Biggest plot holes in games

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
Suncatcher said:
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.
The fact that something like this is even in issue is proof that nobody writing Mass Effect 3 had any respect for, or clue about what the first two games were doing.

A player controlled narrative where your choices decide the fate of the galaxy!
But in practice only 2 choices you made had any remote baring on the course of the finally. Minor ones at that that ultimately only effected numbers on a chart.
Did you save Mellon's data (Not did you stop Mordin from shooting him, no. Just did you save his data)
and what did you do with the Geth Heretics (And questionably at that, I've managed to get peace with them destroyed and rewritten)


But here's the biggest choice you made in the first game are you going to pick the sleaze ball politician to be the most powerful human in history, or are you going to pick the honorable military Capetian.
So we wait 5 years to see the consequences of our choice come to fruition and Bioware, all by themselves, decided it wasn't important enough to follow up on.

Yes, that's low. But not a plot hole.
The thing that does make it a plot hole is a line Councilor Anderson says in Mass Effect 2

"As much as I complain I have an important job to do here."
That's not something you say before you quit.
And running away from obligation doesn't suit Anderson's character. Bioware expects us to take for granted that when the going gets tough Anderson just throws in the towel and completely checks out? I don't buy it.
Furthermore Anderson didn't like Udina. (It's just speculation but) It seems to me that Anderson would try his damnedest to appoint anybody else as his successor.


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).
There's a problem with that view point.
But it relies heavily on the understanding that Mass Effect 2 was a game. Not a movie, not a book, not a campfire story, but a game. And that player choice was a core mechanic of that game.

Throughout Mass Effect 2 you were allowed to decide whether you agreed with Cerberus or not.
If as you think is, was, and forever will be "evil" that effectively makes anyone who played Renegade in ME2 canonically incorrect. Basically rewriting the Renegade personality into the "Stupid Shepard"

(Even though the Renegade personality was revised in ME3 into the much nicer, much less racist Shepard with more political foresight and weird empathy for some kid she doesn't even know, but that's a story for another time)

Even though everything they're doing in ME3 disagrees with their MO (Which is to help humanity)
Setting up a fake refugee camp so they can experiment on the very humans they're trying to protect is off...
Attacking Alliance bases for... reasons?
They must be indoctrinated... but they aren't because they were investing all their resources into trying to figure out how indoctrination works so they could use it against the Reapers. And if the Reapers were controlling their brains why would they let them do that? So one of those things is a plot hole

And when you can't even tell which part is plot and which part is hole that speaks wonders for how bad the writing is.




Bioware should stop making games, They had a good run from Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect 2. They were really good when they stayed in their comfort zone. Nobody did the Hero's Journey better. But then they decided they had enough of the Hero's Journey and everything went to hell. Dragon Age 2 was a complete Narrative mess and ME 3 was a complete shitstorm.

Their last 2 games are proof that they're incapable of incorporating any level of player choice into a narrative more complicated than "Go there. Kill thing. Save day."
The second they try to add family drama or political intrigue everything goes strait down the drain
 

sibrenfetter

New member
Oct 26, 2009
105
0
0
The whole Dark Souls story. I adore the game, but after more than a 100 hours I still have no clue what I'm doing,achieving and striving for.
 

Magicman10893

New member
Aug 3, 2009
455
0
0
alphamalet said:
Protocol95 said:
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.
That is inaccurate. The game attempts to say "Some mages are good, some are bad and the same goes with templars". Not every mage in the game tries to kill you or someone else or just genreally be a jerk. For example Feynriel is an unfortunate apostate who will only do something bad if you indulged in some really horrible Video Game Cruelty Potential. For the templars there are a quite a few templars who are unabigiously evil. Take Ser Alrik, the templar who wanted to make all mages tranquil, which is considered by many of them a fate worse than death.
I agree to a certain extent, but I still believe that in light of DA:O, the templars vs mages plot felt very contrived. Think about it. In the tower mage origin story of DA:O, a mage uses blood magic and everyone freaks out! It was a big deal that didn't happen often! Even the fiance of the mage that uses blood magic abandons her trust of him and willingly submits to punishment for even associating with him. When you come back to the tower after it has fallen in DA:O, you run into mages that say they want nothing to do with blood magic or the rebellion that is taking place. DA:O did a good job of making you feel sympathetic to both the templars and mages while successfully making the delineation that negative actions were performed by a few bad apples on both sides.

Hop on over to Dragon Age II, and in the game's final act, every templar is order to kill every mage, which prompts every mage to turn into a blood mage. It felt so damn contrived and didn't match the tone of the original game at all. Not only that, blood magic was used at a far greater frequency in Dragon Age II. And for what reason? Didn't people fear it just as much? The writing in DA II was an absolute mess.
I know you guys are trying to drop this argument, but I feel the need to chip in. I'm apologizing in advance in case this was already mentioned since I only read the first page so far, but I'll forget if I keep reading.

