223 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...
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.

Okay, so we agree, and now it's an issue of semantics for definition.  I'll buy 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.

You're mistaking emotion for interest.  I happen to like stories, creative short story writing in particular.  Took a few courses in it, so I (would like to think I) tend to know what I'm talking about.  Kinda helps when your PhD teacher is a grammar N a z i (although that could be a bad thing.)  I'd literally spent hours after class with classmates brainstorming, editing and arguing what makes something good, clear, and effective.  I also got a short piece of fiction published, so writing has been a good experience.

I wouldn't say this is logic vs plot, but plot minus logic.  Gaps in the plot happen all the time in ME2's narrative.

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.

Whether we label something a plot hole, a gap, inconsistency, unclear, it's still bad writing.  I prefer to use the right label for what I see (a plot hole, a retcon) from a simple observation, instead of trying to rationalize how something so out of place might exist in a certain way (inconsistencies from ME1 in ME2, for example.)  Or else I'm just a guy who says "this story sucks."  I think I know why, and I like to use details.

The story is mediocre because it doesn't really do anything.  Things happens, people go deal with things, and that's fine, but it never really hits home.  The elements of a basic story are there, (go pick up people to Fight the Collectors because they're taking humans), so it's not written by a bunch of drunken monkeys.  It doesn't really connect on several levels, which is what the plot should be about.  ME2's main plot is bizarre, because the story is filled with 10+ other stories whose only involvement with the main one is association (save Mordin.)  And that's 75% of the experience.  In fact if you disregard all the logic of why people are jumping on board, and what the plot is, you'll probably enjoy the game more.  That's not a good sign.

The plot is rubbish because of the unclarity of so many things (motives of characters, motives of the protagonist/antagonist, behaviors and questions that would naturally arise in certain situations that don't, why certain events follow the other, etc.)  The plot is supposed to keep the suspension of disbelief wide open for us to be in this magical world, or else there wouldn't be a story we would care about (well that's more than just a plot's purpose.)

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.

I was taught by one hell of an English guru drill seargent, and my job involves computer programming, so logic and simplicity rule my brain.

[Xaijin]

Hardly. I love ME2, but Cerberus parking up at the Citadel with a Geth in tow, Joker just casually walking in, Miranda being able to put Shepard back together literally piece by piece and then turning into an idiot for the rest of the game and Kaidan/Ash (especially Ash) just causally walking while everyone else uncaptured IS STILL FROZEN and EDI making an unassisted jump without a relay in the middle of a singularity blob, EDI being unable to unencrypt an email but being able to sequence and recognize a 4000 allele chain in SECONDS are jarring. They are noticeable, whether or not they detract from the experience or not, and to improve the subsequent product, they should be noted and addressed.

[The Governator]

padaE wrote...

because they are a major character in ME universe.

Thank all that is good and pure that George R.R. Martin is not writing the story.  That man kills off main characters like it's a new trend and he wants to stay on top.

[Sina84]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

The books/comics are canon. The ingame narrative supports them. The videogame story was written with the books/comics in mind, so yes, they can be used as reference since they ARE "built within the Mass Effect universe itself." If you want to ignore them too because "only the ingame content matters", then that is your business. Don't force your way of thinking on me.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

Eh? Again, Collectors = Reapers. They're empty vessels controlled by the Reapers. They're not two separate entities. My argument is that the Reapers made Scions/Praetorians recently, but they used their "tools", the Collectors, to make them, presumably in the Collector base since that is where they made the human Reaper which was based on the same technology. The fact that Praetorians are made from Husks with a Collector head also suggests they developed them in the Collector base. Because, again, where else?

You forget that we're not arguing over some historical event here, we're talking about a story written by human beings. Look at it from a storytelling/gameplay point of view. They establish that these are evolved forms of Husks in a promotional video, and that Reapers have been experimenting with Husk technology since ME1, and then the narrative suggests this when you first encounter Husks on Horizon, along with the codex, and then it's left at that.

From a storytelling point of view, they're just establishing that the Reapers have constructed new Husks, with you the player. Your argument is that they've existed for millions of years but that the Reapers kept them secret all this time so "Saren wouldn't steal the technology"? Come on. Not only that, but that the dead, crippled derelict Reaper, whoes only activity was maintaining a mass effect field and slowly mindcontrol the cerberus crew to impale eachother on spikes (as shown) had the technology to construct Scions?

