541 réponses à ce sujet

[wulf3n]

centauri2002 wrote...
Cerberus aren't terrorists in the real sense of the word, I suppose. They don't commit acts to spread fear (at least, not as their main objective - other species fearing humanity can't be seen as a bad side effect in their eyes though) but for the furthering of humanity. There are quite a number of people who do not understand their actions and who do fear them though. I'm sure to some the term terrorist would fit them, or it's convenient term. It's hard to define exactly what Cerberus is. 

Rogue spec/black ops agency worked pretty well for me. As soon as i heared cerberus were now being called terrorists i just imagined bioware thinking
"How do we make the player feel conflicted?, I know we'll say they're terrorists, that's a hot topic now right" 
I mean i'd buy that they were terrorists if bioware had bothered to put in some examples of terrorist actions. Even if it were as simple as some news reports in game, or some classified documents you hack from the citadel. 

Modifié par wulf3n, 21 avril 2011 - 10:43 .

[Last Vizard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

Your definition in no way contradicted mine. I explained what the portion you bolded "or to simplify an excessively complex continuity structure." actually refers to: cases like the Crisis on Infinite Earths, when whole worlds are said to have never existed, for the purpose of allowing there to be one, easy-to-reference "true" continuity.

(If you don't know what the Crisis on Infinite Earths is, I'd look it up; it's really interesting. It's also the best possible example I can give for a true "retcon".)

This was interesting, DC gave it a good run before they made the Crisis resolution.  So i guess my interpretation was wrong, so they are just plot holes.

[AlexMBrennan]

Last Vizard wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

Sorry, I didn't know plagiarism was acceptable here.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Last Vizard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

Your definition in no way contradicted mine. I explained what the portion you bolded "or to simplify an excessively complex continuity structure." actually refers to: cases like the Crisis on Infinite Earths, when whole worlds are said to have never existed, for the purpose of allowing there to be one, easy-to-reference "true" continuity.

(If you don't know what the Crisis on Infinite Earths is, I'd look it up; it's really interesting. It's also the best possible example I can give for a true "retcon".)

This was interesting, DC gave it a good run before they made the Crisis resolution.  So i guess my interpretation was wrong, so they are just plot holes.

Out of curiosity, what specific events do you consider plot holes? (Other than stuff in Arrival. I do not want to argue about Arrival. I will admit that it has a lot of... issues.)

The two I've heard put forth most often in this thread are these:

1. The Council admits there are Reapers, and then Turian Airquotes them away.
I see this as just a politics thing - it seems realistic for a politician to say "I believe X" and then later say "Now, I never said I actually believed X." I am not giving any examples! This is not that kind of thread! But it seems like a thing that happens both in history and in literature. (Please do not give examples.)

2. Cerberus is said to be a Terrorist organization, but once you get an internal view of them, it doesn't seem like they are one.
I see this as an issue of perspective: The Alliance has classified Cerberus as a terrorist organization. For those who have Cerberus connections, this helps the Alliance diplomatically, as it gives them plausible deniability. For those who aren't "in the loop," Cerberus has done some shady, scary things and, if their true motivation is unknown, it's easy to consider these things terrorists acts. If someone sets Rachni loose on the Citadel in order to cause a distraction so they can rob a bank... people might still think it was a terrorist act, even if it was just a distraction to cover a non-terror operation. Make sense?

Both of these are slight inconsistencies, but I wouldn't call either of them plotholes. Was there something else you were thinking of, or was it one of these things?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 21 avril 2011 - 11:16 .

[Last Vizard]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

Sorry, I didn't know plagiarism was acceptable here.

Ha, what are we writting an article for an english assignment? are my methods unacceptable to you and your book report?

Modifié par Last Vizard, 21 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[Centauri2002]

I don't think it's necessary to argue over where someone copied a definition from. The topic was about someone's issues with how BioWare handled story development. Let's stick with that.

[Last Vizard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

Your definition in no way contradicted mine. I explained what the portion you bolded "or to simplify an excessively complex continuity structure." actually refers to: cases like the Crisis on Infinite Earths, when whole worlds are said to have never existed, for the purpose of allowing there to be one, easy-to-reference "true" continuity.

(If you don't know what the Crisis on Infinite Earths is, I'd look it up; it's really interesting. It's also the best possible example I can give for a true "retcon".)

