223 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Sina84 wrote...

1. Well, who else would've made them? Since sovereign died, the Reapers don't really have alot of other ways to make things happen in the galaxy.

2. But it's not really the Collector's creation. It's Harbinger's creation, and the idea is that he's creating them by controlling the Collectors to do it. While it might be a collective formula between all Reapers of how to make new advanced husks, the Collectors/Harbinger are doing the actual labor, because, well, again, who else? As far as we know, there are no living Reapers inside the milky way, (because it wouldn't make any sense if there were) so the Collector's were the Reaper's only known physical link to the galaxy at the time these things were created.

1. My point is that the technology to make Husks/Scions/Abominations is not exclusive to either Sovereign or the Collectors; it is merely Reaper technology, hence why they can be found on the derelict Reaper. Who's to say what organics were used or when they were used to create them.

2. Again, I'm trying to understand why they are "new" or even exclusively Harbinger's creation. Where is this said? Admittedly, Shepard has never encountered them before, but I personally thought this was because Sovereign didn't want the Geth/Saren getting their hands on too much Reaper technology (he seems to disregard them as mere tools). The Collectors are simply making additional Scions/Abominations. We are never given any indication that they are the only ones capable of doing so.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

That is why it's a plothole. They make it clear that these are "evolved" forms of Husks from those in ME1, both ingame and from the developers. The Reapers have been experimenting with Husk technology during the last two years to create these things, which is why they don't belong on the derelict.

Developer interviews do not count. Many ideas never come into circulation with the final product. It's also a factor of meta-gaming. You cannot bring evidence outside ME's universe to say "this is how things work" in the universe. A developer interview is nice, but unless the evidence is found in-game to support the idea that they are a recent discovery, it's still not a plot hole. For all we know, the Reapers have known how to create Scions/Abominations for the last 50k years (or more), which is why it would make sense for them to be aboard the Derelict Reaper.

[Sina84]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Developer interviews do not count. Many ideas never come into circulation with the final product. It's also a factor of meta-gaming. You cannot bring evidence outside ME's universe to say "this is how things work" in the universe. A developer interview is nice, but unless the evidence is found in-game to support the idea that they are a recent discovery, it's still not a plot hole. For all we know, the Reapers have known how to create Scions/Abominations for the last 50k years (or more), which is why it would make sense for them to be aboard the Derelict Reaper.

If they retcon something later on to explain a plothole, that doesn't change the fact that it was still a plothole. Their intention when writing the story was still that Scions/Praetorians were a new creation, and the Scions showing up on the derelict was a contradiction. Retconning it and saying the tech to make Scions is more than 37 million years old would open up alot of questions, and kind of make all that effort to establish the ME2 Husks as "evolved" kind of obsolete.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Sina84 wrote...

If they retcon something later on to explain a plothole, that doesn't change the fact that it was still a plothole. Their intention when writing the story was still that Scions/Praetorians were a new creation, and the Scions showing up on the derelict was a contradiction. Retconning it and saying the tech to make Scions is more than 37 million years old would open up alot of questions, and kind of make all that effort to establish the ME2 Husks as "evolved" kind of obsolete.

Retconning would require that in-game Bioware had made explicit the fact that Scions/Abominatinos were creations of the Collectors. Developer videos are simply in the idea stage and is not uncommon for these to change as the project progresses. Retconning would be this.

ME1: Shepard is a human.
ME2: Shepard is an Asari.

With no explanation, a previously accepted fact of existence is changed. You are using the term far too loosely. Your example fails because what you are calling a plot hole was never a plot hole. Scions/Praetorians were a new enemy we encountered; this does not meant that they had to be created in the time frame that we encountered them. You have yet to show where in-game we are told Scions/Abominations are creations of the Collectors. Until you do this, it is not a ret-con.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 avril 2010 - 03:28 .

[rhistel]

"Though the exact fate of species captured by the Collectors is unclear, the humaniond appearance of the scions gives ghastly clues." (scion codex entry)



Shepard: These aren't the same creatures I fought on Eden Prime. They're more advanced. Evolved.

(Mission: Horizon)



And that's all the info about the two that we get from the game. None is evidence enough that those creatures were created during the two year period between the two games. The husks from ME1 could've been less advance because, as I think Baladas said, Geth didn't have access to more advanced Reaper tech. The Codex suggests a link between Scions and Collectors, but it also said in the first game that Citadel is a Prothean space station and Sovereign is just a Dreadnought, because it is not meant to contain any spoilers.

So if there's not enough evidence to support claims that husks and scions shouldn't be on the derelict Reaper, this is not a plothole.

On a side note it probably was intented that new husks and scions are actually new creation, however speculations like that are not part of the story.

And to be honest we could as well argue how did Benezia smuggle so many Geth to Noveria? Yes, they are easy to pack, but while security mentions something about a dozen of them, on your way you fight squads of Geth troopers, a couple of Armatures, turrets, juggernauts, where did all those Geth come from? (sorry Baladas, I scolded you for dissecting ME1 earlier and now I'm doing the same thing). But what is the point of making such a fuss about this? In both cases it is just aimed at providing player with some action and shooting.

[hawat333]

Ablaz3d wrote...

 How did Ashley or Kaiden survive on Horizon when Lilith and all those around here were taken?

A:The effect of the paralyzing agent wears off.
A1: Lilith and those others were carried to the ship before Ash, so she got away.
A2: As the effect of the agent was over, Ash was able to fight her way off, while the others didn't have any means of resistance.
A3: Scifi!

[smudboy]

hawat333 wrote...

Ablaz3d wrote...

 How did Ashley or Kaiden survive on Horizon when Lilith and all those around here were taken?

A:The effect of the paralyzing agent wears off.
A1: Lilith and those others were carried to the ship before Ash, so she got away.
A2: As the effect of the agent was over, Ash was able to fight her way off, while the others didn't have any means of resistance.
A3: Scifi!