The only thing which makes you believe Scion/Praetorian/Abomination technology is 37million+ years old is Scions appearing on the derelict, which to me atleast was obviously just for gameplay reasons. Do you really think that's likely, given all the effort to point out that they are new? I don't care if you want to ignore everything I say, but Jesus H. ****, Casey Hudson flat out told you Scion/Praetorian/Abomination tech was new!

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

Except we had heard the Collectors. Quite alot. They were called Protheans. But that is a bad comparison. The point of the Collector story was to establish that they were old. The point to the Scion/Praetorian/Abomination story was to establish that they are new. There is no story or sense to suggest they predate the ME1 husks, except for unfortunate enemy placement in a level requiring variety, a point which you value over everything else for some reason.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

I don't remember it ever being presented that the sole reason for the abductions was to create more husks/scions. Noone I knew who played the game thought that anyway, since that would've been a pretty boring reveal. However, what we find is not far from that, since what are Reapers if not advanced forms of Husks? "The hybridization of humans and Reaper technology is revealed through several stages of increasingly powerful enemies, culminating in the enormous and terrifying Reaper-human larva."

But listen, I'm not saying you're wrong about how the canon will be remembered. Right now there's a glaring contradiction in the derelict level, so obviously it requires explaining. I agree that you can say, "well, Scions shouldn't be there, therefor the technology must be 37 million+ years old." But what I'm saying is that if that turns out to be the case, it wasn't intentional. The intention when writing the game was to establish that the experiments (performed on humans and Collectors) required to develop Scions/Praetorians, was done inbetween ME1 and ME2, by the Collectors.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Hence my point that your argument can't stand. You just admitted that in-game there is little evidence.

I meant in general. There's not alot of direct, irrefutable evidence regarding most things concerning ME lore. Most of the backstory is alluded to or suggested, meant to make you think. And just like everything else, the new husks actually being new is alluded to and suggested, and there is no reason why they would mislead you on that. No payoff.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

Who would say no exactly other than you? Why exclude any of it? If you asked J.R.R Tolkien what Frodos favourite colour was, would you exclude that too if he told you? Would you exclude everything he said that wasn't written down in his books?

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

No it's not.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

I don't know what you're talking about, but I think you are the one that needs to look up what a retcon is. A retcon is introducing new story elements to re-explain/restructure a past event that originally did not have that intention. For example, I suspect that Protheans surviving and being turned into Collectors was a retcon. I don't think this was their intention when writing ME1, but retconned it for ME2.

Same thing, if in ME3 they explained that Scion/Praetorian tech had existed for 37million years+, I suspect that would be a retcon too, put in in hindsight to explain away their appearance on the derelict in ME2. Their original intention, however, as Casey Hudson said, was that they were a recent development.

Modifié par Sina84, 06 avril 2010 - 12:12 .

[rhistel]

@smudboy

Thank you for that reply, it's good to see the person behind the text. While we, probably, still won't agree on many issues, now I at least understand why.
Because of your interests, you probably are a little more demanding of  stories you are expected to immerse yourself into. To make things worse (of course not in the literally meaning), you have a technical and analytic approach to the subject. Main point: a photo which will please a common viewer, will not necessarily please another photographer.
From my previous replies you already know the way I look at a story, so no need to repeat myself.

I still think that calling the story mediocre and the plot rubbish is a little harsh. Especially that we are looking at a computer game, and an experimental approach to the genre to boot. Although the basic rules are probably the same, I think there still is a difference between a game and a literary story/plot. While the gap in quality of storytelling between movies and games is almost gone, there still is one when we compare games and well written novels(or short stories). But again, opinions are opinions it's difficult to argue them.

[javierabegazo]

Saberwolf116 wrote...



Every time you see a plot hole, just remember that.

Lol, from what game is that Orange wizard from?

[Lucy Glitter]

Final Fantasy 3, yeah?

[smudboy]

javierabegazo wrote...

Saberwolf116 wrote...



Every time you see a plot hole, just remember that.

Lol, from what game is that Orange wizard from?

www.nuklearpower.com/8-bit-theater/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_8-Bit_Theater#Sarda_the_Sage

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...

@smudboy

Thank you for that reply, it's good to see the person behind the text. While we, probably, still won't agree on many issues, now I at least understand why.
Because of your interests, you probably are a little more demanding of  stories you are expected to immerse yourself into. To make things worse (of course not in the literally meaning), you have a technical and analytic approach to the subject. Main point: a photo which will please a common viewer, will not necessarily please another photographer.
From my previous replies you already know the way I look at a story, so no need to repeat myself.

