Most obvious plot hole.
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was curious why the robo-bike had a convenient USB port that auto-uploads and installs the "let humans control me" software. But even this is nothing when you wonder why the robo-bike has external controls usable by humans in the first place. Why the hell does a robotic bike need handlebars, brakes, gas pedal, clutch, etc??CargoHold said:
I give up, I'm sick of proving you wrong over and over again because you are way too fucking arrogant to accept defeat.Littlee300 said:1. O rly?Old Trailmix said:1. They didn't have a space station, and they didn't have a bomb. If they wanted a bomb, it would have taken FOUR YEARS for it to be delivered, time which they absolutely didn't have.Littlee300 said:1. A space station would cost way more then a bomb about size of a big tree.Old Trailmix said:1. They didn't have the resources.Littlee300 said:Avatar
1. Why didn't you orbital bomb those tree huggers
2. Just drop two tank on top of their main base
3. How they are able to sharpen the spears but they can go through bullet proof gas. I mean if you can sharpen them, so they can't be too hard... (my logic may be flawed, don't be ass holes when proving it)
4. Maybe I am just being a baby because the bad guys won.
2. That didn't make any sense I have no idea what you just siad.
3. Again, that made no sense, bullet proof gas? What?
4. The good guys one.
Night At The Museum, the guy never ever sleeps.
2. You just can't figure out how it makes sense
3. It is just a typo
4. What is good and bad is subjective
2. No, it seriously made no sense. If you mean TANKS then what the fuck would two tanks on top of a base accomplish?
3. No explanation here.
4. I think it's pretty obvious who the good and the bad people are, just because you're playing Devils Advocate doesn't mean that you are any good at it.
2. Yes it does you just can't figure out how it makes sense
3. Victory
4. Victory again!
Nah, it be way smarter to wrap frodo in pillows then use a catpult to launch him all the way to mount doom then he can just run in and throw the ring in.TheYellowCellPhone said:
In a sense, I agree with you 100% -- We have it all wrong!! Jesus (the one in the Bible, not the one that people manipulate to support whatever their beliefs are) was a pretty awesome guy. He hung out with the people that everyone else hated, and He never once yelled at them, called them names, told them they were going to hell. He just loved them!Shivarage said:
I feel that you echo His feelings when you say that, because you know who He DID have a problem with? The religious organizations of the day (He pretty much called the religious people snakes and hypocrites.) I recommend "Imaginary Jesus" by Mike Mikalatos, a goofy look at all the misconceptions we have about Jesus. -- http://imaginaryjesus.com/download_sample_chapter
*DISCLAIMER* I totally admit to being a horrible representation of Jesus 99.9999% of the time. I'm an imperfect person who tries to reflect a perfect savior.
HOWEVER, (the not 100% part) love doesn't tolerate, at least not infinitely. I know that God loves everyone, and always will, but that's why He wants us to change. He doesn't impose change, but He asks us to change, because He wants a relationship with us, He wants what's best for us!
This is a way shorter post, and I hope it's to the point!
EDIT: Crap, I posted instead of previewed. I hope I didn't bug anyone with my super huge and super redundant post!)
dFirst of all, thanks! I thought I had posted before, but I guess I've been content to read the Search for Traps newsletters and as much obscure video game news as I can.
I shortened the post, I tried to mostly delete my stuff, or parts that weren't really pertinent to the discussion (if I deleted something important, I apologize!)
In the Psalms, the verse I referenced, it's not God talking about Himself, but rather someone else (probably David, or another song writer.) Obviously, this doesn't make it true. I could get someone to say that I'M perfect, but no one is going to believe me. The only way to prove my perfection is by, well, being perfect.
In the Bible (Old Testament especially) it's sort of hard to see God as a perfect God, considering some pretty outrageous stuff happens. (And, to be fair, it's not all God's fault for what was written in the Bible. It's a history book, it tells the history of the Israelites, so there's a lot of messed up stuff that happens just because they were messed up.)