A: How?  When?  Why?
A1: Why would the Collectors avoid what looks like the first one to get seeker swarmed?  How far away was Ash from Lilith and others?
A2: How do you know this?
A3: Magic!

[Riknas]

Ea James Madden wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

Dumb Luck.

A real plothole is why the Asari Councilor hasnt Vulcun mind melded with Shep to see the visions for herself.

I am shamed to admit...I have never thought of this.Lol great idea...

OH. MY. GOD. Stop posting this bit. THE MIND MELD IS NOT PRACTICAL PEOPLE.

Complain all you want, this is stupid.

The Council is the most important group on the Citadel. Melding with someone (especially humans, as clarified in ME1) is brilliantly difficult. It can be outright draining. We don't even know the full logistics of it. Information sharing goes both ways, and while Liara and Shiala were learning to understand the prothean existence, the Asari Councilor is just a politician. At best, it would make no more sense to her than it did to Shepard when he first experienced it back on Eden Prime.

Never mind the fact that every time someone seems to touch a beacon it managed to BLOW UP, they already think Shepard is border-line psychotic, now he's asking the councilor to see her face to face and get IN his head? 

WAKE. UP.

[Chuck_Vu]

rhistel wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

It's not about gameplay. It's about story continuity, and the logic (within the bounds of that story, be it magic, the force, or dark matter) that follows. If you want me to suspend my disbelief then don't ruin it with plot holes. It's the "in world" logic, that we are puzzling over. Not gameplay reasoning. A great story can be ruined by a lack of continuity and glaring plot holes.

And for godsakes never render anything in a cutscene that I can't replicate in game play, because I, and others, will ask why can't we do that. Example: if my character runs up a wall and does a triple backflip shooting in twenty different directions and hitting twenty different targets in a cut scene, then I want to do that in game. And no, this did not happen in ME 1 or 2, it's just to illustrate my point. But we've seen this trope in many other games haven't we???

New Rule: Gameplay is not an exceptable answer/excuse for plot holes.

But that's what cutscenes are for...the whole purpose of a cutscene is to present something that would not be entirely possible to show in the boundaries of standard gameplay mechanics (quick time events are  different story) or the graphics engine (then we are usually dealing with pregenerated cg cutscenes). In rpgs and rpg-action hybrids (such as ME) there are usually far more limitations on what the characters can do, hence cutscenes are especially useful.
The whole idea of cutscenes mainly originated and evolved in japanese games (you haven't played a lot of those, have you?). So if you are used to more "western" style of game design you can have a problem with very cinematic cutscenes.

Oh, and speaking of japanese games, I think way back when Planescape: Torment was released, a trend of combining western and japanese crpg's elements began. A trend later developed in BG2 and the KotOR series. Especially in KotOR, which introduced the three character party (a jrpg idea). A trend now continued in ME. And finally a trend that I think is responsible for the infamous oxygen masks. It is the fixed chara appearance, which theoretically stresses their style and personality. It was already done in the above mentioned Planescape, and back then it had been criticized as well. Now they've repeated that mistake in ME2, while it doesn't bother me that much, I agree that it wasn't the smartest choice.

And thermal clips are a pure change in gameplay mechanics, done mainly because of fan complains. And because BW had already established the infinite ammo theory, they had to think of something to at least try to justify that change. Of course there was no way of coming up with a that solid of an explanation, but I guess they thought that gamers won't make such a fuss about it. They obviously underestimated the internet community...

PS. On a side note the cutscene issue you've mentioned also applies to ME1, so if you were so angry about the first game why bother with the second?

In my humble opinion, Cut scenes should ONLY be used to move the story along.  If you use a cut scene to show something that the player cannot replicate, then you've created a story/gameplay disconnect.  As someone else pointed out: Jack's recruitment mission.  If  she can take down 3 heavy mechs bare handed, logically, I (Commander Shepard) would send her against other heavy mechs.  It only makes sense to do so right???  I am ok with cust scenes showing certain actions, such as sitting, leaning against a wall or other mundane tasks.  But if you show me something like Jack's 3 heavy mech take down, and when she joins my party, she's effectively useless against them...  WTF???

Think about it from Shepard's point of view.   Forget about gameplay, you'll see several WTFs in both games. 

Like thermal clips.  I don't mind it at all...  But I do wonder where the mercs get them.  And why I cant just stock my armory with thermal clips  by going to the nearest "Guns & Ammo" store and BUYING them.  Instead I move from mission to mission with the same ammo count that I ended with previously.  Maybe I can at least ask Mordin to make thermal clips....  wait he's busy that varren thing.  WTF???

In my statement above, I never said I was angry about the first game.  If I did, could you please find the exact line and highlight it for me. 

and again....  Gameplay is not an exceptable answer/excuse for plot holes.

and just to be sure:  Gameplay is not an exceptable answer/excuse for plot holes.

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

Ablaz3d wrote...

 How did Ashley or Kaiden survive on Horizon when Lilith and all those around here were taken?

A:The effect of the paralyzing agent wears off.
A1: Lilith and those others were carried to the ship before Ash, so she got away.
A2: As the effect of the agent was over, Ash was able to fight her way off, while the others didn't have any means of resistance.
A3: Scifi!

A: How?  When?  Why?
A1: Why would the Collectors avoid what looks like the first one to get seeker swarmed?  How far away was Ash from Lilith and others?
A2: How do you know this?
A3: Magic!

A: It's neither implied that it doesn't nor that it does. The fact that Ash/Kaidan got free may suggest that it does, though.
A1: Your opinion, we don't know how the process of collecting went, besides Collectors were interrupted in the middle of it, they are thorough yes, but they were in no hurry because this was the first time someone was able to catch them red-handed, so the order in which the colonists were taken to the ship was probably more or less random. So I still don't see how come this can be called a plot hole, a strange turn of events maybe, but a plot hole?
A2: He doesn't, so you win here.
A3: You know that s-f and fantasy have something in common, both are based around impossible things and events. For the common viewer/reader/player there is little difference between the made-believe mass effect phenomenon and let's say fireball or between elves and asari (apart from personal tastes). So what's the point?

