1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Do they explain how Infiltrator/Kasumi's tactical cloak work in the codec? (i do not think they do and so now i will make a 7 part video about how that breaks the fiction for me)

"So suddenly now people can be invisible?  Okay....this completely breaks the fiction and the plot and i'm gonna complain for hours about it."  (heh)

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Example: Lord of the rings- Let's say that GaNdolf is killed by a Balrog (and yes he even admits he died) half way through a story (mass effect 2 is the 2nd chapter of a 3 chapter story, so it's silly to say Shepard died at the beginning of the story) and a few days later appears out of no where seemingly alright and all we are told is that he has been sent back until his work is finished. That's it. No soul searching of any length, no real revelation about that character, and is never referenced again for the rest of the story except for the title change from Grey to white.

Your right, that would make a horrible story and no one would ever do such a thing. Readers everywhere would be outraged and.... oh wait....
 

Actually, in my copy of The Two Towers, Gangalf goes into some detail about what befell him on pages 490-491.  His return is also referenced  several times throughout the remainder of the trilogy (Here's hoping Shep gets an "I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked  words with a serving-man till the lightning falls" line for Udina)

Though I do admit that it does make more sense after reading the appendices to the books to gain a greater understanding of the Valar, the Maiar, the Istari, and their roles in Middle Earth.  Now if you could just point me to the Mass Effect Appendix...

Gandalf talks anbout what happened to him. He said very little about what it meant to him, or how it changed him as a person. All Shepard experianced was blackness and waking up on a table. What is he going to do? Tell everyone what if felt like to wake up on an operating table? And there are plenty of one liners about shepard's death
"I was only mostly dead..."
"They killed you once and couldn't stop you..."
"You were dead..." "I got better"

These have as much effect as Gandalf's line.

The Appendix was written at the end of the entire story. You can't use that argument until after Mass Effect 3 comes out.

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...

So are you telling me that you can explain to me how electricity causes element zero to change the mass of an object? When you show me the schematics for that, I will show you the schematics for how they resurrected Shepard. Again Codex entries only tell you the results, not the how. Where as the entire game showed the results of the Lazarus project since none of those events would have happens the way they did with out Shepard.

But we can point to codex entries about eezo, Mass Effect fields, and biotics.  Even if it's "space magic" it's established space magic.  This is how the ME universe works.  It's in the game's title!  Where's the codex entry for ressurection technology?  Where's the entry on medical science that talks about tissue revivification?  Brain damage reversal?  Synthetic fusion?  We're not asking for a good explanation.  We're asking for an explanation that's as good as what we got for eezo.  Is that seriously asking a lot?

Again, you are asking for a codex to explain HOW it was possible. There is not one codex entry that explains HOW mass effect is possible (other than electricity is applied to element zero), only it's affect on the world around it. The extensive codex entries for the Mass Effect are needed because it is a difficult concept to grasp, and it has a lot of uses that the average person would not realize. Since it is used for almost everything, it must be explained how the Mass Effect affects the world around it. That is all the codex entries do, explain how the world is affected by it. We don't need a codex telling us how Shepard's resurrection affects the world. We see it in the game.
 

[JKoopman]

@squee913: I tend to cut the fantasy genre a bit more slack than science fiction because there "It's magic!" is actually a valid explanation. That being said, as iakus pointed out, there is an in-lore explanation for how Gandalf is resurrected and he does, in point of fact, explore it more in the books than he does in the films.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

 in fact, throughout both games you enter and leave atmospheres without sustaining burns to your ship, the mako, or the normandy's small space craft you use to land sometimes.

You only actually see a spacecraft/object entering/exiting the upper atmoshpere at two points in the game: when Shepard's body begins it's decent to Alchera in the opening scene, and when the Normandy SR-2 is decending to the surface of Illium (which is actually another plothole, as the whole reason given for the Kodiak shuttle's existence was that the SR-2 was too massive to enter the gravity well of a large planetoid).

In both cases, you see a fire trail forming and conversely ending.