This was interesting, DC gave it a good run before they made the Crisis resolution.  So i guess my interpretation was wrong, so they are just plot holes.

Out of curiosity, what specific events do you consider plot holes? (Other than stuff in Arrival. I do not want to argue about Arrival. I will admit that it has a lot of... issues.)

The two I've heard put forth most often in this thread are these:

1. The Council admits there are Reapers, and then Turian Airquotes them away.
I see this as just a politics thing - it seems realistic for a politician to say "I believe X" and then later say "Now, I never said I actually believed X." I am not giving any examples! This is not that kind of thread! But it seems like a thing that happens both in history and in literature. (Please do not give examples.)

2. Cerberus is said to be a Terrorist organization, but once you get an internal view of them, it doesn't seem like they are one.
I see this as an issue of perspective: The Alliance has classified Cerberus as a terrorist organization. For those who have Cerberus connections, this helps the Alliance diplomatically, as it gives them plausible deniability. For those who aren't "in the loop," Cerberus has done some shady, scary things and, if their true motivation is unknown, it's easy to consider these things terrorists acts. If someone sets Rachni loose on the Citadel in order to cause a distraction so they can rob a bank... people might still think it was a terrorist act, even if it was just a distraction to cover a non-terror operation. Make sense?

Both of these are slight inconsistencies, but I wouldn't call either of them plotholes. Was there something else you were thinking of, or was it one of these things?

The two above aren't plot holes, its just part of the story, the couple that stand out are"
1.Thermal clips being a plot hole, doesn't make any logical sense (they even said it was so they could add the ammo mechanic)--- plus Jacobs loyalty mission has modern mechs and thermal clips...
2. Yes, the Reaper Arrival methods that Nazzara forgot about (corrupted data?) think not.
3. The Collectors not helping Nazzara attack the citadel, while there are reasons against this being a plot hole IMO Nazzara would've used them aswell but story in ME 3 might reveal more about Reaper to Reaper interactions and such.
4.Relay travel times, they seem to change from instant to hours
5.they changed the way Protheans looked in the vision to Collectors.... yes they are the same race but why change?
thats all that comes to mind but i'll probly have to edit this later maybe....

[008Zulu]

There's a lot of talk about how Cerberus has only tried to help Humanity and how most if not all of their plans have backfired, atleast they had good intentions.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Cerberus is the legendary 3 headed dog guarding the gates to make sure no one gets out. The writing is on the wall people, Cerberus are the bad guys.

Some things in the ME verse have been retconned (Thermal Clips, Jacob on Eden Prime {big planet yeah, was a small settlement]).

TIM was going to use Shep to make a Reaper with the Cerberus logos plastered all over it. If you think Cerberus is worth sticking with in spite of that, then I strongly recommend you avoid some of the more extremist websites out there.

[M-Sinistrari]

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes, but i'm not concerned with what characters will be in ME 3, this thread is about issues with Bioware.  ME 2 was a good game if played out of context with choices made in ME 1, i would prefer BW said its too bloody hard to make your choices count so we'll follow a cannon and if your choices are different to mine (BW writter) then too bad, but way back in the days of ME 1 when they announced that it was going to be a trilogy and your choices matter.... well lady, i can't stand liars and if BW advertises that choice matters then they lied when it came to ME 2.

Easy to dismiss an opinion that is different to your own, isn't it?

Okay, maybe the third time'll be the charm here.

It's still a long way until November until the ME3's out and I find it hard to believe that a mere 12 pages in a copy of GI will be the only information Bioware'll end up releasing on it.  Jumping to conclusions over what amounts to a moment's blip promo teaser when there will be more information released as time goes on is silly.

There's a whole lot of presuming going on when there's absolutely NOTHING to go on other than a personal feeling that something's going to turn out other than thier choices or belief on how things should be.

To my knowledge, Mass Effect's the only game series where you can import your character through the series.  So with how unique that is, we're going to be attached to our Sheps as well as not having an idea as to how a series like this will fully pan out as it goes on.  Mac Walters said in his interview thing that they were bound by ME2 being the middle game so couldn't have choices impact as they wanted to and that with ME3 they'll be able to go all out like they wanted.

Really, if people can't grasp this basic concept of still early and more info'll come, I don't know what more to say.

[Last Vizard]

008Zulu wrote...