[rhistel]

Chuck_Vu wrote...

In my humble opinion, Cut scenes should ONLY be used to move the story along.  If you use a cut scene to show something that the player cannot replicate, then you've created a story/gameplay disconnect.  As someone else pointed out: Jack's recruitment mission.  If  she can take down 3 heavy mechs bare handed, logically, I (Commander Shepard) would send her against other heavy mechs.  It only makes sense to do so right???  I am ok with cust scenes showing certain actions, such as sitting, leaning against a wall or other mundane tasks.  But if you show me something like Jack's 3 heavy mech take down, and when she joins my party, she's effectively useless against them...  WTF???

Think about it from Shepard's point of view.   Forget about gameplay, you'll see several WTFs in both games. 

Like thermal clips.  I don't mind it at all...  But I do wonder where the mercs get them.  And why I cant just stock my armory with thermal clips  by going to the nearest "Guns & Ammo" store and BUYING them.  Instead I move from mission to mission with the same ammo count that I ended with previously.  Maybe I can at least ask Mordin to make thermal clips....  wait he's busy that varren thing.  WTF???

In my statement above, I never said I was angry about the first game.  If I did, could you please find the exact line and highlight it for me. 

and again....  Gameplay is not an exceptable answer/excuse for plot holes.

and just to be sure:  Gameplay is not an exceptable answer/excuse for plot holes.

The "PS." was just me making a point that if you bash one game you can as well bash the other. So no need to repeat yourself.
And no matter what your opinion on the matter is, cut scenes are mainly used to present events that can't be presented differently (often cinematic moments with cool choreography). If pure gameplay could  be use to do that, there would be no need for cutscenes (and there are games which practically don't use them at all).
Thus statement "She is able to do that in a cutscene and not in the game" is not a plot hole. (Really if you haven't played, for a example, a final fantasy game, take a look at the cut scenes and then on the gameplay)
And your arguments are a little silly. In survival horror games you often solve riddles to get through a door, you could normally blast through with your shotgun (and doors are often blasted through in cut scenes...), in point click adventure games you use random everyday items to do things which could have been done much easier if you had more control of your environment, bah  many games (especially rpg's) don't allow you to do something as simple as crouching or jumping. All of those limitations are accepted by the players because of gameplay conventions. 

Bottom line: While gameplay and story are somewhat connected, they are still seperate parts of the gaming experience and to large extent should be treated seperately. Furthermore a lack in gameplay mechanics cannot be treated as a plothole.

Modifié par rhistel, 04 avril 2010 - 02:10 .

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...

smudboy wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

Ablaz3d wrote...

 How did Ashley or Kaiden survive on Horizon when Lilith and all those around here were taken?

A:The effect of the paralyzing agent wears off.
A1: Lilith and those others were carried to the ship before Ash, so she got away.
A2: As the effect of the agent was over, Ash was able to fight her way off, while the others didn't have any means of resistance.
A3: Scifi!

A: How?  When?  Why?
A1: Why would the Collectors avoid what looks like the first one to get seeker swarmed?  How far away was Ash from Lilith and others?
A2: How do you know this?
A3: Magic!

A: It's neither implied that it doesn't nor that it does. The fact that Ash/Kaidan got free may suggest that it does, though.
A1: Your opinion, we don't know how the process of collecting went, besides Collectors were interrupted in the middle of it, they are thorough yes, but they were in no hurry because this was the first time someone was able to catch them red-handed, so the order in which the colonists were taken to the ship was probably more or less random. So I still don't see how come this can be called a plot hole, a strange turn of events maybe, but a plot hole?
A2: He doesn't, so you win here.
A3: You know that s-f and fantasy have something in common, both are based around impossible things and events. For the common viewer/reader/player there is little difference between the made-believe mass effect phenomenon and let's say fireball or between elves and asari (apart from personal tastes). So what's the point?

A: Suggest?  You're telling me some kind of alien neuro-toxin that freezes muscles/the nervous system wouldn't have after-effects?  Like, I don't know, exhaustion, sleep, pain?  The chance encounter is meeting them.  The events that led up to that, is a plot hole.
A1: Which means the Collectors are either morons (which may be true), or this is simply a plot hole.
A2: Woo!
A3: Yes, but if we're told why, then I'd buy it, magic, sci-fi or otherwise.  Since we're not, it's a plot hole.  All Ash/Kaidin had to say was "I was fighting, then I got bit.  I was frozen, and then, the next thing I know I was free.  It still stings"  Or something like that.  And we'd go "Ah."

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...
A: Suggest?  You're telling me some kind of alien neuro-toxin that freezes muscles/the nervous system wouldn't have after-effects?  Like, I don't know, exhaustion, sleep, pain?  The chance encounter is meeting them.  The events that led up to that, is a plot hole.
A1: Which means the Collectors are either morons (which may be true), or this is simply a plot hole.
A2: Woo!
A3: Yes, but if we're told why, then I'd buy it, magic, sci-fi or otherwise.  Since we're not, it's a plot hole.  All Ash/Kaidin had to say was "I was fighting, then I got bit.  I was frozen, and then, the next thing I know I was free.  It still stings"  Or something like that.  And we'd go "Ah."

A: I understand you're an expert on alien neuro-toxin. The side effects may be bearable.
A1: I don't know what gives Ash/Kaiden such priority, if we assume the Collectors plan to take everyone anyway, and as we can see in the end game Shepard's crew doesn't get any special treatment, they are melted like everyone else.
A2: Glad you're happy.
A3: That's the beauty of fiction be it science or otherwise, sometimes unexplainable things may happen.

But to be honest, and give some credit to those who argue against this scene, this meeting with Ash/Kaiden was poorly introduced. I just argue if this really deserves to be called a plot hole.

Modifié par rhistel, 04 avril 2010 - 02:36 .