But there is some pretty iffy stuff that happens too (God commands the Israelites to wipe out entire villages, including woman and children, among other things.) And I want to reconcile it in my head and my heart, and for the most part I can (I suppose it comes down to trusting the things that don't make sense, because the other stuff DOES make sense, both from a logical point and an experiential point.)
The New Testament is a lot easier to see God's perfection, because we see how Jesus acted, and He was GOOD. I would say that a practical definition of perfection would be someone who does nothing wrong, and according to what the Bible says, He did nothing wrong! (Whether or not you believe the records are valid and trustworthy, well, that's a whole other discussion!)
......
(I hope that explains the "why we're seperated from God" and "why God can't simply let bygones be bygones." I doubt I answered all the questions you have, but I am enjoying talking with you about it!)
This argument won't make any sense if you don't believe that God is perfect, and that in order to be with Him we need to be perfect (and trust me, I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm only trying to explain what I believe!) Everything that I've said has come from personal experience as well as the Bible (at least, I've tried to keep it Biblical, it wouldn't make sense to have an argument that's defeated with the very book that tells me about God.) And the only thing I can add is that this all makes a lot more sense once you've had an experience with God, and not just read about Him. (And I promise that that's as preachy as I'll get in this conversation)
dFirst of all, thanks! I thought I had posted before, but I guess I've been content to read the Search for Traps newsletters and as much obscure video game news as I can.
I shortened the post, I tried to mostly delete my stuff, or parts that weren't really pertinent to the discussion (if I deleted something important, I apologize!)
Ok, the whole perfection thing is hard to explain, and I honestly don't know if I'll be able to, and it's even less likely I'll be able to give a satisfactory answer to you, due to the fact that you don't believe in objective perfection (not holding it against you or anything haha, just saying that this part might sound weak to you, no matter how I explain it.)manic_depressive13 said:
In the Psalms, the verse I referenced, it's not God talking about Himself, but rather someone else (probably David, or another song writer.) Obviously, this doesn't make it true. I could get someone to say that I'M perfect, but no one is going to believe me. The only way to prove my perfection is by, well, being perfect.
In the Bible (Old Testament especially) it's sort of hard to see God as a perfect God, considering some pretty outrageous stuff happens. (And, to be fair, it's not all God's fault for what was written in the Bible. It's a history book, it tells the history of the Israelites, so there's a lot of messed up stuff that happens just because they were messed up.)
But there is some pretty iffy stuff that happens too (God commands the Israelites to wipe out entire villages, including woman and children, among other things.) And I want to reconcile it in my head and my heart, and for the most part I can (I suppose it comes down to trusting the things that don't make sense, because the other stuff DOES make sense, both from a logical point and an experiential point.)
The New Testament is a lot easier to see God's perfection, because we see how Jesus acted, and He was GOOD. I would say that a practical definition of perfection would be someone who does nothing wrong, and according to what the Bible says, He did nothing wrong! (Whether or not you believe the records are valid and trustworthy, well, that's a whole other discussion!)
......
I think the rest of this can be answered in the same area, in my mind it covers more or less the same area.
What I tried to say is that God is eternal, He always has been and always is. He doesn't change. He was the same 4000 (or 4 billion) years ago as He is today. But He is also a fair God, just God, and so if there is a separation between God and man due to our mistakes, He can't just ignore it. It needs to be paid for (otherwise He wouldn't be fair.) But He knew that we can't pay for our own mistakes, and He knew that the only way to really pay for them was to offer up a payment of equal value (Jesus.)
(I hope that explains the "why we're seperated from God" and "why God can't simply let bygones be bygones." I doubt I answered all the questions you have, but I am enjoying talking with you about it!)