This is interesting, since I have (bit off topic, I know) a photographer buddy, who frequents photograph forums.  I consider him well versed and experienced in the subject.  Whenever someone posts an opinion or asks for a critique, usually that person/OP is insulted, and then others reply with "it's subjective art" argument, no matter how much experienced criticism and helpful suggestion he might give.  In photography, it really all comes down to "does it look good", and photographer or average viewer will have different amount of enthusiasm toward that.  Every criticism is there to help appreciate the aesthetics of theme, composition, light, balance, etc, more.

With stories, they have to do two things 1) entertainment, 2) teach a lesson.  How that is done is always the issue.  The easiest way is with clarity, and that's done best through simplicity.

Like any artform, there are rules and guidelines that can make it more effective.  If an author doesn't use them, that's fine: he might be going for that.  When they make mistakes in comprehension, explanation, exposition, continuity, logic, pacing, grammar, etc., from a given premise (e.g. stop the enemy), then it becomes a disconnected mess.

I still think that calling the story mediocre and the plot rubbish is a little harsh. Especially that we are looking at a computer game, and an experimental approach to the genre to boot. Although the basic rules are probably the same, I think there still is a difference between a game and a literary story/plot. While the gap in quality of storytelling between movies and games is almost gone, there still is one when we compare games and well written novels(or short stories). But again, opinions are opinions it's difficult to argue them.

I wouldn't call it experimental.  BioWare has proven themselves with ME1, and we have thousands of years of fiction to use as a base.  We have to evaluate ME2 as a stand alone story (which it does okay), and as a sequel (which it fails at.)  Many people see ME3 as an apologists view to ME2, which is a horrible idea, because it says "If ME3 does y(1,2,3...), then x(1,2,3...) in ME2 is okay/made sense."  (Look at the speculation on the forums about what will happen in ME3.)

For a company that puts out titles where story is the focus, (or at least that's what the media blitz has said), this shift to game play didn't need to sacrifice itself.  I'd rather play a poor game if the universe and feel of the story draws me in (for an opposite reaction, see the Hammerhead DLC) because that is what matters.  A video game then becomes more than a bunch of pixels on a screen, it becomes a piece of art.  If the medium is words, people talking, human facial expressions, human themes and issues, then that automatically follows the rules of written and oral tradition: storytelling.

Modifié par smudboy, 06 avril 2010 - 01:07 .

[Chuck_Vu]

Retcon is short for Retroactive Continuity. Another example is in the Spider-Man titles, one writer killed Aunt May. Later another writer wrote that the Aunt May that died was actually a clone/paid actress, and the real Aunt May is being held captive somewhere (at least that's how I think it went).



To me, good/reasonable use of retcons are used when a series has a long continuity/history, and the current writer is trying to fix plot holes created by previous writers not staying in continuity. Poor use of retcons is used, like the above example, when the writer doesn't like what the previous writer did with the subject matter, and changed the out come of the previous work. Or it could come out as the result of fan backlash.



And using a Deus Ex Machina is just being lazy. See Dallas (the tv series), they eliminated an entire season, by writing it so one of the principle charaters dreamed it, so it never happened.

[jklinders]

Riknas wrote...

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.

I've tried to say the same thing. It seems like it is easier just to think the council is stupid. I certainly would not want to share thoughts with someone whom I thought was nuts. And it is clear from what both the turian councilor and the Asari councilor says, they both think Shep is nuts. The asri councilor is just more polite about it.

[V-time]

jklinders wrote...

Riknas wrote...

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.

I've tried to say the same thing. It seems like it is easier just to think the council is stupid. I certainly would not want to share thoughts with someone whom I thought was nuts. And it is clear from what both the turian councilor and the Asari councilor says, they both think Shep is nuts. The asri councilor is just more polite about it.

But you don´t give a person you consider insane their spectre (as in the biggest authority in Citadel Space beside the council) status back. That´s doesn´t make sense even if it is just to please Anderson. In my opinion they could have mindmelded/acknowledged the reapers but wanted to refrain from causing a panic so they just played it down and in secrewt investigate the threat further. Then they ask you to do the same and ask you to spy on Cerberus for the time as well. paragon would be doing so while renegade would work with Cerberus. Naturally that doesn´t solve all problems but it is still better than the mess the council is now.