That the majority of the time you don't actually see the Normandy or Kodiak shuttle decending through the upper atmosphere does not mean that reentry burn doesn't exist in the ME universe...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Do they explain how Infiltrator/Kasumi's tactical cloak work in the codec? (i do not think they do and so now i will make a 7 part video about how that breaks the fiction for me)

"So suddenly now people can be invisible?  Okay....this completely breaks the fiction and the plot and i'm gonna complain for hours about it."  (heh)

Optical camoflauge is not bringing someone back from the dead after 2 years. That's like saying "It's unexplained how people went to the bathroom on the Normandy SR-1 therefor it's acceptable not to explain how Shepard survived his head being cut off and chopped into little bits."

We have modern rudimentary examples of optical camoflauge right now. It doesn't stretch credulity not to explain how they've got practical examples ~200 years from now.

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 12:01 .

[JKoopman]

squee913 wrote...

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...

So are you telling me that you can explain to me how electricity causes element zero to change the mass of an object? When you show me the schematics for that, I will show you the schematics for how they resurrected Shepard. Again Codex entries only tell you the results, not the how. Where as the entire game showed the results of the Lazarus project since none of those events would have happens the way they did with out Shepard.

But we can point to codex entries about eezo, Mass Effect fields, and biotics.  Even if it's "space magic" it's established space magic.  This is how the ME universe works.  It's in the game's title!  Where's the codex entry for ressurection technology?  Where's the entry on medical science that talks about tissue revivification?  Brain damage reversal?  Synthetic fusion?  We're not asking for a good explanation.  We're asking for an explanation that's as good as what we got for eezo.  Is that seriously asking a lot?

Again, you are asking for a codex to explain HOW it was possible. There is not one codex entry that explains HOW mass effect is possible (other than electricity is applied to element zero), only it's affect on the world around it. The extensive codex entries for the Mass Effect are needed because it is a difficult concept to grasp, and it has a lot of uses that the average person would not realize. Since it is used for almost everything, it must be explained how the Mass Effect affects the world around it. That is all the codex entries do, explain how the world is affected by it. We don't need a codex telling us how Shepard's resurrection affects the world. We see it in the game.
 

No, he's not. He's asking for a "This is the principle upon which it's based" explanation. This is why people keep saying that you're missing the point.

The mass effect is explained in-codex through a newly-discovered element referred to as Element Zero or "Eezo" that, when a positive or negative electrical current is applied, has a unique property whereby it radiates a field of either positive or negative mass, and by extension either increases or decreases the mass of all objects within that field. All technology in the Mass Effect universe is based on this, and therefor much of what would be impossible in the Mass Effect universe (like FTL travel) can be explained and/or rationalized as a byproduct of this effect. It has an explanation. Is it a detailed explanation? No. It doesn't have to be. We're given the basics and that's enough on which to suspend our disbelief.

The Lazarus Project has no explanation in Element Zero. It requires an explanation independant of the only "magic" known to exist in the Mass Effect universe. Where then is the explanation--ANY explanation--for Shepard's resurrection? There isn't one. It's just handwaved away as "It happened. Now move on."

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 12:15 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Turning invisible is kind of a massive scientific feat.

The normandy sr1 probably had a third floor that was nothing but bathrooms.


I reiterate: the Lazerus project was visually explained a little. There's not a full explanation but there's a little bit of explanation. they also talked a lot about it during the audio recordings you find. It's not that there's "no explanation". there's "some" explanation, but it's not a lot of explanation. And even then just from observing advances in modern science you can at least infer what would have to take place to bring shepard back to life and then say "they did what that was".

That's probably what the explanation would be if they touch on it in me3. "we made your brain work by rebuilding it with new copy brain cells" or something.  But i'm sure it'll turn out to be some "prothean thingy" because the protheans protheans protheans.


Also didn't jacob say something to the effect of "It was a miracle your body was in the state that it was" or something to that effect?  I remember getting something like that out of one of the dialogue options with him....



Also I agree that it's as valid an explanation as element zero making people magic.  It's just one layer removed.  With Revival it's "how did they do that" but with Biotics it's "okay that happens but how does THAT make someone do that?"  it's just a bandage explanation like most scifi jargon.  (aka: dumb words to trick the audience into believing something that has no real explanation)

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 27 mars 2011 - 12:06 .