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...

smudboy wrote...
A: Suggest?  You're telling me some kind of alien neuro-toxin that freezes muscles/the nervous system wouldn't have after-effects?  Like, I don't know, exhaustion, sleep, pain?  The chance encounter is meeting them.  The events that led up to that, is a plot hole.
A1: Which means the Collectors are either morons (which may be true), or this is simply a plot hole.
A2: Woo!
A3: Yes, but if we're told why, then I'd buy it, magic, sci-fi or otherwise.  Since we're not, it's a plot hole.  All Ash/Kaidin had to say was "I was fighting, then I got bit.  I was frozen, and then, the next thing I know I was free.  It still stings"  Or something like that.  And we'd go "Ah."

A: I understand you're an expert on alien neuro-toxin. The side effects may be bearable.
A1: I don't know what gives Ash/Kaiden such priority, if we assume the Collectors plan to take everyone anyway, and as we can see in the end game Shepard's crew doesn't get any special treatment, they are melted like everyone else.
A2: Glad you're happy.
A3: That's the beauty of fiction be it science or otherwise, sometimes unexplainable things may happen.

But to be honest, and give some credit to those who argue against this scene, this meeting with Ash/Kaiden was poorly introduced. I just argue if this really deserves to be called a plot hole.

"Writers can deal with plot holes in different ways, from completely rewriting the story, to having characters acknowledge illogical or unintelligent actions, to having characters make vague statements that could be used to deflect accusations of plot holes"

Meeting Ash/Kaidan is a chance encounter.  The events that lead up to that encounter is the hole.

Seeker Swarm Horizon->Ash/Kaidan get frozen->The Collectors Leave->Ash/Kaidan meet you.

The Collectors in this instance are the plot hole, for two reasons I can see:
1) We don't know why they didn't pick up Ash/Kaidan.  We were under the impression (after the fact) that that was why they even went to Horizon.  Why wouldn't they collect them, if anything, to get to Shepard?  Why also wouldn't they collect one of the first people to be frozen, since they're collecting the colony anyway?  Giving us 3rd person omniscient view of both Ash/Kaidan and the Collectors give us insight into some of their collection process.  Surely, this would've been collection opportunity #1.
2) We don't know how the seeker swarms work, or how they stop working.  So immediately questions like: "Did Ash/Kaidan's suits finally counteract the effects?  Did the Collectors leaving have anything to do with it?" pop up.  Even if Ash/Kaidan didn't get swarmed, but somehow lost consciousness, you still have to figure out 1), or at least have Ash/Kaidan/SOMEONE admit that why they didn't get picked up as a mystery.  If not by them, then this would've been a great opportunity for the expert (Mordin) to go "oh, because x y z" because he's the guy that invented the countermeasure.

"A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot."

Ashley/Kaidan not getting collected, and not revealing or mentioning to us how they escaped, is the plot hole.  Their reaction should've been "If it wasn't for you, I'd be collected," instead of their ridiculous Cerberus diatribe.  Because we, the viewer/player, saw them get swarmed.  And if they didn't get collected, it implies a host of other questions that don't make sense.

If an author plants seeds or provides narrative that impacts the events of a future scene, that doesn't make sense or isn't at least mentioned for it being a mystery/out of place, then that is a plot hole.

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...


Meeting Ash/Kaidan is a chance encounter.  The events that lead up to that encounter is the hole.

Seeker Swarm Horizon->Ash/Kaidan get frozen->The Collectors Leave->Ash/Kaidan meet you.

The Collectors in this instance are the plot hole, for two reasons I can see:
1) We don't know why they didn't pick up Ash/Kaidan.  We were under the impression (after the fact) that that was why they even went to Horizon.  Why wouldn't they collect them, if anything, to get to Shepard?  Why also wouldn't they collect one of the first people to be frozen, since they're collecting the colony anyway?  Giving us 3rd person omniscient view of both Ash/Kaidan and the Collectors give us insight into some of their collection process.  Surely, this would've been collection opportunity #1.
2) We don't know how the seeker swarms work, or how they stop working.  So immediately questions like: "Did Ash/Kaidan's suits finally counteract the effects?  Did the Collectors leaving have anything to do with it?" pop up.  Even if Ash/Kaidan didn't get swarmed, but somehow lost consciousness, you still have to figure out 1), or at least have Ash/Kaidan/SOMEONE admit that why they didn't get picked up as a mystery.  If not by them, then this would've been a great opportunity for the expert (Mordin) to go "oh, because x y z" because he's the guy that invented the countermeasure.

"A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot."

Ashley/Kaidan not getting collected, and not revealing or mentioning to us how they escaped, is the plot hole.  Their reaction should've been "If it wasn't for you, I'd be collected," instead of their ridiculous Cerberus diatribe.  Because we, the viewer/player, saw them get swarmed.  And if they didn't get collected, it implies a host of other questions that don't make sense.

If an author plants seeds or provides narrative that impacts the events of a future scene, that doesn't make sense or isn't at least mentioned for it being a mystery/out of place, then that is a plot hole.

1) Yes, that cannot be denied we don't know for sure why, but that doesn't mean it is somekind of logic gap or a significant inconsistency. Even if Collector came to Horizon because Ash/Kaidan was there, it doesn't automatically mean she/he would be the first one to be taken. Actually if you go to the Collector base right after the Normandy crew abduction you see Lilith killed, right before your crew would suffer the same fate. This may actually suggest that Lilith was actually the last to be taken, so there was just no time to take Kaidan/Ash.
2) It's hard to argue here, no word was mentioned on how they counteracted the effects of the swarms, so if you treat this lack of exposition as quite significant for the story as a whole, then according to the definition you quoted it is a plot hole. But it all depends on how important you perceive it to be.

Making this short: it's as I've already said: either you liked the overall story enough to overlook such details (if you call them plot holes or not doesn't really matter in the end), or you didn't and the same details simply annoy you.
That is why it is highly doubtful that this discussion will reach a satisfying conclusion.

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...
1) Yes, that cannot be denied we don't know for sure why, but that doesn't mean it is somekind of logic gap or a significant inconsistency.