My biggest wtf moment was however meeting Liara again who became an information broker. The socially inept girl became an information broker. in 2 years. That is quite a leap of logic since she even seems to threaten the Shadow Broker who is in this business for years and probably wasn´t a shy guy prior to becoming the biggest information source in the universe.

[jklinders]

V-time wrote...

jklinders wrote...

Riknas wrote...

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.

I've tried to say the same thing. It seems like it is easier just to think the council is stupid. I certainly would not want to share thoughts with someone whom I thought was nuts. And it is clear from what both the turian councilor and the Asari councilor says, they both think Shep is nuts. The asri councilor is just more polite about it.

But you don´t give a person you consider insane their spectre (as in the biggest authority in Citadel Space beside the council) status back. That´s doesn´t make sense even if it is just to please Anderson. In my opinion they could have mindmelded/acknowledged the reapers but wanted to refrain from causing a panic so they just played it down and in secrewt investigate the threat further. Then they ask you to do the same and ask you to spy on Cerberus for the time as well. paragon would be doing so while renegade would work with Cerberus. Naturally that doesn´t solve all problems but it is still better than the mess the council is now.

My biggest wtf moment was however meeting Liara again who became an information broker. The socially inept girl became an information broker. in 2 years. That is quite a leap of logic since she even seems to threaten the Shadow Broker who is in this business for years and probably wasn´t a shy guy prior to becoming the biggest information source in the universe.

It was not really a reinstatement as Anderson said, no council support, no public acknowledgement and a not too subtle please refrain from blowing things up in Citedal space. The whole thing was basically similar to sending  a problem child outdoors to play while you figure out how to dispose of him without the neighbors catching on. Udina said it, Shepard's return from the dead is a PR nightmare. They needed to throw a bone to keep Shep from stirring the pot. But no council support=not really a spectre.

[Andorfiend]

Sina84 wrote...
The only thing which makes you believe Scion/Praetorian/Abomination technology is 37million+ years old is Scions appearing on the derelict, which to me atleast was obviously just for gameplay reasons. Do you really think that's likely, given all the effort to point out that they are new? I don't care if you want to ignore everything I say, but Jesus H. ****, Casey Hudson flat out told you Scion/Praetorian/Abomination tech was new!

If I had thought the Scions were in the Derelict Reaper merely for gameplay reasons and no one at Bioware had actually spent 10 second thinking about it I would have been furious! Fortunately it never occurred to me that it might have been something as stupid as mere oversight. If this was/is the case I would agree with you that it was flatout bad writing. It seemed to me however to be hinting that whatever was left of the Reapers concsiousness was still in contact with the other Reapers. We have hints at telepathy at a distance with the Reapers so it seemed to me that this was another hint and that the Derelict Reaper had updated it's nanotech with the latest version from the Collector research base. (Although I'm still wondering how 'hitting people with fists' was supposed to be an advancement over 'generates shield killing EMPs'.) It would be inexcusable to have such a major portion of the game have so little though devoted to it. Hell it the new Husk types were there for mere variety they could have done just as well by having indoctrinated but not converted Cerebus scientists shooting at us, surely Bioware is not so stupid that they couldn't have come up with that on their own.

[Kusy]

Andorfiend wrote...

Sina84 wrote...
The only thing which makes you believe Scion/Praetorian/Abomination technology is 37million+ years old is Scions appearing on the derelict, which to me atleast was obviously just for gameplay reasons. Do you really think that's likely, given all the effort to point out that they are new? I don't care if you want to ignore everything I say, but Jesus H. ****, Casey Hudson flat out told you Scion/Praetorian/Abomination tech was new!

If I had thought the Scions were in the Derelict Reaper merely for gameplay reasons and no one at Bioware had actually spent 10 second thinking about it I would have been furious! Fortunately it never occurred to me that it might have been something as stupid as mere oversight. If this was/is the case I would agree with you that it was flatout bad writing. It seemed to me however to be hinting that whatever was left of the Reapers concsiousness was still in contact with the other Reapers. We have hints at telepathy at a distance with the Reapers so it seemed to me that this was another hint and that the Derelict Reaper had updated it's nanotech with the latest version from the Collector research base. (Although I'm still wondering how 'hitting people with fists' was supposed to be an advancement over 'generates shield killing EMPs'.) It would be inexcusable to have such a major portion of the game have so little though devoted to it. Hell it the new Husk types were there for mere variety they could have done just as well by having indoctrinated but not converted Cerebus scientists shooting at us, surely Bioware is not so stupid that they couldn't have come up with that on their own.