There's a lot of talk about how Cerberus has only tried to help Humanity and how most if not all of their plans have backfired, atleast they had good intentions.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Cerberus is the legendary 3 headed dog guarding the gates to make sure no one gets out. The writing is on the wall people, Cerberus are the bad guys.

Some things in the ME verse have been retconned (Thermal Clips, Jacob on Eden Prime {big planet yeah, was a small settlement]).

TIM was going to use Shep to make a Reaper with the Cerberus logos plastered all over it. If you think Cerberus is worth sticking with in spite of that, then I strongly recommend you avoid some of the more extremist websites out there.

I think you'll find that Your country and Cerberus have alot in common, i don't like it but you can't tie your arms behind your back and stop threats with harsh words, i think the weapons and such on Reapers can be back engineered without the need to harvest people to build them... If harvesting people was the only way to build weapons that will stop the Reapers then i'd do it because its a necessary evil.

Empires rise and fall, TIM's will be the same.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Last Vizard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Out of curiosity, what specific events do you consider plot holes? (Other than stuff in Arrival. I do not want to argue about Arrival. I will admit that it has a lot of... issues.)

The two I've heard put forth most often in this thread are these:

1. The Council admits there are Reapers, and then Turian Airquotes them away.
I see this as just a politics thing - it seems realistic for a politician to say "I believe X" and then later say "Now, I never said I actually believed X." I am not giving any examples! This is not that kind of thread! But it seems like a thing that happens both in history and in literature. (Please do not give examples.)

2. Cerberus is said to be a Terrorist organization, but once you get an internal view of them, it doesn't seem like they are one.
I see this as an issue of perspective: The Alliance has classified Cerberus as a terrorist organization. For those who have Cerberus connections, this helps the Alliance diplomatically, as it gives them plausible deniability. For those who aren't "in the loop," Cerberus has done some shady, scary things and, if their true motivation is unknown, it's easy to consider these things terrorists acts. If someone sets Rachni loose on the Citadel in order to cause a distraction so they can rob a bank... people might still think it was a terrorist act, even if it was just a distraction to cover a non-terror operation. Make sense?

Both of these are slight inconsistencies, but I wouldn't call either of them plotholes. Was there something else you were thinking of, or was it one of these things?

The two above aren't plot holes, its just part of the story, the couple that stand out are"
1.Thermal clips being a plot hole, doesn't make any logical sense (they even said it was so they could add the ammo mechanic)--- plus Jacobs loyalty mission has modern mechs and thermal clips...
2. Yes, the Reaper Arrival methods that Nazzara forgot about (corrupted data?) think not.
3. The Collectors not helping Nazzara attack the citadel, while there are reasons against this being a plot hole IMO Nazzara would've used them aswell but story in ME 3 might reveal more about Reaper to Reaper interactions and such.
4.Relay travel times, they seem to change from instant to hours
5.they changed the way Protheans looked in the vision to Collectors.... yes they are the same race but why change?
thats all that comes to mind but i'll probly have to edit this later maybe....

Gonna trim the top of the quotem pole, there.

1. Thermal clips - I hate 'em. However, I'm going to put them in the "casualties of game design" bucket, along with "Why can't I use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?" Sometimes mechanics change or are weird or inconsistent due to the demands of game design. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but if you're going to be playing games rather than reading books or watching TV, you'll have to accept mechanic changes. I mean I suddenly know how to Biotic Charge, something pretty antithetical to everything I know about my character previously. Hate 'em? Yes. Plot hole... not reeeeeally.

2. Not sure what you're talking about here. Reapers hoofing it to the galaxy rather than using the Citadel? Doing so loses them a significant strategic advantage, so it's silly to try it unless you're pretty sure you can't take the Citadel. (If that's not what you're talking about, sorry! That was just my guess.)

3. I think Nazzara was just cocky, and the Collectors were off doing their job - buying slaves and testing them to see what race might make good goo. So yeah, logical inconsistency, maybe? Plot hole? not so much.

4. Mass Relay travel times may be inconsistent, though it has been established there are different kinds of relays - primary and secondary. It may be that the variation is based on this? I haven't noticed significant inconsistencies here, can you cite times when travel times have been shown as different?

