Name a Plot Hole and Has It Ruined the Game for You.

[remnant_phoenix]

And another one...

In Modern Warfare 2, Russia INVADES the EASTERN seaboard of the UNITED STATES.

There are so many plot holes in that sentence alone.

If only that were the extent of Russia's shenanigans in Modern Warfare. We can't forget that they withdraw from the U.S. and then pretty much simultaneously invade almost of Europe at the same time in Modern Warfare 3, including destroying Paris, the capital of yet another major world power with nuclear weapons.

That, and apparently they do all of this without getting nuked by any of the countries they just invaded, including the U.S. France, and the U.K. or the NATO ally countries protected by said nuclear powers (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey). Apparently, Russia has magical teleportation powers in the Modern Warfare universe.

Of course.

I only singled out that moment because that was the moment that I gave up on MW2's campaign and washed my hands of the whole story going forward. I never bothered with MW3's campaign at all.

EDIT: Although, I do quite like the fan theory that goes like this: at the end of CoD4, we never actually see whether or not Capt. Price is saved; we see CPR being performed on him, and then Soap looks away and we don't confirm whether he makes it or not just by what we see in CoD4. Then, Soap is being raised into the rescue chopper and passes out. Now, it just makes sense that Soap would need to be hospitalized for his injuries, and it's possibly, even likely, that he would be out for some time.

So...I think that everything we see in the Modern Warfare story after that moment is a comatose fever dream that Soap is having.

The thing is, MW and MW2 were made by the same team, but the two head guys at Infinity Ward weren't around for MW3; it's entirely possible that that is what they were going for, but they didn't have a chance to do the "It was all a dream!" reveal at the end of MW3 that they may have been plotting.

 

[Qvar]

Even using that logic. That doesn't mean the story wasn't absolutely awful to begin with. One more thing Bioshock Infinite did (and 1 as well) is you going through so much fucking effort to help someone to "progress" the story. Only for them to turn on you instantly and having to have a fight with them. The leader of the Vox chick was a prime example.

Which has 0 to do with the topic of the post, and is completely subjective.

 

[DataSnake]

Far Cry 2 & Far Cry 3: They seem to assume a complete reversal of established motivations that just don't make any sense. Why do I no longer want to kill the Jackal? Why on Earth would I betray the same friends I just went through Hell and back for saving?

There are pretty strong hints in 3 that the whole thing, at least from when Dennis fishes Jason out of the water onward, was just a dream. For instance, the way Buck teleports away after every mission on his questline, the fact that every bar on the islands has the same bartender as the club Jason and friends were at shortly before getting kidnapped, and, if you look at your compass while you're climbing the first radio tower, the fact that the sun rises in the west. Also, you have a choice of whether Jason kills his friends or not. I'll give you Far Cry 2, though. That was a mess.

As for plot holes, Burial at Sea takes the cake:

Spoiler: spoilers for parts one and two

One of the key plot points in part 2, which DEFINITELY takes place after part 1, is that Suchong hasn't figured out how to get the big daddies to imprint on the little sisters yet. What was the final boss in part 1 again?

 

[frobalt]

OT- Far Cry 3's ending.

Spoiler

The endings are so fucking jarring. Why the fuck would I choose to kill the people I went through hell to rescue? And, more importantly, why the fuck does Brody (?)... the player character go emo and start acting like a pussy if you chose to stand by your friends?

Seconding this. Not for the same reasons, just general bullshitty-ness.

What's even more infuriating is the lead writer crying that we all just "didn't understand" what he was doing and his work was really good. Hey fuckwit, if no one understands your creative work, it means that it's shit. End of story. You can't write. Cop it on the chin like a man instead of complaining about your audience.

I'll third this.

Spoiler

The game did a really shitty job at making me want to stay on the island with these psychos, Jason coping a whiny attitude for all of 3 scenes does not suddenly justify turning around and killing his friends and family just because the crazy lady whose spent the whole game molesting and drugging you asks you to. Especially after the much better written scenes where Jason goes to really incredible lengths to rescue his brother, and they have the more emotional scenes on the helicopter, why the hell would the game just ask you to kill them 3 seconds after establishing the length Jason would actually go through to rescue them, he literally has no reason to do so beyond a few half-hearted lines about his friends not understanding how totally awesome it is to kill random evil mercenaries.