This argument won't make any sense if you don't believe that God is perfect, and that in order to be with Him we need to be perfect (and trust me, I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm only trying to explain what I believe!) Everything that I've said has come from personal experience as well as the Bible (at least, I've tried to keep it Biblical, it wouldn't make sense to have an argument that's defeated with the very book that tells me about God.) And the only thing I can add is that this all makes a lot more sense once you've had an experience with God, and not just read about Him. (And I promise that that's as preachy as I'll get in this conversation
)
I guess this is what it comes down to. Thanks for clearing a lot of things up, though. You explained it really well, so even if I don't agree I can understand where you're coming from. It's nice to see that at least you've read the Bible and have your own reasons for believing in God, rather than just parroting what other people have told you without researching it yourself.lazermoose said:
That and "robot vision" that always gets thrown into these movies.CargoHold said:
And my username is a 'callsign' I made up once when we were using radios for work, not really sure what the inspiration was though.
For the most part this guy is right. The discovery wasn't Cortana but that thing behind Dr Hasley. As for the size difference that, is just them changing stuff (like how in the book the Pillar of Autumn was off planet when the attack arrived.starwarsgeek said:
If a psychotic Brit storms your Boomer, wielding an assault rifle, and orders you to fire your missile at the target you've already selected for it, what do you do?meowchef said:
Yeah, I hated that the game implies that they learned all that info off not a bullet casing, but a picture of a bullet casing.
Simple answer: Shepard was the only person in the chain of command dealing with Makarov and the only person who knew about Allen's role as Alexei Borodin.
How can you tell the difference between a white Russian and a white American on CCTV? Besides, the Ultranationalist government wanted to attack the US; they reverse-engineered the ACS to hide their fleet from NORAD before the massacre.
Yeah. How do four heavily-armed and armoured men walk into a 21st century airport? They carried it all in their luggage and suited up inside the elevator. Listen before the mission fades in and you'll hear zippers and rustling.eggy32 said:
The timestamps given are "Day 1" and "Day 2," with no indication of how much time passes between days. Day 2 could be a week after Day 1 for all we know.patapolo said:
The ink is part of Allen's cover. Alexei Borodin is supposed to be a Russian criminal. That's a Russian criminal tattoo: "Church is the Home of God; Prison is the Home of the Thief."
The CIA has done a lot of terrible things, but as far as I can tell, it looks like Shepard was the only person dealing with Makarov, so the CIA proper likely didn't know about his job.
Again, a white American and a white Russian have no physical differences. All they could tell from CCTV is that four men slaughtered everyone while taking only three casualties (Lev, Kiril, "Borodin").
When the Ultranationalists find him and figure out that he's American (I don't know how), they probably jumped to the conclusion that he led the massacre and then mobilized their army.
An ambulance with lights and sirens leaves the scene of a horrific massacre. Are you, Mr. FSB Officer, going to pull over an ambulance just because, risking the life of whoever's in the back? You don't interfere in the movement of emergency vehicles during a crisis.
It's probably a secondary or even tertiary evac point. Had the mission gone properly, you would probably have had a different, easier to reach point.
We don't know how much time passes between Cliffhanger and Wolverines! or how long it takes to change the security codes on NORAD's early-warning systems. Maybe the Russians sunk the Coast Guard before they could send a warning?
They didn't. It's implied that the Russians are slaughtering American civilians in retaliation for the airport and the only areas we see in game are suburban Virginia and areas around the White House, which would be major evac areas anyway. We don't see what's going on in New York City, for example.
We can say he's not the President because if he was there would have been a bigger response to Marine One going down (by that I mean every soldier in the area would converge to get him out of there). He's more likely a Cabinet member or the like.
The panic room HVI, dead after a struggle (notice the spent flashbang, the bloody footprints, and the Russian soldier raiding the fridge), had important military intelligence. A dead Russian soldier in the same room has Viktor's face (one of Makarov's guys from the airport). Maybe the intelligence pointed toward the Shepard/Makarov connection.
Remember how badly the civilians reacted to the draft in the later days of 'Nam? There would be rioting. It's best to let people join on their own instead of being conscripted.
