals is now very interested in any illicit dealings they've had.
Everybody calls Shepard 'Commander' either out of habit (he was an Alliance Commander before he became a Spectre), or technical accuracy (he's the one in command, the commanding officer, regardless of rank). Except Tali, who calls him Captain because that's the highest non-Admiral authority to a Quarian. And Ash, who calls him Skipper (which is technically an acceptable term for the owner/operator of any ship, but rarely used in military context).


Devoneaux said:
(With no injuries, naturally)
After the end of ME2, Shepard is a high end cyborg. Your bones are reinforced, your skin is armored, your muscles are up-powered, everything. To the point where if you headbutt a krogan, you come away clean and he staggers. It would take a lot more than falling off a building to hurt you. It might take more than the building falling on you to kill you. The downside is of course that if your implants were removed you would die faster than a naked Quarian in a Batarian latrine, but it does make you very good at taking suicide missions and coming back unharmed.


Mikeyfell said:
Mass Effect 3.
Not any particular part of it just the whole game.
You know like "How did Councilor Anderson become Admiral Anderson in the blink of an eye?"
Okay I'll stop beating that dead horse.
Anderson retired his post as Councilor between 2 and 3, partly because he was as tired as you of the "ah yes, 'Reapers'" and partly because he always hated paperwork and politics and wanted a military position. Udina was his best option for a successor on the Council because all the others were worse, and say what you will about the asshole but he's good at politics. I was actually a bit more surprised by the jump from Captain Anderson to Admiral Anderson, but I guess the Alliance can't exactly drop the first human Councillor down to command of a single frigate without it being the talk of the galaxy for months.


Joseph Harrison said:
I'm not sure if what James said about Cerberus was a plot hole but that did piss me off.
ME1 Cerberus is bad
ME2 Actually no Cerberus is really cool and good and are just misunderstood
ME3 Scratch that Cerberus is bad again

Make up your damn minds Bioware
Not a plot hole. Cerberus was always evil, and the continued to be evil (blatantly) through ME2 (they try to hide it from Shepard while he's working with them, but it's still pretty obvious in a lot of side missions, loyalty missions, and DLC). However, they rebuilt Shepard, gave him a ship, and destroyed the Collectors while being evil, making them a distasteful but valuable ally in the short term while the Council was ignoring everything and the Alliance was refusing to do anything to help, because all of their evil was motivated at the time by extremism and the good of the human race regardless of consequences to the rest of the galaxy. Then, after Shepard stole the Normandy 2, flipped TIM the bird, and recruited away about a third of their best (and least evil on an individual basis) agents, Cerberus decided to go full monster. TIM got himself indoctrinated, they abandoned the covert system where they have three projects and a few dozen agents at a time to prevent info leaks and just hired a merc army, they started rewiring and augmenting their soldiers into little more than partially organic robots to increase combat efficiency and prevent more personnel losses to little things like 'morals' or 'logic', and started fighting you directly.
The one thing that I really do hate about Cerberus's involvement in the second game is that you can't even bring up their activites from the first game except for the Rachni. Admiral Hacket, Toombs and your unit on Akuze... all of it is never even brought up.


Like I said, 90% of the game is beautiful and there are few if any real problems that don't touch on the Crucible or the ending if you pay attention to the background and think about things.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
Would it be cheap to say the ending of ME3?
I didn't notice any plotholes in Fallout 3, dat game was amazing.
Maybe I should mention the ending of Far Cry 3 when you choose a certain option and a certain event follows which kinda contradicts the fact that you can continue to play?
 
Dec 10, 2012
867
0
0
Way too many responses in this thread are arguing over inconsequential details. Too many problems pointed out are not actually plot holes. ME3 especially is getting so much flak for some details it introduces to the franchise that seem not to be adequately explained. Here's the thing:

An inadequate amount of exposition does not fit the definition of a "plot hole." It does not even fit the definition of "bad writing."