It comes off like one of those shitty moral choice systems that seems to equate evil with being a douchebag or psychopath for no adequately explained reason or benefit.

The writer whining about how that choice was totally how the game should have been and how it's like totally about subverting the standard gamer power fantasy of being the hero and getting the girl (even though nobody I knew had the kill ending as their first choice) certainly gave everything that lovely veneer of pretentiousness)

Spoiler: I'm actually going to defend Far Cry 3

At the start of the game, the main goal is to find and rescue his friends.
Throughout the game, he gets to know the struggles of the natives more and more, and his hatred for Vaas and his pirates grow.
The character of Jason changes drastically throughout the game as the killing and lust for revenge start taking him over. He is also increasingly revered by the locals, as he becomes a hero to them and a legendary enemy to Vaas and his pirates (and the other guy whose name I can't remember).

By the time Vaas has been killed, all of Jason's friends had been saved, apart from his younger brother who was believed dead.

Jason opts to stay on the island as he wants to wipe out the big boss guy's faction and put an end to him.

While doing this, he discovers his younger brother is still alive and does what he can to save him.

By the time he has completed his mission, Jason has changed a lot. He went from a scared prisoner to a legendary hero to the natives. While doing this, he starts feeling like he belongs on the island, and that he couldn't adapt to life in the modern world again.

So it isn't completely out of the blue that the main character would want to stay on the island.

Disclaimer: It's been a couple of months since I finished this, so might have missed stuff off, but essentially, the change to the main character is gradual throughout the story, so it isn't a plot hole that he decided to stay.

 

[verdant monkai]

I don't think one ever has. I'm also not good at spotting them.
If a games story helps it achieve it's purpose then its a good story.

If a horror game has a scary story with a plot hole it is still a scary story.

If a Fantasy adventure story has a plot hole, but is fantastical and immerses you in an interesting world it is still a good fantasy story.

If a JRPG story has a plot hole it is a good JRPG story.

I think a game would need to take itself very seriously, to the point where a plot hole would make it seem foolish. To actually impact the quality of the story.

 

[Jeremy Meadows]

It doesn't help that next scene is a full month later, with no explanation exactly what happened during that period of time. Apparently Cage just couldn't be assed to develop that particular relationship, so he just goes "Time Skip!"

The only thing I can think of is 1. little lamplight sorta of like a legend kids hear about (like neverland to us as kids) and if say, their whole family gets killed by bandits or whatnot they know they can head there and live. Not exactly plausible but it's slightly better then the alternative......*shudders*

 

[Azahul]

That could work as an explanation except...
A) No sign of Songbird while they were on the air ship
B) That was Booker A and Elizabeth A in dimension B (or possibly C even, I forget how many tears happen before you get to the airship). Wouldn't Songbird be looking for Elizabeth B (assuming she had also been rescued, which is quite an assumption) in the last place Elizabeth B and Booker B had appeared? That's if Elizabeth B had escaped at all, If she hadn't Songbird wouldn't even be aware if a problem.

Yeah the harder they tried, the harder they failed.

Spoiler

Honestly, I think Booker's ability to act logically in regards to the "debt" is pretty badly compromised. The entire thing is his mind reconstructing memories to provide him with a way to act within the context of being in a new universe. Going to a second new universe probably doesn't help matters. It's less that he consciously and legitimately thinks he has to repay a debt to some unknown people, and more that acknowledging that he has a debt to repay is the only way his brain can cope with being in a new dimension. Makes it hard to criticise the guy for not thinking through his situation too logically, I feel.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

GTAIV: Why exactly did Demetri betray Niko? Salvatore betrayed Claude in GTA III because he was paranoid, Big Smoke and Ryder betrayed CJ and Sweet in GTA San Andreas to sell drugs and earn money. It just seemed weird for Demetri to order Niko to kill Mikhail Faustin, and then suddenly align with Ray Bulgarin and betray him.

 

[Sarge034]

Pretty sure it's because he had killed literally hundreds of people and gone kind of COMPLETELY INSANE in the time he spent on the island. In the course of trying to kill Hoyt he TORTURED HIS LITTLE BROTHER. I'm pretty sure that is a good reason to have a bit of a fuckin breakdown. People have had psychotic episodes over way less. He's killed a shitload of people and has no idea if he can come back from that. Could anybody come back from that?