The reason there are more blood mages is because the veil in Kirkwall is much thinner. The city was built by the Tevinters (a land more or less made up of Mages that don't submit to the Chantry) and they purposely built Kirkwall in such a way to weaken the veil inside the city walls. The handful of hidden notes across the game point this out, so it's something you will have to actively look for as opposed to just being outright told. With the extremely thin veil in Kirkwall, demons can communicate with the Mages and tempt them into becoming Blood Mages.

Then there's the more overzealous Templars that turn Mages into Tranquil for minor offenses or suspicions, which in turn causes the Mages to run away or turn to Blood Magic and resist, which then makes the Tempars even more strict. So you have an environment almost literally filled with demons trying to seduce Mages that are being backed into a corner by some of the most zealous Templars the Chantry has at their disposal.

Honestly I love the story line. The individual characters, not so much, but the overarching story fascinates me. On one hand, the Templars are just trying to keep the people safe because Mages can be dangerous, but they're also shooting themselves in the foot with every offensive push. The Mages just want to be free and live a normal life, but they can't because of the power they posses, as well as the potential for demonic possession, and it breeds fear and prejudice among the civilians, leaving them as second-class citizens and social pariahs. You want to help Templars because they both keep the public safe from the Mages and the Mages safe from the public, but at the same time you want to help the Mages live a free life, because they are people too. That is why the game forces you to have a Mage no matter what (Warrior/Rogue Hawk has Bethany, while Mage Hawk has Carver).
 

Boozak

New member
Apr 8, 2010
5
0
0
wakeup said:
hermes200 said:
In Heavy Rain, they never explain Ethan's blackouts, which is a pretty big deal because they are the reason he is the main suspect. What is more, they contain information about victims Ethan wouldn't have even met...
they came out in a video and explained that one but it had a supernatural like explanation so the scenes that explained that were cut out of the game. shame really
You dont need a supernatural explanation. He was in a car accident and had a concussion which causes blackouts. Simple.

EDIT: I dont remember him miraculously learning new information via blackouts but they do cause memory loss, maby he forgot how he learned said information. It's a stretch I know but it makes some sort of sense.
 

Fredvdp

New member
Apr 9, 2009
139
0
0
Mass Effect 3

The Crucible is a device that connects with the Citadel and uses the mass relays to spread its energy. This device has been used for countless of cycles, including cycles when there was no way to link it to the Citadel because the Reapers shut down the entire relay network at the start of a cycle, as mentioned by Vigil. We are the exception because the protheans sabotaged the Citadel's relay control. It is unknown why the civilizations of the galaxy would begin construction of this device if they had no way of deploying it. I know the Citadel was only added to the design later on, but there were at least several cvilizations who could never transport the crucible to the Citadel.
 

Broderick

New member
May 25, 2010
462
0
0
sibrenfetter said:
The whole Dark Souls story. I adore the game, but after more than a 100 hours I still have no clue what I'm doing,achieving and striving for.
That isnt really a plot hole. (edited to reduce cheekyness) Basically by talking to frampt or kaathe you get the general gist of what the point of what you are doing. This is spoilerific for anyone who has not beaten the games, so...be warned!

Frampt's version:
Frampt wants the player to relight the flame to extend the current Age of Fire; you do this by "succeeding Gwyn". It does suggest that doing this replenishes the power the bonfires, preventing the spread of darkness. Gwyn himself did this in the past. It is also suggested that this gives the gods more power, thus re-assuming their reign over mankind.

Kaathe's version:
Basically, by killing Gwyn and refusing to relight the fires, you stop the cycle of the undead curse. Without the bonfires, the undead cannot respawn(little example of the game mechanic and lore going hand in hand nicely) and this also ends the reign of the gods. Thus the age of man can begin, with you as it's "dark lord". Everything else is speculative. It is said that after the fire dies, the world might as well, a bit like the spreading of the void in oolacile.
 

Magicman10893

New member
Aug 3, 2009
455
0
0
Borderlands 2 seems rife with them.

Why not disable the New You stations? Why couldn't Handsome Jack use the New You stations? Why couldn't Roland? Also, by the end of Borderlands 1, my Roland was a god among men with enough health and shields to stare most enemies to death and had a huge arsenal of incredibly powerful and rare weapons. How the Hell did Jack just one-shot him like that? Speaking of which, when Jack shot Roland, why couldn't he just shoot me as well? I mean, at that point I was only like a level 30. If he could one-shot Roland (who according to my game files is around a level 62), he would've turned me into giblets. He was already mad that I killed his daughter, if I was him I would've destroyed the BL2 vault hunters right there.
 