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

Again, you are asking for a codex to explain HOW it was possible. There is not one codex entry that explains HOW mass effect is possible (other than electricity is applied to element zero), only it's affect on the world around it. The extensive codex entries for the Mass Effect are needed because it is a difficult concept to grasp, and it has a lot of uses that the average person would not realize. Since it is used for almost everything, it must be explained how the Mass Effect affects the world around it. That is all the codex entries do, explain how the world is affected by it. We don't need a codex telling us how Shepard's resurrection affects the world. We see it in the game.
 

We do because it doesn't fit in the Mass Effect universe.  There was no hint of anything een remotely close to the Lazarus Project ever existing.  There's no evidence that medical technology from any race could do anything like this.  The closest application I could think of that could conceivably exist using ME-universe tech that had already been established would be a cybernetic clone with a quantum bluebox for a brain, implanted memories and thinks its Shepard.  Clearly, this is not the case, and it would be ludicrous to try (although given this is Cerberus, it wouldn't be beyond them to try)

If "It's science fiction, so it doesn't need an explanation" could justify this, then it establishes the precedant that anything the writers could think of could be shoehorned into the game:  Humans could start developing telepathy without explanation, 'cause Hey!  It's science fiction!  Time travel.  Q-like superbeings.  Human/quarian hybrids. ("You would not believe the cost to make one of those!")

I recall a quote from the Matrix, as Morpheus  is describing the Agents: "I've seen an agent punch through a concrete wall; men have emptied entire clips at them and hit nothing but air; yet, their strength, and their speed, are still based in a world that is built on rules."  Internal consistency holds fantastic worlds together.  Otherwise anything goes, and it simply cannot be taken seriously anymore.

I don't need to know how it works.  I just need to know how it's possible

[JKoopman]

I'm suddenly reminded of all those "Sci vs. Fi" videos leading up to and immediately following Mass Effect's release where well-known physicists like Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson (both of whom are regulars on physics-related programs on the Discovery Channel) would discuss the science and plausibility behind Mass Effect and it's various technologies.

I'm also reminded of how there were no such videos leading up to or following ME2's release, and in fact the Sci vs. Fi episode for ME2 was more like a glorified preview where developers, actors and media personalities recapped the plot, described what a "dark cinematic experience" the game was and discussed how to write a compelling story with an open protagonist, etc. What does that tell us? Clearly BioWare shifted their focus and lowered the bar as far as plausible science is concerned.

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 12:54 .

[wizardryforever]

I'm curious.  Would people still be railing against the resurrection of Shepard if Shepard asked Miranda how it was done and she told you that she couldn't tell you?  And then ask the Illusive Man and he basically blows you off with "that's classified, suffice to say. . ."  Because people seem to be getting way too bent out of shape over this one thing.  They're like a terrier that sees a squirrel.  They fixate on it and nothing at all will get their attention.  No offense, just an observation.

I really don't get why this is so much harder to believe than everything else.  There is quite a lot of things in quite a lot of games that go unexplained, and somehow this one is just unacceptable.  This one mystery causes a hole of such massive proportions that it's a wonder the entire universe hasn't been sucked through it.  Why?

I get that it's a big deal.  Death is pretty important.  And there should have been more dialogue on the subject, but I don't really think it matters that the how is unexplained.  What would it have changed?  The story would have flowed the same way, the same events would have happened.  Most likely there was no explanation in the game because the writers couldn't think of anything that sounded plausible enough, and so they didn't even try to explain it.  Which is worse, no explanation, or an ass-pull?  I'd rather have no explanation than a bad one, myself.

[JKoopman]

wizardryforever wrote...

I'm curious.  Would people still be railing against the resurrection of Shepard if Shepard asked Miranda how it was done and she told you that she couldn't tell you?  And then ask the Illusive Man and he basically blows you off with "that's classified, suffice to say. . ."  Because people seem to be getting way too bent out of shape over this one thing.  They're like a terrier that sees a squirrel.  They fixate on it and nothing at all will get their attention.  No offense, just an observation.

I really don't get why this is so much harder to believe than everything else.  There is quite a lot of things in quite a lot of games that go unexplained, and somehow this one is just unacceptable.  This one mystery causes a hole of such massive proportions that it's a wonder the entire universe hasn't been sucked through it.  Why?