A plot hole, as has been earlier established in this thread, is an occurrence of events in the plot that cannot have logically happened based on the information we have been given. It is no more and no less than this. So, Shepard and Vega being buddies at the beginning of ME3 is not a plot hole as nothing before or after establishing this directly contradicts it.

So many of the complainers are total hypocrites as well. I see many people aiming their criticism at ME3 for not dumping exposition on us to explain every little detail and cover all possible character actions and motivations. They point this out as bad writing because "the job of a writer is to explain what his characters do and why they do it."

Bullshit. This is meant to make you sound like a cultured consumer of quality fiction and highly aware of the way writing "is supposed to work," and are thus qualified to criticize what "doesn't work." The problem here is that these same people, if they really are aware of the conventions and techniques of writing, would realize that most novels and films that people consider "good" do not waste time on laying out all possible plot avenues and all possible character motivations just to make the reader/viewer more comfortable.

A great deal of great writing comes in the form of ambiguous events and characters. Whether you love or hate Ernest Hemingway, he is a highly respected and extremely talented writer. His stories are never exposited on, ever. The motivations for his characters are a mystery, until you think about the story, analyze its structure and consider the author's intentions.

It is not the resposibility of an auther of any work of fiction to make sure everyone experiencing it can grasp everything about it. Ambiguity and confusion can be intentional tools used by the very best of writers. Even when you are writing an adventure story, such as ME3, you don't have to flat out explain every detail that the viewer may come up with, nor do you have to dumb your prose down so far that everyone can understand it in the simplest terms. Allow your audience to prove to you that they are stupid, don't just assume it from the start and tailor your style to please the lowest denominator. ME3 gives you just enough information in the opening to explain what Vega is doing there and what his relationship with Shepard is. Obviously, since nearly everyone seems to have picked it up without any deep thought required. This is about the stupidest complaint of a "plot hole" I've ever heard.
 

NewYork_Comedian

New member
Nov 28, 2009
1,046
0
0
In Crysis 2.

Where was Psycho when New York was getting invaded? I understand that Nomad was handwaved by being killed in a graphic short that came out right before the game was released, but shouldn't Psycho have been working with Prophet?
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
bug_of_war said:
Don't worry about continuing to reply, it's good to have a civil conversation with someone about ME3 who has an opposite view and more perspective, half the time I have people calling me an idiot, or false, or a filthy casual, or they just shout at me, hahaha.
Can I join in? I really like polite, thoughtful arguments because they bring up things I haven't thought of or forgot about and help everyone figue things out, but every time ME3 comes up you have lots of mindless fanboys, lots of mindless raeg, and almost no real discussion. I should probably hide most of this so people can scroll past the off-topic bits tho...
I understand that most people were expecting the 'Dark Energy' plot in ME3 due to the hints in the second game, but I really didn't know ANYTHING about the whole Dark Energy thing until I started reading people talking about it. Maybe it's cause I really didn't like Tali, maybe because it was too subtle for me, whatever the reason, I honestly never had the whole 'Dark Energy killing the universe' going through my mind. My assumption when playing Mass Effect 2 was that the Reapers were focusing on humans because it was a human who screwed the pooch for their plans. The Human Reaper at the end of the game just meant to me that Reapers used other species to create Reapers, and initially I did not realise that it was only the core and that it would eventually be covered in squid armour once built.
I knew about the Dark Energy thing (I love Tali [no not like that, she's just a fun character with a good development arc]), but I never really though it was a big part of the Reapers' motivation. If this was an ongoing natural thing they were trying to stop, it seems like it would have been more widespread and normal astronomical study would consider it normal, instead of being the big mystery to investigate. I figured it might be a trick by the Reapers or the Geth or some other faction that you'd have to deal with, or maybe something you could harness as a weapon against them, or maybe just a weird thing that doesn't enter the plot except as an explanation for Tali's presence there.