Auron225

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,790
0
0
Boozak said:
You dont need a supernatural explanation. He was in a car accident and had a concussion which causes blackouts. Simple.

EDIT: I dont remember him miraculously learning new information via blackouts but they do cause memory loss, maby he forgot how he learned said information. It's a stretch I know but it makes some sort of sense.
That works, aside from the fact that early-on in the story he wakes up from a blackout with an origami figure in his hand. Never gets explained... ever.

OT: I never understood the ending of LoZ: Ocarina of Time. You go forward in time 7 years, stop Ganondorf, and then go back 7 years - and everything is fine and dandy... WHAT!? 0.0
 

Jimmy T. Malice

New member
Dec 28, 2010
796
0
0
pspman45 said:
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.
Also, the bit where he gets killed and inexplicably comes back later.
 

SayHelloToMrBullet

New member
Sep 6, 2011
75
0
0
Marik Bentusi said:
BioShock: Just why did Fontaine pull of his elaborate scheme with the protagonist instead of bunkering him somewhere close? It just adds a crapton of unnecessary complications not only in theory, but also practically as it turns out his creation really does backfire on him.
From what I remember, the reason Fontaine sent Jack to the surface was to keep him out of Ryan's reach. After all, Ryan knew the child existed, and that with his genetic key the child would be dangerous if used by Fontaine.

I could be wrong though.

Dr. McD said:
The capital wasteland can not sustain life, there are no plants except at Oasis, what the fuck is at the bottom of the food chain?! What do they feed the Brahmin?! Why is there NO FUCKING FAMINE?!
You make a pretty valid point there. Seems illogical that anything could survive and grow.

Dr. McD said:
Burke hires you to blow up Megaton from in Megaton, in front of everyone.
Not really a plot hole. Realistically you would assume the Mr Burke simply speaks quietly to the player so that no-one overhears, but of course what actually happens is the game pauses and he speaks at a normal volume level.

Dr. McD said:
Why are the Super Mutants retarded orcs and ogres?!
I assume you are talking about how they're different from the the West Coast supermutants? Simple, they were formed from an altered form of the FEV virus. The game explains this.

Dr. McD said:
Why does Vault-Tec even have anything to do with FEV?!
Maybe the military gave it to them to use in their vault experiments, or maybe the corporation stole it after finding out about it somehow. Just use your imagination. I mean, is it really that hard to believe that Vault Tec somehow got their hands on an altered FEV virus?
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
Suncatcher said:
Can I join in?
You totally can. Because your post is mega long, I'm gonna try and pick out parts that have not been talked about as much due to it being a pain in the ass to scroll through so much to edit.

Suncatcher said:
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.
While I agree with you that initially the Reapers did feel as they WERE the epitome of the universe, I always saw them as being more robotic and faar too logical to have been AI technology with the depth of EDI or Legion. This is due to a number of things. First off, Soverign and all the other Reaper's refusal to explain to Shepard where they came from tells me that they are restricted by their programming to believe that all organic life is too fragile and stupid (for lack of a better word) to understand their story. Secondly, the very precise cycle and ability to change tactics on the fly show me that they have some form of pre programming and are quite clearly unburdened by any emotions, they simply observe and then act. Thirdly, Soverigns assault on the Citadel had a very distinct split in terms of what's going on. For example, you saw this as the Reaper's ego outweighing his ability to determine risk assesment (very poorly paraphrased, but I believe that is something along the lines of what you said), however I saw this as a machine who was running out of time to perform a task that it HAD to complete because it was time to do so. Seeing as how there is evidence to back up both sides, I think it's clear that there are some examples suggesting the Reapers are more or less following basic programming.

Suncatcher said:
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.
This is also an example of where both sides show seemingly intelligent individual thinking by a machine that has no programming boundries/a machine with very strict boundries. Harbinger saw that Soverign had fallen due to a certain creature, his programming would demand the cycle continue but his observations of the events in ME1 gave him all the information needed to defeat this problem, use overkill tactics, then confirm the enemies dead body and continue on with galactic purging as planned. Again, plenty of evidence to shoot this down, and plenty to back it up.