5. Art design, handwaved away by saying they were genetically manipulated. Same thing with Klingons in Star Trek - their heads look really really different from TOS to TNG. This was handwaved away as a genetic manipulation as well. All I'm going to say here is this: you do not mess with the Art Department. They have exacto knives. Always the little knives, in their filing cabinet. They say it's for cutting free watercolor pages but I know... I know...

[Centauri2002]

Last Vizard wrote...

I think you'll find that Your country and Cerberus have alot in common, i don't like it but you can't tie your arms behind your back and stop threats with harsh words, i think the weapons and such on Reapers can be back engineered without the need to harvest people to build them... If harvesting people was the only way to build weapons that will stop the Reapers then i'd do it because its a necessary evil.

Empires rise and fall, TIM's will be the same.

Now we're heading into what's acceptable and what's not. Personal views are always going to affect how you look at something. To some, what Cerberus is doing is fine. The ends justify the means. But to others it is not. And they come off as looking an awful lot like terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective.

But we don't truly know what TIM's goals are yet. He may just be in it for personal power. Or he might be wanting to further humanity's place in the galaxy. We just don't know.

[Last Vizard]

M-Sinistrari wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes, but i'm not concerned with what characters will be in ME 3, this thread is about issues with Bioware.  ME 2 was a good game if played out of context with choices made in ME 1, i would prefer BW said its too bloody hard to make your choices count so we'll follow a cannon and if your choices are different to mine (BW writter) then too bad, but way back in the days of ME 1 when they announced that it was going to be a trilogy and your choices matter.... well lady, i can't stand liars and if BW advertises that choice matters then they lied when it came to ME 2.

Easy to dismiss an opinion that is different to your own, isn't it?

Okay, maybe the third time'll be the charm here.

It's still a long way until November until the ME3's out and I find it hard to believe that a mere 12 pages in a copy of GI will be the only information Bioware'll end up releasing on it.  Jumping to conclusions over what amounts to a moment's blip promo teaser when there will be more information released as time goes on is silly.

There's a whole lot of presuming going on when there's absolutely NOTHING to go on other than a personal feeling that something's going to turn out other than thier choices or belief on how things should be.

To my knowledge, Mass Effect's the only game series where you can import your character through the series.  So with how unique that is, we're going to be attached to our Sheps as well as not having an idea as to how a series like this will fully pan out as it goes on.  Mac Walters said in his interview thing that they were bound by ME2 being the middle game so couldn't have choices impact as they wanted to and that with ME3 they'll be able to go all out like they wanted.

Really, if people can't grasp this basic concept of still early and more info'll come, I don't know what more to say.

Yes i grasped the concept, it was too hard to deliver a trilogy where choices meant something the whole way through instead of a last ditch all or nothing ME 3.   i fear that ME 3 will be another disappointing story reset to whatever is cannon however i hope i'm wrong, before ME 2 i was also defending BW and telling people with the same point of view i now have that "if anyone can do it, its BW"...

Mac Walters was bound by ME 2 because they would have to make a multidisc game for ME 3 if they were going to finish the trilogy, am i supposed to accept their reasons for failing me and by saying "its ok, the game was alright anyway"?   you don't reward failure, you push that company to do better next time while telling them that respect is lost so they need to work on that too.

[AdmiralCheez]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

 All I'm going to say here is this: you do not mess with the Art Department. They have exacto knives. Always the little knives, in their filing cabinet. They say it's for cutting free watercolor pages but I know... I know...

I know this is off-topic, but I just woke up my roommate laughing at this.

[M-Sinistrari]

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes i grasped the concept, it was too hard to deliver a trilogy where choices meant something the whole way through instead of a last ditch all or nothing ME 3.   i fear that ME 3 will be another disappointing story reset to whatever is cannon however i hope i'm wrong, before ME 2 i was also defending BW and telling people with the same point of view i now have that "if anyone can do it, its BW"...

Mac Walters was bound by ME 2 because they would have to make a multidisc game for ME 3 if they were going to finish the trilogy, am i supposed to accept their reasons for failing me and by saying "its ok, the game was alright anyway"?   you don't reward failure, you push that company to do better next time while telling them that respect is lost so they need to work on that too.

And has anything been officially said that they're somehow going to fail on this go?  So far I'm seeing plenty of panic, and rampant speculation.  Now if this was September or October and what info we've got now's all that's been said, then all the wangsting going on would be well justified.  I'd likely be doing my own share of kvetching.  But it's only April with November a far ways off and I don't see the point in getting worked up without something other than speculation that something's not going to pan out as promised.