Based on what Sovereign said in the first game, I figured that maybe the Reapers were studying the younger races' development. Or maybe they lacked that creative drive of the young races, being ancient and mechanical and immortal, and harvested whatever new technologies were developed by the little mayflies every 50,000 years while being careful not to let them get powerful enough to pose a serious threat. Or maybe they had some motivation incmprehensible to us mere mortals, being the timeless eldrich monstrosities they were. The only things that were certain were that there was nothing above them, they acted only on their own inscruitable interests, and they were confident in their own power to the point where failure was inconceivable to Soverein. But Shepard managed to kill one of them, through trickery and playing on his hubris and impressive leadership and a hell of a lot of luck, so Humanity (and Shepard in particular) got their attention.
The second game gave their reason, or at least one of their reasons: they use the galaxy and the young races to reproduce. While wiping out anyone who might become a threat, they ascend the dominant race, or the best of them in the case of a balance like in the current cycle, to Reaperhood. They're effectively the ultimate social darwinists, giving whoever competes best in the galactic arena immortality and a place in whatever society they have out beyond the rim and exterminating everyone else. Humanity got picked this time around because Shepard proved their potency when he killed Sovereign, and because of all the nice special qualities that took humanity from the first rockets to full Council race status in a couple centuries. If you bring alien squadmates to the final battle in ME2 Harbinger will even tell you why each other race wasn't chosen: the Krogans would have been great if they won their war but the genophage makes them worthless, the Quarians are brilliant but their physical frailty disqualifies them, the Asari's long life and superpowers stagnate their development and their reproduction makes them dependant on other races to produce anything but inbred idiots, etc. Some people thought it was silly (probably because all you see of this process is a giant metal skeleton fetus), but I thought the end of ME2 explained the Reapers pretty well in an incomplete way that would be built on by the third game when you face more of them and have more sources of information; they had a believable motivation that could be added to but didn't need more, and it easily allowed for the same superiority and conceit that Sovereign displayed in the first game.
Then of course the ending of ME3 threw everything away and made them the mindless pawns of a retarded glowing infant, but I choose to believe that didn't happen since it contradicts all of the lore and the major themes of the story until then.

I also didn't mind the direction they took with ME2 being more filler gap before ME3 as it had served a few purposes for the players. It gave us new and more interesting squad members (Kaiden, Ashley and Tali in my opinion were somewhat dull in the first game) such as Jack, Mordin, my main man Grunt, Legion, and to a certain extent Miranda. I liked the begining as it was the perfect way to make the enemy of the game look threatening. I justified the Reapers using the Collectors to attack human colonies as they (the Reapers) wanted humans out of the way due to a human halting their plans. I also enjoyed the more streamlined levels and areas were, as in ME1 I would find myself getting lost or bored in areas such as the Citadel and Feros (if Feros is where you fight the Thorian).
I definitely agree on all of this. ME2 is a prefect example of a second act. The basic stage was set and the big players had been introduced by ME1, but we didn't know much about them. The first big conflict was over and there was hope, but the threat was far from gone. ME2 did what the second in a trilogy should: it progressed but did not resolve the main plot, it grew the hero from where he was in the first act (needing the combined forces of the entire Council and then some plus an overconfident enemy and a lot of luck just to take one target) to where he needed to be for the third act (capable of fighting a desparate, not quite hopeless war on a galactic scale), and it did that well. It introduced all the real players who hadnt been in the beginning, and gave you much more information and development for those who didn't have much of a chance the first time around (the Geth, the Rachni, the Quarians, the Krogan, Aria, The Illusive Man, all your new squadmates, all your old squadmates except for the boring human ones, etc.).
Maybe most importantly, it introduced a real villain to rally against. Sovereign was powerful, but so full of himself that he went into solo combat in a borrowed corpse against someone who killed every opponent he faced on a scale smaller than a dropship. He had no subtlety, no careful plans, nothing in his toolbox but a really big hammer and he got killed in the first act because of it. Harbinger, on the other hand, seems silly on the surface but gets dangerously genre savvy when you look closer. His first action when he takes command is not to brag, or make a show of force, or even to move forward with the invasion. His first action is to find the man who killed his predecessor, and apply enough power to qualify as overkill on any other target to the ship he's on. Then (if you read the comics, or just look closely enough at Liara's story between the first and second games) he does not just count you as dead after your ship was disintegrated around you. He dedicates all the resources at his immediate disposal to confirming the kill, and it's only the combined efforts of Liara, Aria, and Cerberus that manage to recover your body before the Collectors do. And when you come back and do start fighting him, he's learned from the previous villain's mistake: despite the memes he never actually takes direct control and fights you himself, because that's what made Sovereign vulnerable for the moment it took to destroy him. Instead, he always goes through the intermediary of the Collecter General and lies to you at every turn. Then when you complete the main plot of ME2 and somehow make it through the suicide mission? You accomplished next to nothing. You exterminated a handful of second-rate minions, and prevented them from making a human reaper until they could fully subjugate humanity, but all his important plans are intact. And you've alienated the Council, used a lot of resources, and probably gotten several of your friends (the best in the galaxy for fighting Reapers) killed in the process. When Arrival comes you manage to set him back... by a few months, at the expense of immobilizing yourself for those same months, driving every civilized race furthr against you, and all but declraring a personal war on the Batarians. Harbinger might not have as much direct force to bring to bear as the dragon in the first act, but he's smart and he's patient and he does not underestimate you, making him a huge threat and a sort of evil opposite to Shepard in the war; as you scramble to unite the races and organize things against the Reaper invasion, he would match your every move arranging his already overwhelming forces to even more lethal effect and braking apart your fragile alliances.
Until of course the third game appears, Harbinger reads the script, and opts out of the whole mess.