It's kinda fucked that you think that acting like a human being is the same as acting like a pussy...

He killed hundreds of people... and? All of these people were trying to rape, murder, and/or sell his friends into slavery. Then if you choose not to murder them you become a pussy about it. No, the whole story was about the pc finding his balls self confidence and saving his friends no matter the cost. If he wanted to lament what he became then fine, but don't feel pity for those that are justifiably killed.

It's kindda fucked that you think all humans act like a pussy after they justifiably kill someone.

 

[MeTalHeD]

I have to say it, but Borderlands 2 is just not making sense. I played the game, finished it with different characters, but something kept gnawing at the back of my mind: why, oh why did Handsome Jack never switch of the New-U stations if he wants to kill you so badly?

Some say he wanted to torture you first, but at the first town you get to Jack tells the bandits to kill you. But you can't die. So you run around the game, screwing things up for the president of the company that allows you to keep respawning, but he keeps trying to kill you.

Others say "hang on, but what about the money he makes off you from the deaths?" - there are a few problems with this, too. Firstly, it implies you're filthy rich and you're dropping diamond ponies everytime you die. This would imply there are thousands of vault hunters on the planet enriching Hyperion through death, which is impossible since the intro shows he wants them dead. While the similarity to real world corporations is uncanny (profiting from your misery) Jack tries to kill you at the start (in the train) before you can get to a New-U station. Also, he made his fortune off Eridium, as explained in Echo recordings and when you get to Opportunity.

So why doesn't he remove you from the New-U station database? Also, if he hates the bandits so much, why not shut off all the New-U stations, bombard their camps from his Hyperion ship and clean the area up? That was his vision with the warrior, wasn't it?

Maybe I am not getting something here, but for all the talk of death, you can come back broke and still progress through the game.

Some more things to ponder:
- If the Borderlands 1 characters had access to New-U stations in the first game, why is Roland suddenly permanently dead when shot in the second game?
- Why does Handsome Jack not respawn at the end after you/Lilith kills him? (considering he is the president of the corporation which owns the technology).
- Why even bother with "welcoming" vault hunters after the first game? I know it's a deception but it wouldn't hurt to tell them the vault hunt is over. He could have just said "move along, nothing to see here...we're just going about our business after the ONE and ONLY vault was recently closed and won't open for centuries". This may not have stopped all of them, but at least it would have discouraged vault hunters in future.

I suppose I am being nitpicky, but while the game is fun, I don't understand why something so central to the game can't be switched off if Jack, indeed, wants you dead. Why bother wasting all those resources if you're never going to really die even when you're broke?

Can anyone explain this?

 

[SajuukKhar]

I have to say it, but Borderlands 2 is just not making sense. I played the game, finished it with different characters, but something kept gnawing at the back of my mind: why, oh why did Handsome Jack never switch of the New-U stations if he wants to kill you so badly?

the New U stations dont technically exist in lore.

He cant turn off something that technically doesn't exist.

 

[alphamalet]

Final Fantasy X

Spoiler

How the hell did Auron get to Dream Zanarkand, where Tidus lived, prior to the start of the game? Did he ride Jecht? If so, then why didn't Jecht attack dream Zanarkand then?

Seriously, if anyone can fill me in on this, I'd love to know.

 

[RiseUp]

BioShock Infinite

Almost too many to mention but...

Spoiler

The first time you switch dimensions why didn't Booker just take Elizabeth to Paris? He is now in a different dimension where he has zero obligations as far as he knows. He doesn't know that the people who gave him the mission could follow him, so in his mind, he can't even turn in the mission anymore.

Though the one I hated most was the ending. (note that Booker and Elizabeth/Ana "A" refers to the characters from the starting dimension). Sorry but killing Booker A after he fathered Elizabeth/Ana A would not have any affect on Elizabath/Ana A, let alone all of the Elizabeths. If somebody killed my dad today, that would not make me cease to exist. That made zero sense. It almost made dividing-by-zero sense.

/thread. Seriously. It astounds me that people think that there is a good story here. It's beyond fucking stupid.