I don't recall this part of MW2.
i think that the biggest plothole i've ever encountered was near the end of grandia 2, it's a great game, really underrated, but this makes no f*cking sense
right before the final area, millenia (who used to be trapped inside another character), formerly killed and consumed by a giant, moon-sized monster, suddenly pops right out of elena's chest and berates her for not figuring it out sooner, and this is never explained, i made up excuses for a couple of other areas that could make sense when given enough thought from a certain angle, but this just makes no sense, no matter how you look at it, which is annoying because, other than that, it's by far one of my favorite games, i maybe rate it 2nd or 3rd of all the games i've ever played, but this bit just annoys me (but, yay! millenia's back! she's my favorite character
Mirror's Edge
The ending when Faith and her sister are "safe." What happened to the armed soldiers who were behind them ten seconds ago??
The ending when Faith and her sister are "safe." What happened to the armed soldiers who were behind them ten seconds ago??
Why after all that did the Na'vi not massacre all the humans when they over-run their base? Why let them be led away onto THEIR OWN SHIPS!? After all they had done to them? These are not from some pacifist and merciful tribes.Littlee300 said:Avatar
1. Why didn't you orbital bomb those tree huggers
2. Just drop two tank on top of their main base
3. How they are able to sharpen the spears but they can go through bullet proof gas. I mean if you can sharpen them, so they can't be too hard... (my logic may be flawed, don't be ass holes when proving it)
4. Maybe I am just being a baby because the bad guys won.
I think it would have made the movie and any sequel far more interesting. I would have given the film some much needed pathos and balance. Oh an Natyri should have died and Sam Worthington should have gone on an animalistic massacre in a murderous rage and finally cementing his descent into a unhuman savagery. Severing all ties he once had with the rest of humanity.
But no, they had to have a god damn Disney ending. It's cheap.
Yeah in WWII a Finnish soldier stopped a tank WITH A CROWBAR-=Spy=- said:1:I don't think that they did have FTL. I think they had just under FTL travel. It took them how many years to make the 4-5 light year journey? And anyways, even if they did have FTL travel, you have to think about storage space.Littlee300 said:1.IF you can travel faster then speed of light you can do whatever the hell you want. At least in my book.-=Spy=- said:Just posting because I'm addicted to TVTropes, but:Judgement101 said:My issue with that movie is that they spend all this time saying they are after a mineral then blow up the only thing stopping them from getting it yet they completely ignore it to try to wipe out the aliens for no better reason than assholeism.Littlee300 said:Avatar
1. Why didn't you orbital bomb those tree huggers
2. Just drop two tank on top of their main base
3. How they are able to sharpen the spears but they can go through bullet proof gas. I mean if you can sharpen them, so they can't be too hard... (my logic may be flawed, don't be ass holes when proving it)
4. Maybe I am just being a baby because the bad guys won.
1: The Corp wasn't a military group, it was simply private contractors made mostly of ex-soldiers. I doubt that they had the ability to attempt orbital bombardment. After all, they seem fairly arrogant, and I doubt the Stockholders would be happy with them packing orbital bombardment weaponry against an enemy armed with bows and arrows.
2: Not exactly sure how they would do that. How would you get a transport through the clouds of Na'vi and their birds? Placing something on the ground makes it vulnerable to attack as well.
3: Maybe some trees have extremely hard wood. In addition, I would expect the draw weight on their bows to be pretty high. And lastly, we don't know for sure if the glass is bulletproof. It may be, but didn't the Rouge Pilot shoot through the glass of the Dragon?
--------------
And to Judgment 101, they were planning on ignoring the Na'vi. Jake screwed that up by rallying the tribes. Had he simply let them disperse, they wouldnt have joined together. But because they did join together to expel the Corp, the Corp had no choice but try and take out what they saw as the "moral center" in an attempt to make them disperse.
2. How can those tree huggers kill a tank unless with those animals, not even bullets can take out a tank, easy... next!
3. If you don't have bullet proof gas and you are in the space age, how the hell did you travel faster then speed of light? Again how can they sharpen the wood in first place if it is super hard...
2
3:Just because something is hard doesn't mean you cannot shape it.
How did the Combine ever take over Earth when they constantly cluster around explosive barrels, stand on platforms that collapse at the slightest impact, etc. and a single mute physicist can completely wreck their shit?