I get that it's a big deal.  Death is pretty important.  And there should have been more dialogue on the subject, but I don't really think it matters that the how is unexplained.  What would it have changed?  The story would have flowed the same way, the same events would have happened.  Most likely there was no explanation in the game because the writers couldn't think of anything that sounded plausible enough, and so they didn't even try to explain it.  Which is worse, no explanation, or an ass-pull?  I'd rather have no explanation than a bad one, myself.

It's not that anyone is especially fixated on Shepard's resurrection. It's certainly one of the larger holes in ME2's story, but it's far from the only one (in fact, Shepard's death and resurrection is only about 1/6th of Smudboy's video analysis). It just so happens to be the direction that the conversation took. If anyone would like to discuss the Human Reaper Larva, I'd be happy to post a 10-page rant on it as well...

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 12:51 .

[Almostfaceman]

@JKoopman

I'll say it again since you may have missed it. YOU segregate game mechanics and storyline. I do not. They work together for me when I immerse myself into the game universe. It's how I experience the game, nothing you say changes that. So to me, trudging around with 150 items is just as goofy as resurrection, but both can be forgiven because the sci fi universe is always filled with silly stuff. The GAMING universe is always filled with silly stuff.

Of course 20 plot holes do not make a right. Again, I said that each plot hole affects people differently.

I took the Resurrection as a surprising, inspired way to introduce that the technology was being developed in the ME universe. You did not. No big deal.

[Iakus]

[quote]wizardryforever wrote...

I'm curious.  Would people still be railing against the resurrection of Shepard if Shepard asked Miranda how it was done and she told you that she couldn't tell you?  And then ask the Illusive Man and he basically blows you off with "that's classified, suffice to say. . ."  Because people seem to be getting way too bent out of shape over this one thing.  They're like a terrier that sees a squirrel.  They fixate on it and nothing at all will get their attention.  No offense, just an observation.[/quote]

I wouldn't like it.  But I could accept it.  Because it implies there is an answer out there.  And maybe it would eventually be explained.

[quote]
I really don't get why this is so much harder to believe than everything else.  There is quite a lot of things in quite a lot of games that go unexplained, and somehow this one is just unacceptable.  This one mystery causes a hole of such massive proportions that it's a wonder the entire universe hasn't been sucked through it.  Why?[/quote]

Because ME 1 at least tried to remain consistent within its own universe.  But ME 2, a direct sequel, planned middle volume to a trilogy where you play the same character with the same save file, decided that ME 1 simply wasn't AWESOME!!! enough.  Now I'm just waiting for Shepard to battle an army of Saren copies.


[quote]
I get that it's a big deal.  Death is pretty important.  And there should have been more dialogue on the subject, but I don't really think it matters that the how is unexplained.  What would it have changed?  The story would have flowed the same way, the same events would have happened.  Most likely there was no explanation in the game because the writers couldn't think of anything that sounded plausible enough, and so they didn't even try to explain it.  [/quote]

Because :

1) We'd have a better look at Cerberus' resources.  How did they get this technology?  From where?  Have they used it before?  Have there been failed experiments?  If so, what happened to them?  Are they refining it?    Can we trust them with it?  How likely is is Shepard may end up facing former enemies again?

2) How human is Shepard?  I've gone over this before

3) How worried should Shepard be about the tech that sustains him?  Is it permanent?  Will it lengthen or shorten his lifespan?  What are the long term consequences?  In Overlord, at least we learned he can be hacked.  Can TIM do this too?  Could others? 

THese are just off the top of my head

{quote]Which is worse, no explanation, or an ass-pull?  I'd rather have no explanation than a bad one, myself.
[/quote]

If we're not meant to know then they should play up "We aren't meant to know"   Cerberus didn't know what they were doing.  Freak thing.  Shouldn't have worked.  One-shot Prothean artifact.  Unknown Sufficiently Advanced alien technology.  Whatever. 

Or simply go with...Shepard wasn't dead, but in a coma for two years!  Trite, but easier to believe than death.

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

@JKoopman

I'll say it again since you may have missed it. YOU segregate game mechanics and storyline. I do not. They work together for me when I immerse myself into the game universe. It's how I experience the game, nothing you say changes that. So to me, trudging around with 150 items is just as goofy as resurrection, but both can be forgiven because the sci fi universe is always filled with silly stuff. The GAMING universe is always filled with silly stuff.