Suncatcher said:
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.
Respectfully, I would like to disagree. It's been established that Harbinger seems to be the one whom is pulling the strings in the battle, so to then have the catalyst moved to Earth to be watched under his supervision makes sense when Shepard had done the unimaginable and truly rallied the majority of the galaxy. While the initial 'lets rally the galaxy to save Earth' definately doesn't make sense, as there are the same amount of Reaper's on other planets (That is until the ending), so I agree with you there. There is a spectacular line in the mission where you go to the Asari homeworld and fight with the comandos. During the battle, when you convince the commanding officer to hold the line she yells out "Let the galaxy know that the war was won on *insert Asari homeworld name here*". This shows how each species feels as though the attack is very personal, and that because Shepard, the guy who has been kicking ass before they realised there really was an ass that needed kicking, told them that their planet may hold the key to the destruction of the Reapers, it is clear that that just bolstered their belief that something about them made them more important than other species. I feel that it shows that during an intense moment of impossible odds, people can become closed minded and believe that the problem is only effecting them and no one else. Then, when Shepard reveals the key to winning, and that it's on Earth, everyone whom pledged their alliance (after being saved from the impossible odds) are fully prepared to go to this one planet.

Suncatcher said:
you can see EA's bloody handprints all over that part, after the lead writer of the first two games was replaced
Now, this is where I REALLY disagree. While EA does make some bad decisions, I feel that it is not their fault when it comes to Mass Effect's story. First off, to all those who claimed EA rushed Bioware, they didn't, they actually extended Mass Effect 3's release date so as that the game could be polished. Secondly, there have been reports that the lead writer chose to quit/was let go, and because of legal documents we will probably not know which is fact or fiction. But to blame EA for the ending and the direction of the story when they never actually touched the games script, AND when it was revealed that Casey Hudson wrote the ending, it really shows that EA had nothing to do with the game other than paying to make it. Thirdly, claiming that the introduction of multiplayer effected the single player story in any way other than the EMS rating percentage is wrong. The story was completed before the multi player was even added to the development of the game.

Please don't blame EA for this one. Sure the FD DLC is kinda a dick move, but companies like Capcom and Nintendo are SOO much worse when compared to EA. Please don't let Mass Effect 3 stop you from playing future Bioware games, as while I can't predict the future, I think Bioware really listens to their fans and will try to aim to please. And with all the negativity thrown at EA last year, the likely hood of them rushing bioware (DA2, not a bad game, not a great game) or doing anything to try and pressure other devs is so low that you're more likely to see Nintendo release a game THEY (Key word being they as in Nintendo themselves, not other companies) developed with current gen quality graphics.
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
IronMit said:
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
Yeah, the star child is totally contrived, but I don't see that as an immediete bad thing. Anyways. Yeah, there wer plot holes in the games, but almost everything has some degree of plot holes. It seems as though Mass Effect had such a large universe that the devs kinda forgot about some things or glazed over some others in favour of where they wanted to go. That vid you linked is long as hell and I've seen it before and kinda had moments of agreeing and disagreeing. Yes, the ending can totally be confusing, and I didn't figure this out until like a month ago, but I think this is what they were trying to do.

Firstly, I believe that Bioware saw leaving the ending open gave players the ability to imagine there own version of what the universe will be like with the decisions they made. Granted, most people felt this was wrong as I have found most Bioware fans seem to want to know absolutely everything there is to know to the point of it kind of being annoying (example being who made the Reapers, I really didn't care because I felt it detracted from the main point of ME3).

Now, onto what I think they were trying to do with the 3 endings. The 3 endings represent both human psychology and the summary of the trilogy. The first game represents fear and destruction. We learn that there is a powereful and seemingly unstoppable enemy that plans to wipe out all races. We understand and no little of this enemy, so we fear them, and through that fear groes hate and the need to destroy this thing before it gets us. First ending of ME3 is Destroy, the fear of the Reapers causes you to sacrifice ALL other AI's in order to save yourself. The second game represents coming to terms with reality and begining to understand the things (in this case, the Reapers) workings. We know they are not immortal or invulnerable, and we understand that they are machines, which means they must have to follow some restraints of synthetic lifeforms. Thus, we begin to try and control the Reapers (The Illusive Man, but Shepard can/can't depending on what you pick). The second ending is control, understanding that the enemy has limitations and can be defeated, the player makes the decision to take over their minds and guide them in a knew direction. The third game is all about unifying the galaxy to confront a threat that not only effects everyone, but we understand a majority of what they can do. The third ending is synthesis, the unification of synthetic and organic life.

Now, how does this fit into human psychology? let me use the Vampire as an example. Initially, we feared Vampires as the were immortal creatures in the dark whom seemingly had complete and utter control over everything. We feared the, we hated them, and we sought their destruction. After a while we began to understand the basics of Vampires, they drank blood, burned in the sun, didn't have reflections, and steaks to the hearts killed them. We began to gain control over the once feared creatures and could use their disadvantage to our advantage. Now days, Twilight, Underworld, True Blood etc all show that we know soo much about Vampires that some people begin to actually want to be Vampires.

I could be reading into the came far too deeply, but Bioware are known for making subtle references and forming complex ideas and leaving them up to the player to figure out/decide what's what.