Andor, the whole Reaper IFF mission seems to be a fast made filler, so many things doesn't make any sense about it that it has to be plus the fact that Legion dialogue for absolutely every mission exept Mordin recruitment means that placing him there was an extreamly late decision - sure, Legion was not voiced by an actor, but still why record lines that were not planed? It doesn't seem like an easter egg - more like a last minute storry change.

About the enemies being there just for the sake of being there - I'm afraid it's true. Sions cannot be explained in any way, sorry. The Reaper was derelict, the only things he was able to do was indoctrinate and generate the field, if it was actualy alive, aware or capable of contacting other Reapers I'm sure it would contact the Collectors to salvage it instead of flying there for about 50k years. Sions were there because there were no other enemies that would make ANY sense instead of very little... and generaly in ME2 enemies are there because you need something to shoot, as mentioned in this thread - during the whole game you probobly killed less than 200 Collectors while the ship or the station was capable of holding thousands or milions... I'm not saying that we should have fought that many - I know it's impossible. But I think everyone agree that 4 Collectors at a time was a bit lame... it was like there were waiting with showing up untill you kill the previous ones. Even if Mass Effect had dumber AI - it had more dynamic combat (come on, in ME2 there's not even one fight as dynamic as the Geth swarmed canyon on the Liara recruitment).

[DrunkenGoon]

This isn't really a plot hole.. Is it so hard to believe they simply had to get their asses out of there before Shepard took them all out? I mean they were being under attack by the Alliance towers once they went online and Shepard was ripping through their ranks..



Throughout the level you see a bunch of other civilians who the Collectors did not get their hands on.. So its not that much of a stretch to think they left Ashley/Kaidan behind..

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...
Like any artform, there are rules and guidelines that can make it more effective.  If an author doesn't use them, that's fine: he might be going for that.  When they make mistakes in comprehension, explanation, exposition, continuity, logic, pacing, grammar, etc., from a given premise (e.g. stop the enemy), then it becomes a disconnected mess.

I would say that if it truly becomes a mess depends on the amount and significance of the mistakes, but to some extent I agree with you.

smudboy wrote...

I wouldn't call it experimental.  BioWare has proven themselves with ME1, and we have thousands of years of fiction to use as a base.  We have to evaluate ME2 as a stand alone story (which it does okay), and as a sequel (which it fails at.)  Many people see ME3 as an apologists view to ME2, which is a horrible idea, because it says "If ME3 does y(1,2,3...), then x(1,2,3...) in ME2 is okay/made sense."  (Look at the speculation on the forums about what will happen in ME3.)

Maybe I should explain what I meant by "experimental". I didn't mean the hybrid gameplay style, but I rather BW's attempt to make a continuous story that carries your decisions from one instalment to another, this hasn't been done before (at least I haven't heard of any other projects like this), hence the term "experimental". (It is a shame however that some of the more annoying mistakes in storytelling are not connected with the potential issues caused by carrying over the player's previous decisions, hopefully BW also noticed that, and will try to make up for it).

smudboy wrote...

For a company that puts out titles where story is the focus, (or at least that's what the media blitz has said), this shift to game play didn't need to sacrifice itself.  I'd rather play a poor game if the universe and feel of the story draws me in (for an opposite reaction, see the Hammerhead DLC) because that is what matters.  A video game then becomes more than a bunch of pixels on a screen, it becomes a piece of art.  If the medium is words, people talking, human facial expressions, human themes and issues, then that automatically follows the rules of written and oral tradition: storytelling.

Agreed.
To be honest the only part of your reply I really don't agree with is that ME2 failed as a sequel (I can be persuaded that it could've been better, but not that it failed). But there was a 19+ page long thread dedicated to that and I don't want to start that discussion all over again.

Mr. Kusy wrote...

[...] during the whole game you probobly killed less than 200 Collectors while
the ship or the station was capable of holding thousands or milions...
I'm not saying that we should have fought that many - I know it's
impossible. But I think everyone agree that 4 Collectors at a time was a
bit lame... it was like there were waiting with showing up untill you
kill the previous ones. Even if Mass Effect had dumber AI - it had more
dynamic combat (come on, in ME2 there's not even one fight as dynamic as
the Geth swarmed canyon on the Liara recruitment).