Of course 20 plot holes do not make a right. Again, I said that each plot hole affects people differently.

I took the Resurrection as a surprising, inspired way to introduce that the technology was being developed in the ME universe. You did not. No big deal.

I can understand your point. I guess I just don't particularly see the relevance. Pointing out that there are other plotholes and/or that some plotholes or inconsistencies might be more grating on individuals than others doesn't really do anything to explain or negate the plothole in question.

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 01:00 .

[JKoopman]

iakus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I'm curious.  Would people still be railing against the resurrection of Shepard if Shepard asked Miranda how it was done and she told you that she couldn't tell you?  And then ask the Illusive Man and he basically blows you off with "that's classified, suffice to say. . ."  Because people seem to be getting way too bent out of shape over this one thing.  They're like a terrier that sees a squirrel.  They fixate on it and nothing at all will get their attention.  No offense, just an observation.

I wouldn't like it.  But I could accept it.  Because it implies there is an answer out there.  And maybe it would eventually be explained.

That and it would indicate that Shepard himself was incredulous, curious and maybe even a little conflicted about the method of his revival and the (lack of) explanation provided. From the way Shepard (and everyone else) reacts in ME2, you'd think people coming back from the dead happens every day.

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 01:08 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

@JKoopman

I'll say it again since you may have missed it. YOU segregate game mechanics and storyline. I do not. They work together for me when I immerse myself into the game universe. It's how I experience the game, nothing you say changes that. So to me, trudging around with 150 items is just as goofy as resurrection, but both can be forgiven because the sci fi universe is always filled with silly stuff. The GAMING universe is always filled with silly stuff.

Of course 20 plot holes do not make a right. Again, I said that each plot hole affects people differently.

I took the Resurrection as a surprising, inspired way to introduce that the technology was being developed in the ME universe. You did not. No big deal.

I can understand your point. I guess I just don't particularly see the relevance. Pointing out that there are other plotholes and/or that some plotholes or inconsistencies might be more grating on individuals than others doesn't really do anything to explain or negate the plothole in question.

Well the point is useful in explaining why it bothers you, but doesn't bother me.  I'm not sure anything is going to be useful to YOU in this regard, since your mind is made up.  Not being critical, just an observation.

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

@JKoopman

I'll say it again since you may have missed it. YOU segregate game mechanics and storyline. I do not. They work together for me when I immerse myself into the game universe. It's how I experience the game, nothing you say changes that. So to me, trudging around with 150 items is just as goofy as resurrection, but both can be forgiven because the sci fi universe is always filled with silly stuff. The GAMING universe is always filled with silly stuff.

Of course 20 plot holes do not make a right. Again, I said that each plot hole affects people differently.

I took the Resurrection as a surprising, inspired way to introduce that the technology was being developed in the ME universe. You did not. No big deal.

I can understand your point. I guess I just don't particularly see the relevance. Pointing out that there are other plotholes and/or that some plotholes or inconsistencies might be more grating on individuals than others doesn't really do anything to explain or negate the plothole in question.

Well the point is useful in explaining why it bothers you, but doesn't bother me.  I'm not sure anything is going to be useful to YOU in this regard, since your mind is made up.  Not being critical, just an observation.

True. I guess it's a case of "Good for you" considering that the inventory was removed in ME2 so that particular "silliness" can no longer hinder your immersion.

Modifié par JKoopman, 27 mars 2011 - 01:06 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

True. I guess it's a case of "Good for you" considering that the inventory was removed in ME2 so that particular "silliness" can no longer hinder your immersion.

I'm still wondering where I carry that "salvage" and "upgrade tech"...

[JKoopman]

You're a lost cause, man. A lost cause...

[sympathy4saren]

eldav wrote...

why most cod fanboys smear me1 lovers ?

Because the fact they must release the right shoulder button annoys them. And in-depth, complex and excellent writing overloads their minds...

[Whatever42]

Ultimately, this is a silly debate. Those determined to see a plot hole will always find it in any story. A plot hole can always be perceived. And if they are determined to see a plot hole and to let it bother them then nothing anyone can say can change their minds or convince them that they do not see what they think they see.