How isn't it?  We're given a particular kind of omniscient knowledge of them behaving a certain way (collecting.)  They have been collecting 100k+ people so far.  You'd think they'd have a routine figured out based on efficiency.  Mind you, right after Lilith gets frozen, a cutscene where Harbinger assumes control of a peon comes, and he states "We are the Harbinger of their perfection.  Prepare these humans for ascension" while bending over and looking at Lilith.  Which to me means the humans in the general vicinity, where Ash/Kaidan aren't too far away from.

Even if Collector came to Horizon because Ash/Kaidan was there, it doesn't automatically mean she/he would be the first one to be taken. Actually if you go to the Collector base right after the Normandy crew abduction you see Lilith killed, right before your crew would suffer the same fate. This may actually suggest that Lilith was actually the last to be taken, so there was just no time to take Kaidan/Ash.

If Lilith was the first, then Ash/Kaidan would be pretty much next on the list.  We really can't speculate as to what order they were taken.  But we can't say why Ash/Kaidan weren't taken, even with exposition from Ash/Kaidan (which we never got.)

2) It's hard to argue here, no word was mentioned on how they counteracted the effects of the swarms, so if you treat this lack of exposition as quite significant for the story as a whole, then according to the definition you quoted it is a plot hole. But it all depends on how important you perceive it to be.

Anything that isn't explained or shown to the viewer that is a gap, illogical behavior by characters that should've behaved a certain way, is a plot hole.  All Ash/Kaidan had to do was "I was nearly abducted.  I guess I have you to thank for that, Commander?", or words to that effect.  Anything that'll state/give us some clue/acknowledge the reason they survived the attack.  All I've got is the 1) Collectors are super dumb, 2) Ash/Kaidan had armor with defense/omni-gel systems.  (But we're not told or shown this.  We need to know why or at least how Ash/Kaidan weren't collected and became unfrozen.)

Making this short: it's as I've already said: either you liked the overall story enough to overlook such details (if you call them plot holes or not doesn't really matter in the end), or you didn't and the same details simply annoy you.
That is why it is highly doubtful that this discussion will reach a satisfying conclusion.

This is not about the overall story.  That's entirely another argument.  Whether one likes the story as a whole or not is irrelevant here.  This is simply the flow of logic between 1) how the Collectors would behave, 2) what the hell happened to Ash/Kaidan.  It is unexplained.  It is not shown to us as to how it works/why it worked the way it did.  If it is unexplained, it is a gap in the story.  It may not be a huge gap, but it is still a gap where casusation does not reflect what we currently know:
A->B->C,
A=Ash/Kaidan get frozen
B=Collectors Leave
C=Ash/Kaidan meet Shepard.

Something between A and B, and B and C, does not add up.  If we are not told or shown as to how or why there is a gap, then the narrative has to acknowledge to the viewer either immediately, or at at later date (because it's part of the plot), that the people involved (Ash/Kaidan) see this as a mystery, or else it is a plot hole.  In this case, not to Shepard, but at least to the player, because we see Ash/Kaidan get frozen (3rd person omniscient.)  To clear up this gap, A->B or B->C has to be explained/labeled as a mystery.  If not, it's a plot hole.

This series of events break logic.  Sure, aliens behaving a certain way is always going to be, well, alien.  Which is why we need someone to either show us, explain it, or go "wtf just happened?"

You do not show the viewer an element like someone being in a certain state (Lilith), who according to the narrative (Collector behavior), the next behavior is logical (getting collected.)  This should've happened to Ash/Kaidan.
It didn't.  Okay, so why not?  We're never told/shown (begin speculation.)  We must then imagine that the Collectors got interrupted, because of Shepard, or that they just never got around to it (possible, highly unlikely.)  Okay, so how did they free themselves from said state?  We're never told/shown (begin speculation.)

So why did BioWare bother showing us Ash/Kaidan getting frozen in the first place, as well as with others along the level?  Why not just have them run off and hide?  I would've bought it if Shepard actually sees Ash/Kaidan frozen like we see other colonists throughout the level, and then the mystery of why they took Lilith and not Ash/Kaidan would pop in our heads as a minor thought. We could then infer that Shepard's arrival did indeed interrupt their collection methods (because others weren't collected in the same area, and that Shepard's arrival actually saved them.)  A simple 5 second cutscene of the colonists being freed from their frozen status would've been just fine, too.

[In Exile]

TheUnusualSuspect wrote...
Overall, the entire conversation with the Council in ME2 was one of the most ill thought out, poorly written, pieces of crap.  Whichever way it gets spun, they contradict themselves and look like idiots.  I can see now why the canon story removes the meeting with the Council, but that's poor comfort to Paragon ME1 save-game importers which has ME2 retcon the council as jabbering self-contradicting morons.

The problem is, if the Council isn't drooling out the side of their mouth when talking to Shepard and fully support return his status as an active Spectre while pursuing leads on the reapers, the whole Cerberus plot falls by the wayside. Basically, If the Council isn't retarded Shepard has no incentive to work with Cerberus at all so he can tell TIM to shove it. This breaks the game. So the Council has to be in willful denial so Shepard works with them.

That being said, there are good reasons for the Council to start disbelieving the reaper story. For one, it's absolutely insane. If some a CIA field guy came up to Obama to explain to him how Ctuthlu was rising and we need to act now to save the world, he'd get carted off to the loney bin, and no one would say Obama is being particularly obtuse about it. The mere fact that the Council didn't have Shepard intered given his obvious lack of mental stability is an ME1 plothole in and of itself.

If the hardsuit evidence magically dissapears (and this dissapeared in ME1, since the Council doesn't believe Shepard spoke to the reaper) all they'd have is Vigil, who's turned off and they can't question, and what's left from Sovereign. Since, again, believing that Ctuthlu is rising is insane outside of meta-gaming it's not too far-fetched to have the Council drive their head right into the sand.

