RiouHotaru wrote...
I don't know what it is you're doing wrong that I object to, aside from blind acceptance or shrugging your shoulders. If that works for you, hey, I'm not arguing, enjoy. But if you start arguing with me and I need to "buy" whatever crap they're (and especially whatever imaginative retardoland stuff random fan 3423 comes up with), selling as a resurrection story, because you shrugged your shoulders, well, I'm going to come down on you like the ignoramus you are. Or at least write it out so you can read in really simple sentences. With nice grammar. While sipping a Dr. Pepper.
"Blind" acceptance? It's not "blind" acceptance to be okay with the explanation Bioware gave us. It makes perfect sense to me, and to a lot of other people. You only consider it "blind" because you don't like the explanation, but just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or incorrect. Also, I think a lot of people here use the term 'plothole' far to easily, as I'll go into below. You seem to think that any inconsistency means a "plothole" is present. Why not wait till the third game and THEN complain if there's still something inconsistent?
Please explain to me what Bioware gave me then.
I require the perfect sense you speak of. Please, explain it.
I consider it blind because you turned your brain off. You just nod your head and say "perfect sense." Well please, explain this perfect sense which is so clear, and has been shown, explained and expanded to your more than demanding brain.
I know exactly what a plot hole is. Some don't, and they throw it around, that's unfortunate.
Your belief that a 3rd game, or a 4th game, or any kind of sequel after a given story, is going to "fix" something, you're dead wrong. You're completely wrong. These are errors. Errors in writing. Sequels do not exist to fix these errors, unless it's part of the writers prerogative, to acknowledge they made a mistake, and they have to retcon or do some dangerous explanation. Now, it's possible there might be some current explanation on all the ridiculous number of plot holes from ME2. It's possible. You're hoping on a prayer, though, to think this way: no one writes a sequel to correct the writing mistakes from the previous chapter. ME2 didn't do this for ME1. What makes you think ME3 will do this?
Plot holes exist. They generate questions. These questions can't be answered properly. But to you, they make perfect sense. So please, tell me 1) how Shepard's death, preservation, experiments, and resurrection perfect sense, 2) how ME3 will "correct" this perfect sense.
The shuttle could explained as a simple case of bad script timing, due to the fact that it tries to come immediately after recruiting Legion. Remember, originally the characters could be recruited in almost any order, indicated by the presence
Full stop. That's called bad storytelling. Simply put, that's one of the many things of what a plot hole is. Thank you for agreeing with me.
of dialog for characters in places where normally you're not allowed to have them yet (such as the dialogue on Purgatory). My guess is that the shuttle trip was scripted to occur at a different time or place. However, when they redid the order of recruitment, they had change where the script would take place. Sadly, this means it takes place after either retrieving the IFF, or finishing Legion's loyalty mission, neither of which make much sense. So it's not really a plothole so much as poorly timed event.
Your guess is what the problem is. Your guess is not the answer. My guess is not the answer. Everyone's guess is not the answer. We're creating questions when there shouldn't be questions. The storytelling should be clear. This is not necessarily caused by a plot hole, but it usually is (break in continuity, existence of things, etc.)
Listen to yourself. "sadly, this means it takes place after either x, or y, neither of whihch make much sense." If events happen in sequence, and we don't understand their causes or connections, that is a plot hole. Thank you again for clarifying this.
Also, since WHEN was the Larval Reaper a plothole? Because no one had an explanation for why the Collectors were making it? There was no reason to explain it! The Reapers are so alien and incomprehensible, that their motives shouldn't be explained so easily. The fact that EDI can only speculate as to why they would be building it shows just how bizzare their thought processes are. It's a clear case of Blue And Orange Morality. But that doesn't make it a plothole.
I don't exactly recall calling the Human Reaper a plot hole. It's definitely not what we understand Reapers from ME1. You could call it a retcon of what we know of Reapers from ME1, but I'm not going that far, at least in this paragraph. It's completely ridiculous, and horribly presented. It
could have been wonderfully told and shown to us. If there was foreshadowing, and little hints, and some kind of understanding between ME1 Sovereign and ME2's Harbinger on their plans for organics. If they explained WTF that melting of humans does, and about a dozen other things that don't make any goddamnd fW#$@# sense. But it's completely out of the blue and stupid. It's comical. It's like a bad action flick ending. It's garbage. It's so out of place and insane that I began looking at their Old Republic vidoes so I didn't lose complete faith in BioWare.
Retour en haut