Mass Effect 3 focusing more on Earth made sense to me due to my inability to understand that Tali's mission hinted at a different story for the Reapers, and I reasoned their focusing on Earth was due to a human ruining their plans twice, so this was payback for being awesome at stopping ancient synthetic/organic space ships. I understood that some people were angry because they wanted to explore other planets, and Earth seemed dull to them, but I felt that really drove home the fact that just because we killed 1 Reaper, a bunch of mutated Protheans, and a baby Reaper, Humanity and the rest of the space races were hopelessly outmatched.
I believe every major race's capital/homeworld recieved similar treatment as a major invasion and harvesting point, but it does make sense for Earth to get special attention; if Shepard, TIM, Joker, Anderson, and all those other big time players came from humanity, Earth is a source of many potential threats, and if they're still the best choice for this cycle's new baby Reaper you need your biggest harvesting operation where the human population is biggest. And personally I was kind of hoping for more missions on the surface, sabotaging reaper operations or extricating VIPs with the Normandy's stealth drive.
What doesn't really make sense is using Earth for the ending, or trying to rally the galaxy to take back your planet specifically instead of generally beating back Reaper forces, but nothing in the ending and little in the core plot makes sense.

While I still love the series, I can see how Bioware kinda screwed the pooch when it came to Mass Effect 3 as they had built up so much hype and expanded on the universe with novels and comics. But I just got really annoyed when people started demanding a new ending and picking apart thngs, especially when some people started pointing fingers at ME2 even though weeks prior to ME3 they liked the game.
I still love Bioware. You can see the old brilliance and talent they made so many classics with throughout ME3, and they actually lived up to the hype for the most part... outside of that 10% containing the ending and the Crucible. And then you can see EA's bloody handprints all over that part, after the lead writer of the first two games was replaced. So as much as I hate to say it and as much fun as I've had, I don't think I'll ever be buying another Bioware game.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Devoneaux said:
On the mars mission, why did Cerberus bring land based vehicles? And if they brought them, where was the ship they brought them on? Wouldn't it have shown up on the SR2's scanners like every other Cerberus vessel does?
Why would they have land vehicles on a heavily colonized planet, vehicles that drive you from one place to another. Hmm thats a tricky one, perhaps they drove there?

Devoneaux said:
Who is Vega and how does he know Shepard?
Vegas was eiher assigned to Shepard somehow or worked with him during his detention, the dialogue made that quite clear.

Devoneaux said:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing?
Because of artistic intent, making the intro/demo to a game more exciting than using stairs is a fair enough reason.