[smudboy]

In Exile wrote...
The problem is, if the Council isn't drooling out the side of their mouth when talking to Shepard and fully support return his status as an active Spectre while pursuing leads on the reapers, the whole Cerberus plot falls by the wayside. Basically, If the Council isn't retarded Shepard has no incentive to work with Cerberus at all so he can tell TIM to shove it. This breaks the game. So the Council has to be in willful denial so Shepard works with them.

Well I don't think they need to be that enthusiastic.  I mean it's just their personal Cyber Jesus...

At the end of ME1, the Asari counsellor accepts that Shepard saved billions of lives from Sovereign and the Reapers.
www.youtube.com/watch

Considering a Cerberus frigate isn't immediately shot out of the sky when getting near the Citadel is a huge problem, let alone being allowed to dock there, since Cerberus is the Counsil's #1 enemy, or was that because of the human counsellor inviting Shepard to come by?

Argh.  Well we know the plot of ME2 is rubbish.  If they can retcon the weapon system, why not the entire game?

That being said, there are good reasons for the Council to start disbelieving the reaper story. For one, it's absolutely insane. If some a CIA field guy came up to Obama to explain to him how Ctuthlu was rising and we need to act now to save the world, he'd get carted off to the loney bin, and no one would say Obama is being particularly obtuse about it. The mere fact that the Council didn't have Shepard intered given his obvious lack of mental stability is an ME1 plothole in and of itself.

I don't think that's an ME1 plothole.  It's just another retcon, considering they do believe Shepard at the end of ME1.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...

Well I don't think they need to be that enthusiastic.  I mean it's just their personal Cyber Jesus...

1. At the end of ME1, the Asari counsellor accepts that Shepard saved billions of lives from Sovereign and the Reapers.
www.youtube.com/watch

2. Considering a Cerberus frigate isn't immediately shot out of the sky when getting near the Citadel is a huge problem, let alone being allowed to dock there, since Cerberus is the Counsil's #1 enemy, or was that because of the human counsellor inviting Shepard to come by?

Argh.  Well we know the plot of ME2 is rubbish.  If they can retcon the weapon system, why not the entire game?

1. Politicians are actors. They lie all the time. Udina is a perfect example. As a Spectre he gives you his support, only to stab you in the back when your vessel is grounded. These are the same type of people who endorsed the total extermination of the Rachni, allowed the Turians to launch the Genophage, and created an organization above the law (conveniently including only races from their own species) answerable only to the Council. And add to this anything from our own human history and it's pretty clear how untrustworthy a politician can be.
 
In front of Shepard  I wouldn't call it wise to blatantly say "Hey, we don't believe you and think you're crazy" considering he's a highly skilled/armed soldier.  Personally I'd go with appeasement. Tell him we'll fight the Reapers. Then once he's away from my immediate vicinity, take whatever actions are necessary against him.

If you notice, the Asari Councilor utters one line of dialogue on the subject. It's not like she goes into exposition on how they'll "rally the fleets" or begin drawing up plans of action. I also notice the Turian/Salarian Council members don't really have much to say about the Reapers threat. They steer the conversation to humanity's role on the Council.

2. Anderson does send you that message explaining that you deserve a chance to explain yourself, despite the rumors of Cerberus. I think that's a clear enough indication they wouldn't shoot your vessel out of the sky.

I don't think that's an ME1 plothole.  It's just another retcon, considering they do believe Shepard at the end of ME1.

Again politicians are actors. They do this all the time. I can point to any number of presidential elections. They say one thing, then do something entirely different. Why do you think they're so reluctant to meet with Shepard in ME2?

This is not necessarily a retcon. Here's an example:

Star Wars Episode IV: Han shoots Greedo in the face.
Episode IV Special Edition: Greeo shoots first, then Han fires.

This is a retcon. We are meant to assume that Greedo always shot first. Now how is this different from the ME example? The Council probably never believed you. You simply thought they did. "Saren never was the main villain. You just thought he was" to use another example.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 05 avril 2010 - 03:10 .

[Chuck_Vu]

@Rhistel. Perhaps I'm not being clear, and if so I apologize. What I'm trying to get at, is forget/ignore the fact that it is a game completely, and place yourself inside a citizen of the ME universe (like Shepard since S/he is the protagonist of the story, if you will) and look at the story unfolding the way it did from moment to moment. Don't look at it like a player looking at a game. Look at it as if you actually live in that universe. And, for starters, go back to the Jack recruitment example, does it make logical sense? Is there a sense of continuity?


I like the game well enough. But this particular thread is about plot holes, not about the gameplay (at least this is what I think it was intended as).

And as far JRPG's go... I've played them in the past - but not in the past few years, FFX was the last one I've played and before that was FF7. And androgynous teens whose initial class and appearance I can't customize to my whims aren't really my style (yes, that was a heavy handed jab at that genre, but it was childishly fun), because sometimes I'd rather be a wizard who's fat & balding then a fit teen SOLDIER (FF7 anyone) with blond spikey hair. Sorry, couldn't resist poking fun at that genre. JRPGs are fine if you like them and I'm not going to belittle or insult you if you do. It's just not my thing. But I know what you mean about the cut scenes in them. Same thing applies to them as well. And how does Jump work in a dungeon?

We could make similar cracks about most FPS's as well... How does the protagonist carry all those weapon and ammo??? Pistol, shotgun, double barrel shotgun, light machine gun, heavy machine gun, sniper rifle, rocket launcher, BFG 9K & and chain saw. While the game may or may not be fun, you still have to ask.... How and where does he keep all that???

Modifié par Chuck_Vu, 05 avril 2010 - 04:27 .

[Sina84]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Sina84 wrote...

If they retcon something later on to explain a plothole, that doesn't change the fact that it was still a plothole. Their intention when writing the story was still that Scions/Praetorians were a new creation, and the Scions showing up on the derelict was a contradiction. Retconning it and saying the tech to make Scions is more than 37 million years old would open up alot of questions, and kind of make all that effort to establish the ME2 Husks as "evolved" kind of obsolete.