Alternatively, those of us who don't look for plot holes do not find them. If you point us at a plot element that does not have a great deal of explanation, we are satisifed to let our imaginations fill in the gaps or to simply ignore it as unimportant.

Personally, I'm willing to see a plot hole in the resurrection of Shepard. I can certainly imagine how it could be adequetely explained but in reality,it is a pretty big leap from the medical technology we've seen in the series and its unexplained (as of yet) so yes, it is a plot hole. It doesn't bother me because 1) it might be explained or 2) if not explained, its still really not that important to me (or the vast majority of people). Its a simple plot device.

Where I do pick a fight is when ME2 haters think that ME1 has no plot holes or every other work of fiction has no plot holes.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 27 mars 2011 - 03:37 .

[piemanz]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Ultimately, this is a silly debate. Those determined to see a plot hole will always find it in any story. A plot hole can always be perceived. And if they are determined to see a plot hole and to let it bother them then nothing anyone can say can change their minds or convince them that they do not see what they think they see.

Alternatively, those of us who don't look for plot holes do not find them. If you point us at a plot element that does not have a great deal of explanation, we are satisifed to let our imaginations fill in the gaps or to simply ignore it as unimportant.

Personally, I'm willing to see a plot hole in the resurrection of Shepard. I can certainly imagine how it could be adequetely explained but in reality,it is a pretty big leap from the medical technology we've seen in the series and its unexplained (as of yet) so yes, it is a plot hole. It doesn't bother me because 1) it might be explained or 2) if not explained, its still really not that important to me (or the vast majority of people). Its a simple plot device.

Where I do pick a fight is when ME2 haters think that ME1 has no plot holes or every other work of fiction has no plot holes.

+1

[Whatever42]

BTW, one note on the fantasy versus sci fi comments. Fantasy is as required as science fiction to stay bound within the laws it sets for itself. The science in science fiction is also magic. Whether I say that I tap energy from the demon dimesnion to hurl a fireball or whether I tap eezo to go FTL, its both magic.

Gandalf was returned to Middle Earth basically by God. This has never happened before in the history of Middle Earth. Gandalf is of a different nature than the other elves, men, dwarfs and spirits that inhabit middle earth, of course. But still, if God is willing to ressurect Gandalf after he dies to a Balrog, why does God limit his intervention there? He could simply sweep away Sauron. Heck, he could have dealt with Sauron and Melkor back in the first age and avoided this whole mess. The whole damn book is a plot hole.

But then again, everything has plot holes.

Edit: don't mean to get into an LotR debate. Just pointing out that anything can be percieved as having plot holes if you want to see them.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 27 mars 2011 - 03:51 .

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

BTW, one note on the fantasy versus sci fi comments. Fantasy is as required as science fiction to stay bound within the laws it sets for itself. The science in science fiction is also magic. Whether I say that I tap energy from the demon dimesnion to hurl a fireball or whether I tap eezo to go FTL, its both magic.

Agreed

Gandalf was returned to Middle Earth basically by God. This has never happened before in the history of Middle Earth. Gandalf is of a different nature than the other elves, men, dwarfs and spirits that inhabit middle earth, of course. But still, if God is willing to ressurect Gandalf after he dies to a Balrog, why does God limit his intervention there? He could simply sweep away Sauron. Heck, he could have dealt with Sauron and Melkor back in the first age and avoided this whole mess. The whole damn book is a plot hole.

But then again, everything has plot holes.

Edit: don't mean to get into an LotR debate. Just pointing out that anything can be percieved as having plot holes if you want to see them.

Beren and Luthien were returned to life as well.  Just sayin

When the deities of Middle Earth get directly involved, geography has a tendancy to get rearranged.  Look at the end of the War of Wrath in the First Age  and the Fall of Numenor  in the Second Age as examples.  Thus why the Istari were sent and the restrictions put on them.

And that's all I'll say about LOTR as well

[Whatever42]

Ah, forgot about the star-crossed lovers.

I'd like to debate you about whether those were side effects or deliberate acts but that's a little off-topic (and I know you're a better ME scholar than I am!).

[squee913]

Finally! The third and final part is finished. Kind of. I still have to render it all and upload and such. Should be up this evening! Also, Smud has released a rebuttal to my part 2 video if you are interested. You can find it as a video response to part 2.