I think you exaggerate, there are many sequences during which you fight 6+ enemies at once and I think we hardly need more, because it would probably result in too much chaos (and the game could become tedious on higher difficulty levels), as it was often the case in the first ME. I think there are quite a few sequences (mainly during the final assault) which were actually superior to "the geth canyon" in my opinion (and that was one if my favourite parts of ME1).

And as for scions aboard the derelict Reaper everything has been told already. You are probably right about this level being remodeled (one thing is for sure: it was planned that Legion will appear early in the game, BW  admitted that I believe). However since bringing back the old husks just for the sake of one level would be silly, and there is no detailed information in the game itself about scions being a completely new creation, it can be argued that their presence aboard the Reaper is in a way justified (the fact that BW probably did slip up here doesn't change that).

Modifié par rhistel, 06 avril 2010 - 08:39 .

[smudboy]

DrunkenGoon wrote...

This isn't really a plot hole.. Is it so hard to believe they simply had to get their asses out of there before Shepard took them all out? I mean they were being under attack by the Alliance towers once they went online and Shepard was ripping through their ranks..

Throughout the level you see a bunch of other civilians who the Collectors did not get their hands on.. So its not that much of a stretch to think they left Ashley/Kaidan behind..

So why did they take Lilith and not Ashley/Kaidan, considering their proximity, and whole reason for choosing this colony (to get to Shepard)?  Wouldn't collceting Ashley/Kaidan give them leverage on Shepard?  Where was Ashley/Kaidan?  How long does the seeker swarm effect last?  How does it work and does it have any after-effects?  How does it fare against an Alliance soldier's armor/medi-gel suit?  Did it stop working when they left, when they were fired upon, or right when Shepard defeated the Praetorian?

Why didn't Ashley/Kaidan say anything about being frozen, not collected, and/or saved/thankful toward Shepard?  Why aren't their entire bodies in pain, or why aren't they in shock from seeing a whole bunch of aliens capture a slew of colonists while they stood there helpless?  (Were they even conscious?)  Sure, meeting Shepard is pretty alarming too, but wouldn't you be more concerned about your own well being first?  Why didn't Mordin say anything about this, since he knows how seeker swarms work to some degree?

So no, it's not a big stretch that (if for whatever reason) the Collectors didn't collect them, and (if for whatever reason) the seeker swarm effect wore off, but it raises a whole bunch of questions that can be easily thrown away if the story would simply have show or told us wtf happened/why it happened the way it did/knowledge it as a mystery.

Even a simple line of dialog like "Ashley/Kaidan: 'I don't know why they spared me, or how I'm still alive; but here you are, pulling me back in.'" would've done the trick.

Modifié par smudboy, 06 avril 2010 - 09:34 .

[smudboy]

Darht Jayder wrote...

Everyone does know that the OP's post is not a plot hole......? It may be unlikely that Ash or Kaiden would survive....but not impossible and therefore not an unexplainable plot hole.

It's also unlikely, but not impossible, that the Fairy Godmother teleported from Dimension Bizarro and sprinkled Unfreezing Invisibility Emo Chest Pounding pixie dust on Ashley/Kaidan right when Shepard elbowed the Praetorian.

[RenownedRyan]

You people realize that this is a video game? Not a Shakespearean tragedy. It doesn't have to have a perfect story, it doesn't have to make perfect sense. The only time you notice these things is when you search for them. So do yourselves and everyone else on the forum a favor and stop searching for them. You're spamming up the place with this trash.

[Xaijin]

Mayhaps because what occurred in this particular instance was perfectly "fixable" with just a tad more proper prior planning and some already available animation showing the Accuser: hiding, or breaking free/using biotics.

[smudboy]

Darht Jayder wrote...
Although your questions are valid and many are certainly unexplained this is hardly a plot whole let alone a very big one to be concerned about.  If one guy can seal himself is a room to avoid capture...so can Ash/Kaiden.  Not that big of a stretch.

It's kind of hard to seal yourself in a room to avoid capture when you're frozen.

True, it's not that big a plot hole, but it's still a plot hole.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole

Most specifically:
"...a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot."
"...events happening for no apparent reason..."

In this case, the writer never dealt with these questions.  They could've done so by simply having Ashley/Kaidan mention what happened/how they escaped/or labeled it a mystery.  Let alone his/her speech and attitude about Shepard, not acknowledging what Shepard just did for them/everyone, and instead going into whiner mode.  (Sure, you're shocked Shepard's alive, and he's super awesome, huzzah; we get it. Now WTF just happened?)