No time travel story actually works if you assume that time travel works in any logical way. Therefore, in order to make time travel work in a story you have to make the assumption that time travel works the way it has been presented in the story, and once you do that there are no plot holes in Bioshock because time travel is working in exactly the way that time travel works for that story.

If/when humans actually figure out time travel we can worry about plot holes caused by time travel being presented incorrectly in media, but until then the very existence of time travel in a story negates the creation of plot holes, unless the time travel presented in the story doesn't make sense in accordance with the in-universe explanation of time travel.

Since the mechanics of time/dimensional travel is never explained in Bioshock Infinite you can't say that the story has plot holes because time travel is being used incorrectly.

The main issue with Infinite is the insane amount of potential for holes caused by the fact that its multiverse never really explains its own rules, and occasionally contradicts itself.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

BioShock Infinite

Almost too many to mention but...

Spoiler

The first time you switch dimensions why didn't Booker just take Elizabeth to Paris? He is now in a different dimension where he has zero obligations as far as he knows. He doesn't know that the people who gave him the mission could follow him, so in his mind, he can't even turn in the mission anymore.

Though the one I hated most was the ending. (note that Booker and Elizabeth/Ana "A" refers to the characters from the starting dimension). Sorry but killing Booker A after he fathered Elizabeth/Ana A would not have any affect on Elizabath/Ana A, let alone all of the Elizabeths. If somebody killed my dad today, that would not make me cease to exist. That made zero sense. It almost made dividing-by-zero sense.

/thread. Seriously. It astounds me that people think that there is a good story here. It's beyond fucking stupid.

No time travel story actually works if you assume that time travel works in any logical way. Therefore, in order to make time travel work in a story you have to make the assumption that time travel works the way it has been presented in the story, and once you do that there are no plot holes in Bioshock because time travel is working in exactly the way that time travel works for that story.

If/when humans actually figure out time travel we can worry about plot holes caused by time travel being presented incorrectly in media, but until then the very existence of time travel in a story negates the creation of plot holes, unless the time travel presented in the story doesn't make sense in accordance with the in-universe explanation of time travel.

Since the mechanics of time/dimensional travel is never explained in Bioshock Infinite you can't say that the story has plot holes because time travel is being used incorrectly.

The main issue with Infinite is the insane amount of potential for holes caused by the fact that its multiverse never really explains its own rules, and occasionally contradicts itself.

But how exactly does it contradict itself if it doesn't explain its own rules? That's the entire point of why the time travel/multi-verse thing is so vague in Bioshock Infinite, because if they don't give any real rules for how it works then they can do whatever the story demands with it without having to worry that they're breaking their own rules. That's why the "holes" that people point out in the story usually aren't holes at all, just things that don't have a concrete explanation (and there's a difference).

 

[senordesol]

BioShock Infinite

Almost too many to mention but...

Spoiler

The first time you switch dimensions why didn't Booker just take Elizabeth to Paris? He is now in a different dimension where he has zero obligations as far as he knows. He doesn't know that the people who gave him the mission could follow him, so in his mind, he can't even turn in the mission anymore.

Though the one I hated most was the ending. (note that Booker and Elizabeth/Ana "A" refers to the characters from the starting dimension). Sorry but killing Booker A after he fathered Elizabeth/Ana A would not have any affect on Elizabath/Ana A, let alone all of the Elizabeths. If somebody killed my dad today, that would not make me cease to exist. That made zero sense. It almost made dividing-by-zero sense.

/thread. Seriously. It astounds me that people think that there is a good story here. It's beyond fucking stupid.

No time travel story actually works if you assume that time travel works in any logical way. Therefore, in order to make time travel work in a story you have to make the assumption that time travel works the way it has been presented in the story, and once you do that there are no plot holes in Bioshock because time travel is working in exactly the way that time travel works for that story.

If/when humans actually figure out time travel we can worry about plot holes caused by time travel being presented incorrectly in media, but until then the very existence of time travel in a story negates the creation of plot holes, unless the time travel presented in the story doesn't make sense in accordance with the in-universe explanation of time travel.

Since the mechanics of time/dimensional travel is never explained in Bioshock Infinite you can't say that the story has plot holes because time travel is being used incorrectly.