Devoneaux said:
So Legion and all his buddies have been on Rhannoc for 290 years. Why during that amount of time didn't they just pack up their shit and leave when the Quarians came? what is so valuable about a planet to a bunch of machines that they would be willing to risk everything just to keep it?
Not a plot hole at all just an unresolved question, its an interesting question sure but its not a plot hole.


Devoneaux said:
I can do this all day!
Actually try listing some plot holes then, the game has enough of them but these are not plot holes.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
SNIP

Did you also notice how starchild's chaos/order (technological singularity) contradicted the Rannoch story arc.

They spent 2 games convincing us the geth are misunderstood and can co-exist with organics...just to say...ermm no disregard everything you have learnt and experienced... they will kill you because starchild said so in 10 lines of dialogue.

This is what happens when you change the entire point of the reapers at the end. It would be like when Luke gets to the Emperor in Return of the jedi. Then the emperor says 'The dark side has to keep the light side in balance or the universe will implode...No you can't argue this is now fact.'
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
bug_of_war said:
I wasn't aware off the Dark energy theory at the time either. But the chaos/order explanation still felt contrived because it didn't fit with everything else that happened in the story

The starchild explanation directly contradicts the geth rannoch story arc. 2 games convincing us the geth can co-exist peacefully with organics, just for starchild to say 'ermmm no we were right the first time'

I think people wanting a 'new ending' were confused at what happened..They wanted an explanation of what the writer's meant. Thing is there were so many plot holes and contrivances in the ending and the run up to the end, the audience could not distinguish what was supposed to be open ended and what was just poor writing. There are times to leave things open ended and this wasn't it anyway . The funny thing is they got an explanation for an ending that doesn't make sense in the first place.
Here's a brilliant vid analysing what went wrong if you have not already seen it (it's doesn't go into detail about specific plot elements but still the best vid I have seen)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Some things are never explained. Some things seem to go against common sense. Why don't they turn off the New You things in Borderlands? I dunno. Reasons.

Those are not plot holes. Plot holes are logical impossibilities. Like a character being somewhere when they're supposedly currently being elsewhere, or a gun working when it was out of ammo 4 sentences ago.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
J Tyran said:
Devoneaux said:
So Legion and all his buddies have been on Rhannoc for 290 years. Why during that amount of time didn't they just pack up their shit and leave when the Quarians came? what is so valuable about a planet to a bunch of machines that they would be willing to risk everything just to keep it?
Not a plot hole at all just an unresolved question, its an interesting question sure but its not a plot hole.
Well, the Quarians have never tried to return to the planet before. Or attempted to communicate with the Geth in a way that did not involve trying to kill or enslave them. Meanwhile the rest of the Council races exiled the creators from the Citadel just for making the Geth, and have a clear exterminate on sight policy for rogue AIs. Because literally everyone who's brought up the subject before Shepard, on both sides of the argument, started from the assumption that any organic discovering an AI would attempt to destroy it and vice versa if possible. The implication is that, given the levels of paranoia on both sides, nobody's really attempted any sort of negotiations over the course of these three hundred years.
Legion told you that most Geth didn't live on Rhannoc anyway, and those who did were just acting as caretakers of the world, upkeeping it for the expected return of the Quarians. But the Quarians attempted genocide when Geth sentience was first discovered and those feelings have only intensified over the centuries of wandering for most people. And when the Quarians finally did come home, it was as an invasion force looking to shoot first, keep shooting until the threat was gone, and think about living space after the Geth were eliminated; at that point any reaction other than fighting back would be suicide.

The Geth were extremely, violently isolationist because it was the only way to survive. They stayed hidden beyond the Veil to minimize contact with Council races because every contact they did have was bloody. Then some of them split off to follow Sovereign, Shepard comes along to stop them, and the remaining Geth become curious enough to send Legion to effectively make first contact with humanity. Until that happened, there was no chance for negotiation and even Shepard can only keep the races from exterminating each other if you do everything perfectly. The tragedy of the whole thing is that those three hundred years of suffering and the probable extinction of one race was the result of nothing but a lack of understanding; neither side wanted to fight but both felt they needed to defend themselves and there was no communication between them until Tali met Legion.