Retconning would require that in-game Bioware had made explicit the fact that Scions/Abominatinos were creations of the Collectors. Developer videos are simply in the idea stage and is not uncommon for these to change as the project progresses. Retconning would be this.

ME1: Shepard is a human.
ME2: Shepard is an Asari.

With no explanation, a previously accepted fact of existence is changed. You are using the term far too loosely. Your example fails because what you are calling a plot hole was never a plot hole. Scions/Praetorians were a new enemy we encountered; this does not meant that they had to be created in the time frame that we encountered them. You have yet to show where in-game we are told Scions/Abominations are creations of the Collectors. Until you do this, it is not a ret-con.

It's kind of frustrating that you've taking it upon yourself to decide what information is acceptable and what isn't. We're not talking about some early stages concept development interview here where "they still hadn't figured everything out", we're talking about a promotional interview that was made when the game was done. If you want to ignore a developer explaining exactly what is going on when the story narrative supports it, then that is your business. Personally I think it's alittle strange, because it's not a plot twist like the Collector general which they would have a reason to hide.

Let me put it this way. The developers explain that the ME2 Husks are new creations. The ingame narrative makes an effort to point out that they are new creations very early on to give you that "ME1 Husks but improved!" warning. Logic suggests they are new creations, given that we haven't seen or heard of them up until now, and you can be damn sure the writers hadn't thought of them when they were writing ME1.

Now, what is the more likely scenario, that Scions/Abominations were meant to be a new enemy and ended up on the derelict because they just wanted a more challenging "Husk" level and didn't really think it was a big deal continuity wise, or that Bioware put in an effort to intentionally mislead everyone that Harbinger/Collectors experimented on Husks, ingame and out, for a big reveal that, no, infact, forget everything the game/we said, that was all useless information, Scions/Praetorians/Abominations have existed for 37 million years + because they appeared in a couple of levels where they shouldn't have.

It's not a big deal in and of itself, but you're coming up with these arguments that developer explanations don't matter, and all that matters is what's factual and direct in the game, which there isn't much of by the way.

Now I'm not saying they can't explain this one away quite easily, but it would be in hindsight. Which is the very definition of a retcon.

As for Ashley/Kaidan on Horizon, maybe the Collectors left them intentionally to lure Shepard in, but didn't expect to all be killed?

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...

Considering a Cerberus frigate isn't
immediately shot out of the sky when getting near the Citadel is a huge
problem, let alone being allowed to dock there, since Cerberus is the
Counsil's #1 enemy, or was that because of the human counsellor inviting
Shepard to come by?

Argh.  Well we know the plot of ME2 is
rubbish.  If they can retcon the weapon system, why not the entire game?

I
don't think that's an ME1 plothole.  It's just another retcon,
considering they do believe Shepard at the end of ME1.

First of all, it's rubbish to you sir, and that is why I keep using the argument: your point of view on many aspects of the game depends on whether you liked the story or not. This isn't the first "plot battle" on this forum and I doubt it will be the last and it still leads nowhere. For people who liked the story, most of the things you call "plot holes" are just minor details (some of which, including the Ash/Kaidan mystery you yourself call "minor gaps but still plot holes", and, by the way, as this statement is the closest we'll get to an agreement on the Ash/kaidan matter, I'll take what I can get), which barely have any negative impact on the overall experience and in most cases can be given a viable explanation. But because I'm writing as someone who liked the game and its plot, and you are probably writing all if this to vent your disappointment, I doubt any real agreement between us can be made. (and btw. ME2 has one of the highest overall ratings of all time, I think at least some critics should notice the "rubbish plot", but what do I know).

Second, while Cerberus might be an enemy of the Council, the organization is able to operate officialy through many front corporations, and only recently any official charges have been made against it (which probably will be dismissed in the end, because of the influence Cerberus has). So while the Council knows what Cerberus really is, I'm not sure if any official action can be taken to take their ship down or against any of its official operatives.

@Chuck_Vu: no harm taken, we at least understand and respect each others opinion, and that's fine enough by me.

[Dimartica]

i think bioware intended this thread when they gave the mechanic the dialogue part about all the good people taken and "you" get left behind.

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...
First of all, it's rubbish to you sir, and that is why I keep using the argument: your point of view on many aspects of the game depends on whether you liked the story or not.

The story's "meh".  Mediocre.  It's the plot I have problems with.

This isn't the first "plot battle" on this forum and I doubt it will be the last and it still leads nowhere. For people who liked the story, most of the things you call "plot holes" are just minor details (some of which, including the Ash/Kaidan mystery you yourself call "minor gaps but still plot holes", and, by the way, as this statement is the closest we'll get to an agreement on the Ash/kaidan matter, I'll take what I can get), which barely have any negative impact on the overall experience and in most cases can be given a viable explanation. But because I'm writing as someone who liked the game and its plot, and you are probably writing all if this to vent your disappointment, I doubt any real agreement between us can be made. (and btw. ME2 has one of the highest overall ratings of all time, I think at least some critics should notice the "rubbish plot", but what do I know).

I'm not emotional here.  I understand things that make sense.  The logical causation of events.  When a series of events do not make sense, are not explained, shown, or acknowledged within any context as a "wtf was that, in this alien universe of ours?" this brings up problems.  Ditto with existence, people behing differently then their previous examples.  My mind naturally starts trying to figure out how and why.  It doesn't matter if a part of the plot is huge or minor, it's still part of the plot.  If plot point A doesn't connect to plot point B, then that's a hole in the plot.

Your argument is because you like the story, you can over look the hole(s).  That's fine.  More power to you!  Nod your head and smile!  That doesn't negate the fact that there is a hole.  Although I think you just acknowledged that, finally.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Sina84 wrote...

It's kind of frustrating that you've taking it upon yourself to decide what information is acceptable and what isn't. 

That is often how debates work. Alot of it is based on definitions, in this case of retcon. Smud provided what he thought was a retcon. I'm posting a counter. It is now up to him to counter my counter, so to speak. I fail to see what's wrong with this format.