The main issue with Infinite is the insane amount of potential for holes caused by the fact that its multiverse never really explains its own rules, and occasionally contradicts itself.

But how exactly does it contradict itself if it doesn't explain its own rules? That's the entire point of why the time travel/multi-verse thing is so vague in Bioshock Infinite, because if they don't give any real rules for how it works then they can do whatever the story demands with it without having to worry that they're breaking their own rules. That's why the "holes" that people point out in the story usually aren't holes at all, just things that don't have a concrete explanation (and there's a difference).

If a 'tear' opens up a portal to a new dimension, is it one where there is another 'Elisabeth' theoretically still locked safely away in the tower where -so far as songbird and the Colombian guard are concerned- there's no need to chase Elisabeth and Booker down?

We see upon the first few minutes of seeing Elizabeth that she can open a tear to Paris anytime she likes.

Even if she can't port directly to Paris, we see she can open a tear on the ground, several hundred miles away from Columbia.

How did Columbia merge with Booker's dimension if -in order for it to exist in its current state- Elisabeth had to be taken to another dimension?

The game establishes that if you are killed in another dimension you go Coo-Coo for Coacoa Puffs (for some reason). Since it was established that Booker was killed in the 'Vox Victory' dimension, why didn't he?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

BioShock Infinite

Almost too many to mention but...

Spoiler

The first time you switch dimensions why didn't Booker just take Elizabeth to Paris? He is now in a different dimension where he has zero obligations as far as he knows. He doesn't know that the people who gave him the mission could follow him, so in his mind, he can't even turn in the mission anymore.

Though the one I hated most was the ending. (note that Booker and Elizabeth/Ana "A" refers to the characters from the starting dimension). Sorry but killing Booker A after he fathered Elizabeth/Ana A would not have any affect on Elizabath/Ana A, let alone all of the Elizabeths. If somebody killed my dad today, that would not make me cease to exist. That made zero sense. It almost made dividing-by-zero sense.

/thread. Seriously. It astounds me that people think that there is a good story here. It's beyond fucking stupid.

No time travel story actually works if you assume that time travel works in any logical way. Therefore, in order to make time travel work in a story you have to make the assumption that time travel works the way it has been presented in the story, and once you do that there are no plot holes in Bioshock because time travel is working in exactly the way that time travel works for that story.

If/when humans actually figure out time travel we can worry about plot holes caused by time travel being presented incorrectly in media, but until then the very existence of time travel in a story negates the creation of plot holes, unless the time travel presented in the story doesn't make sense in accordance with the in-universe explanation of time travel.

Since the mechanics of time/dimensional travel is never explained in Bioshock Infinite you can't say that the story has plot holes because time travel is being used incorrectly.

The main issue with Infinite is the insane amount of potential for holes caused by the fact that its multiverse never really explains its own rules, and occasionally contradicts itself.

But how exactly does it contradict itself if it doesn't explain its own rules? That's the entire point of why the time travel/multi-verse thing is so vague in Bioshock Infinite, because if they don't give any real rules for how it works then they can do whatever the story demands with it without having to worry that they're breaking their own rules. That's why the "holes" that people point out in the story usually aren't holes at all, just things that don't have a concrete explanation (and there's a difference).

If a 'tear' opens up a portal to a new dimension, is it one where there is another 'Elisabeth' theoretically still locked safely away in the tower where -so far as songbird and the Colombian guard are concerned- there's no need to chase Elisabeth and Booker down?

"There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city." The game tells you that no matter what differences each universe has there are always universal constants. One of the constants is probably that Elizabeth always escapes with Booker, which is why every dimension you go to has the police chasing you down.

We see upon the first few minutes of seeing Elizabeth that she can open a tear to Paris anytime she likes.

Even if she can't port directly to Paris, we see she can open a tear on the ground, several hundred miles away from Columbia.

How did Columbia merge with Booker's dimension if -in order for it to exist in its current state- Elisabeth had to be taken to another dimension?

That's not a plot hole, it's just a lack of explanation into how Elizabeth's powers work. They make sure to keep is vague specifically so that it doesn't become a plot hole.

The game establishes that if you are killed in another dimension you go Coo-Coo for Coacoa Puffs (for some reason). Since it was established that Booker was killed in the 'Vox Victory' dimension, why didn't he?

