RiouHotaru wrote...
In ME2:
Story opens with Shepard's death, which IMO is a fantastic way to get things going. I disregard the "but the resurrection makes no sense!" arguments because it doesn't break my personal suspension of disbelief. Just because it breaks yours doesn't make it a plothole
Except that it is a plothole due to it being completely and fundamentally impossible for Shepard to have survived. There are only two plausible hypotheses to contradict this. We have either the Mako theory offered by Zulu or another theory where she drifts throughout space and does not actually enter the planet’s atmosphere. In any other circumstances there would not be a body, she would be slush on a planet due to crashing into it at thousands of miles per hour or simply reduced to ash. You cannot reconstruct a person’s brain even by Mass Effect lore if there is not a brain reconstruct.
Now because Bioware chose not to provide explanation in canon form; it is inconsistent with the narrative, illogical and therefore a plothole. Should ME3 reveal Shepard is actually a clone or AI who was merely based upon what was known of the original Shepard. That would be an explanation and no longer be a plothole... but only in ME3. In ME2, it would simply be poor writing.
I guess, when it comes down to it, your like/dislike of the plot is a case of YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary), but I wish people would stop saying "The story/plot of ME2 is weak" as though it were a statement of fact.
Because it's not. That's your opinion.
Largely, it is fact. The main plot did not develop the overarching Reaper saga. We have learned and discovered essentially nothing. The few exceptions such as Prothens being mutated into Collectors is made completely irrelevant in mere moments. When we conclude ME2, we are left in precisely the same position we originally were in after finishing the predecessor. The Reapers are still coming, nobody believes Shepard, we still have yet to discover a means to prevent the impending doom and Shepard must find a way. I have already spent two thousands explaining why the characters have virtually no relevance to the main plot, thus I need not reiterate.
Further examples of plotholes would be not sending probes into the Omega 4 Relay to investigate. Lair of the Shadow Broker hilariously mocks the ME2 plot by admitting the Shadow Broker did this himself and the probes returned. So either Cerberus is incompetent or it is a plothole. What about the derelict Reaper; we finally have evidence of their existence and nobody considers informing the Council? And perhaps the most blatant; when the entire crew goes onto a shuttle for no adequately explained reason, just so the game can mosey on along with the crew abduction angle.
How is this not an example of poor writing and thus a weak main story? There are numerous others and they have been addressed in this topic, many by myself.
Frankly, those who defend ME2 have a misconception. ME’s plot was not the holy grail of great story telling. It had some obvious plotholes, such as Shepard's facepalm worthy performance in any political engagement and utter lack of providing evidence, and there certainly are others. In addition, none of dislike ME2; quite the contrary in fact; we simply view it as wasted potential. Lobbying attacks against Mass Effect only displays that the series as a whole may be somewhat overrated.
Nightwriter, myself and many others have already mentioned by the squad in ME2 held no importance to the main plot and were merely cannon fodder. The sole exception being Mordin. This was not the case in ME, where each had a role to some extent, albeit some less than others.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 09 janvier 2011 - 09:09 .
Retour en haut
. Hell he could have said any number of things with the same amount of information.