IronMit said:
I think people wanting a 'new ending' were confused at what happened..They wanted an explanation of what the writer's meant. Thing is there were so many plot holes and contrivances in the ending and the run up to the end, the audience could not distinguish what was supposed to be open ended and what was just poor writing. There are times to leave things open ended and this wasn't it anyway . The funny thing is they got an explanation for an ending that doesn't make sense in the first place.
Personally I thought that the ending was perfectly clear (except in the actual results of your color selection and the whole question of where the hell the Normandy went and why, but the extended cut makes those clearer), but everything they said contradicted the story before. People always seem to say that those who complain about the ending don't understand it, or hated that it wasn't an unambiguously happy end, or are just raeging that the story was over, but most of the complaints are actually legitimate reasons given by mature people who understood everything - more than the writer of the end seemed to.
The Reapers were given a great deal of characterization in the first two games which was then completely flipped for no reason in one badly written dialogue. The themes of the story were suddenly gutted: the previous games had been about a hero's choices shaping a galaxy, fixing the mistakes of the past (Rachni, Genophage, Geth/Quarian war, etc.), unifying disparate races toward a common goal and finding common ground between alien races, proving that there's no meaningful difference between synthetic and organic life (EDI/Joker, Shepard as a cyborg, the Geth/Quarian unification), and a dozen other recurring themes... then those are all thrown out and replaced with 'synthetics and organics can never coexist' and 'order must be preserved at all cost because chaos is bad or something'. It's like if somebody skimmed over about 10% of a summary of the previous games and then wrote a bad fanfic of it.
I don't want a happy ending. I don't want the story to go on forever. I don't require that every loose thread be unambiguously tied off. What I want is an ending that fits the story, both matching lore and fitting themes. And while I'm not crazy enough to have demanded a change from the publishers or expected a DLC to 'fix' it, the official ending is not one which works for the story which was told. Which is why I generally leave it out of any discussion of the Mass Effect storyline, because it is clearly incongruent with the Mass Effect storyline.
 

pspman45

New member
Sep 1, 2010
703
0
0
In Uncharted 3 there is this scene where Drake and his friends are looking at this wall to find the entrance to some tomb or something when one of the villains literally comes out of nowhere, shoots one of your allies with a mind control dart, turns him against you, and then promptly disappears back into nowhere.
no, I'm not joking, this actually happened
nobody heard him at all? nobody saw where he went?
I was actually pretty pissed at this one, it just made absolutely no sense at all!
what the actual fuck.
 

darlarosa

New member
May 4, 2011
347
0
0
Rawne1980 said:
Dragon Age 2.

All the way through it you get drummed with "Mages are good .... Templars are bad".

Yet all the way through it the Templars are helpful and polite and the Mages are trying to eat my face.....

Kind of hard to follow a plot and take it seriously when it doesn't know what the fuck it's doing itself. In fact, the Templars don't turn "bad" until the very end and even then it's only 1 person .... who turns bad because of a corrupt sword .... made from metal Hawke found.

WHO WRITES THIS SHIT.
Well...its pretty much implied throughout the game that a lot of rape and sexual assault is happening in the Gallows. If you walk around the gallows and click on people a few times or overhear them they'll hint at it repeatedly. The reason that crazy Templar was making mages Trainquil was so he could use them without complaining. Alain, one of the mages from Starkhaven, if he is captured he will tell you that he has been forced to do things under threat of being made Trainquil

It's not done well at all. Every other mage uses blood magic, and
I have a theory it was all in an attempt to make people want to play a templar in DA3....

Devoneaux said:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing?
Because the doors are blocked and the interior of the building is chaos. Thats pretty damn clear. Not to mention you don't know what is stable and what isn't....remember the Reaper tore through that building.
...a lot og your questions are answered if you go look up the wiki or...pay attention to the game