There could be 2 different explanations about this.

1. They don't go "coo-coo for coacoa puffs" forever, it's just the initial shock of going from being dead to suddenly being alive in another universe (since you never see those people again you don't know that they weren't just fine half an hour later). Since Booker knows about the tears, and kind of understands how they work he's mentally prepared when he gets to the other dimension where he's dead, so he isn't as mentally affected as others would be.

2. It could have to do with the order of the dimensional jumping. Booker and Elizabeth were jumping from a dimension where those police officers were dead into a dimension where they were alive, and that's why they were going "coo-coo for coacoa puffs." On the other hand Booker jumps from a dimension where he is alive into a dimension where he's dead. So his dimensional jump is actually different from that of the dead police officers, which could explain why the effects aren't as severe. Depending on how Elizabeth's powers work (which we don't know) a slight difference like that could explain why Booker is affected differently.

 

[senordesol]

"There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city." The game tells you that no matter what differences each universe has there are always universal constants. One of the constants is probably that Elizabeth always escapes with Booker, which is why every dimension you go to has the police chasing you down.

Then wouldn't that mean there's TWO of each, then? I mean, I guess we could operate under the convenient logic that one of either pair 'happens' to port away at the exact moment the next ports in; but the fact that they are in a completely different reality/timeline never seems to get the addressing it needs to.

That's not a plot hole, it's just a lack of explanation into how Elizabeth's powers work. They make sure to keep is vague specifically so that it doesn't become a plot hole.

But it's one of the first things we see, and one of the first questions I -as an audience member- ask. We see Elisabeth has the ability to port somewhere *other* than Columbia. Given this, shouldn't the first logical course of action be for her to do so? Doesn't that solve every problem ever?

There could be 2 different explanations about this.

1. They don't go "coo-coo for coacoa puffs" forever, it's just the initial shock of going from being dead to suddenly being alive in another universe (since you never see those people again you don't know that they weren't just fine half an hour later). Since Booker knows about the tears, and kind of understands how they work he's mentally prepared when he gets to the other dimension where he's dead, so he isn't as mentally affected as others would be.

2. It could have to do with the order of the dimensional jumping. Booker and Elizabeth were jumping from a dimension where those police officers were dead into a dimension where they were alive, and that's why they were going "coo-coo for coacoa puffs." On the other hand Booker jumps from a dimension where he is alive into a dimension where he's dead. So his dimensional jump is actually different from that of the dead police officers, which could explain why the effects aren't as severe. Depending on how Elizabeth's powers work (which we don't know) a slight difference like that could explain why Booker is affected differently.

Either is plausible (maybe that's what was going on with his acid trips) but, again: address that mess.

 

[MarsProbe]

If I remember correctly children from Big Town are sent to Little Lamplight. Would make sense because there are no kids in Big Town and no adults in Little Lamplight.

That's the most plausible explanation, but I still don't buy it.

Big Town is constantly harassed by super mutants on a daily basis. Why would the 'grown up' kids go there? And if they do, why would they stay there?

The smarter thing to do would be to stay in Little Lamplight (no matter what age you are), since it's safer and more easily defensible.

And it still makes no sense that teenagers would succumb and give-in to a bunch of snot-nosed little kids, when they try to kick the older kids out.

I think the topic of Little Lamplight was brought up here before and that got me thinking about the place a but more. It is a mystery how that settlement can still be going with a relatively large population of kids after however long the place has been around for (if I recall correctly, it started with a tour group that were on a school trip or something around about the time the bombs fell). Of course, teenagers have to leave once they are deemed to be too old for Little Lamplight, so that would bring the population down right there. So, if everyone leaves LL in their teens, nobody is hanging around long enough to be old enough to have kids of their own and create the next generation of LL residents. So where else do they get new additions to the settlement from? Most kids we see during the game lived in settlements themselves, most likely with their parents - and even if something happened to their parents, chances are they would end up being looked after by someone else in the settlement - so regardless of where they lived, what parent/guardian in their right mind would let their kid leave their care to go live in a cave system populated solely by more snivelly little kids - a cave system directly connected to to a lair of Super Mutants, as fate would have it. It really does like a safe place to send your kid.