We're not talking about some early stages concept development interview here where "they still hadn't figured everything out", we're talking about a promotional interview that was made when the game was done. If you want to ignore a developer explaining exactly what is going on when the story narrative supports it, then that is your business. Personally I think it's alittle strange, because it's not a plot twist like the Collector general which they would have a reason to hide.

And yet, if I were to try to explain one of the plot inconsistencies using a reference to the books or the comic, I would have people jumping on me explaining how it must "come from the game" and how the books are merely supplemental.  I accepted this. I also accept that if this is the case, we cannot rely on an interview when no mention is given to support it in game. The consistency must be built within the Mass Effect universe itself.

What I find interesting is your interpretation that "the story narrative supports it". It obviously doesn't, which is why you're so reliant on this developer interview. Because without it, all the evidence more clearly points to Scions/Abominations being a Reaper not a Collector creation. If I am wrong, show me where "in game" the explain that they are definitely an invention of the Collectors.

Let me put it this way. The developers explain that the ME2 Husks are new creations. The ingame narrative makes an effort to point out that they are new creations very early on to give you that "ME1 Husks but improved!" warning. Logic suggests they are new creations, given that we haven't seen or heard of them up until now, and you can be damn sure the writers hadn't thought of them when they were writing ME1.

Oh, Shepard has seen them for the first time in ME2. But look at the bolded statement. Following this line of logic, the Collectors are new creations since we hadn't heard of them. This is not the case (they are over 50k years old). You're confusing the fact that Shepard meets them for the first time with the idea they have just been created.

1. Now, what is the more likely scenario, that Scions/Abominations were meant to be a new enemy and ended up on the derelict because they just wanted a more challenging "Husk" level and didn't really think it was a big deal continuity wise,

2. or that Bioware put in an effort to intentionally mislead everyone that Harbinger/Collectors experimented on Husks, ingame and out, for a big reveal that, no, infact, forget everything the game/we said, that was all useless information, Scions/Praetorians/Abominations have existed for 37 million years + because they appeared in a couple of levels where they shouldn't have.

There is an issue with the bolded statement. You seem to be taking the facts to fit your theory rather than the theory to fit your facts. You're saying "Scions were created by the Collectors" but "the game put them in a location they should not have been".  I'm saying "the Scions were found on the Derelict Reaper and in the hands of the Collectors." We also know that Sovereign didn't hold the Geth in high regard. How hard is it to believe that they simply chose to withhold certain ancient technology?

Of your two theories, the second one is more probably and in-keeping with Bioware games. This is exactly how they operate, making you think one thing only to find out it's false by the end. In this case, on the Collector Ship (if I remember correctly) the idea that humans are being harvested to potentially create more husks/Scions is presented. We later find this to be untrue with the human reaper.

1. It's not a big deal in and of itself, but you're coming up with these arguments that developer explanations don't matter, and all that matters is what's factual and direct in the game, which there isn't much of by the way.

2. Now I'm not saying they can't explain this one away quite easily, but it would be in hindsight. Which is the very definition of a retcon.

1. Hence my point that your argument can't stand. You just admitted that in-game there is little evidence. So this clearly is not "does the game support my theory?" The question is "Are we going to allow a developer interview?" Most would say no I think if we're also excluding the books/comic. Even then, I'd argue they have more weight since they occur within the context of the Universe.  

2. Actually, this is still wrong even in hindsight. You just undermined your own position with the term 'explain'. I'm not certain half the people here really understand what a ret-con is. A ret-con is when a story/character element is changed without explanation.  You as the audience are meant to assume that this is how the game/plot/whatever always meant things to be. If Shepard is a human for ME1, then an Asari for ME2 without explanation this would be a ret-con. What you are describing is not the same thing. By this logic, I could call Sovereign being the lead villain a ret-con. Or Luke finding out that Vader is his father is a ret-con.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 05 avril 2010 - 01:06 .

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...

The story's "meh".  Mediocre.  It's the plot I have problems with.
I'm not emotional here.  I understand things that make sense.  The logical causation of events.  When a series of events do not make sense, are not explained, shown, or acknowledged within any context as a "wtf was that, in this alien universe of ours?" this brings up problems.  Ditto with existence, people behing differently then their previous examples.  My mind naturally starts trying to figure out how and why.  It doesn't matter if a part of the plot is huge or minor, it's still part of the plot.  If plot point A doesn't connect to plot point B, then that's a hole in the plot.

Your argument is because you like the story, you can over look the hole(s).  That's fine.  More power to you!  Nod your head and smile!  That doesn't negate the fact that there is a hole.  Although I think you just acknowledged that, finally.

I actually acknowledged this earlier, but maybe I was not clear enough about it. The problem was that for me there is a difference between a plot hole and an unsignificant logic gap. That, however, is my personal opinion with which you don't have to agree, so there's no reason to argue over that.

I think , that while you won't admit it, you are a little emotional here, because you spend quite a lot of your free time trying to prove a point, which probably won't be accepted by ME2 plot/story supporters anyway. If it was truly just about logic vs. plot this would've ended long ago. But that's just a thought I have, how you spend your free time is your business.

I also think that in the end it's not really about plot holes , it's about the way this discussion proceeds. I think to often we bahave as if our opinion was the final judgement whether something is well or poorly written, or if something is or is not a plot hole, and that's plain wrong.  Even the statement "the story is meh" can be perceived as mildly insulting by people who think otherwise (and this group can't even be called a minority ). To make myself clear, I'm not trying to insult or attack you here, just saying that those "plot battles" have more to do with emotions and opinions than with logic.

PS. I also believe that for a simple exchange of opinions about the plot of commercially streamlined computer game, this discussion's tone is way to serious and heavy. I'm also curious what you do for a living, because the way you discuss is almost as if you were giving a lecture. Again no insult or sarcasm intended, it's just that it seems a little serious for such a trivial discussion.