[Last Vizard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Out of curiosity, what specific events do you consider plot holes? (Other than stuff in Arrival. I do not want to argue about Arrival. I will admit that it has a lot of... issues.)

The two I've heard put forth most often in this thread are these:

1. The Council admits there are Reapers, and then Turian Airquotes them away.
I see this as just a politics thing - it seems realistic for a politician to say "I believe X" and then later say "Now, I never said I actually believed X." I am not giving any examples! This is not that kind of thread! But it seems like a thing that happens both in history and in literature. (Please do not give examples.)

2. Cerberus is said to be a Terrorist organization, but once you get an internal view of them, it doesn't seem like they are one.
I see this as an issue of perspective: The Alliance has classified Cerberus as a terrorist organization. For those who have Cerberus connections, this helps the Alliance diplomatically, as it gives them plausible deniability. For those who aren't "in the loop," Cerberus has done some shady, scary things and, if their true motivation is unknown, it's easy to consider these things terrorists acts. If someone sets Rachni loose on the Citadel in order to cause a distraction so they can rob a bank... people might still think it was a terrorist act, even if it was just a distraction to cover a non-terror operation. Make sense?

Both of these are slight inconsistencies, but I wouldn't call either of them plotholes. Was there something else you were thinking of, or was it one of these things?

Gonna trim the top of the quotem pole, there.

1. Thermal clips - I hate 'em. However, I'm going to put them in the "casualties of game design" bucket, along with "Why can't I use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?" Sometimes mechanics change or are weird or inconsistent due to the demands of game design. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but if you're going to be playing games rather than reading books or watching TV, you'll have to accept mechanic changes. I mean I suddenly know how to Biotic Charge, something pretty antithetical to everything I know about my character previously. Hate 'em? Yes. Plot hole... not reeeeeally.

2. Not sure what you're talking about here. Reapers hoofing it to the galaxy rather than using the Citadel? Doing so loses them a significant strategic advantage, so it's silly to try it unless you're pretty sure you can't take the Citadel. (If that's not what you're talking about, sorry! That was just my guess.)

3. I think Nazzara was just cocky, and the Collectors were off doing their job - buying slaves and testing them to see what race might make good goo. So yeah, logical inconsistency, maybe? Plot hole? not so much.

4. Mass Relay travel times may be inconsistent, though it has been established there are different kinds of relays - primary and secondary. It may be that the variation is based on this? I haven't noticed significant inconsistencies here, can you cite times when travel times have been shown as different?

5. Art design, handwaved away by saying they were genetically manipulated. Same thing with Klingons in Star Trek - their heads look really really different from TOS to TNG. This was handwaved away as a genetic manipulation as well. All I'm going to say here is this: you do not mess with the Art Department. They have exacto knives. Always the little knives, in their filing cabinet. They say it's for cutting free watercolor pages but I know... I know...

1. Still pretty weak though, Raymond E. Feist is my favourite author... and yes i felt like i was being potrayed as a couch potato lol

2. Nazzara had 2000 years to work out how he was going to take control of the citadel, couldn't the collectors have attacked at the height of the Rachni wars when tech levels were lower? or why didn't Nazzara go and tell the Reapers to use another arrival method? and how much strategic advantage do they lose if any by getting some four or five Reapers and using the relays to get to the citadel, didn't Nazzara and the Geth use the relays for the final battle in ME 1 anyway?

3.logical inconsistancey is part of the plot hole definition i thought, Collectors should've been there if the worst case senario is a dead Reaper.

4. The Relay to reach the CB if i remember it right and maybe another video clip jump in ME 1 but could be any reason really, but it seemed inconsistent at the time.

5. I've been stabed by a pottery tool in the arm during art class in high school so i'll take your word.

another thing that bugged me was weapons tech, small arms seem behind par compared to other tech.

[Last Vizard]

M-Sinistrari wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes i grasped the concept, it was too hard to deliver a trilogy where choices meant something the whole way through instead of a last ditch all or nothing ME 3.   i fear that ME 3 will be another disappointing story reset to whatever is cannon however i hope i'm wrong, before ME 2 i was also defending BW and telling people with the same point of view i now have that "if anyone can do it, its BW"...

Mac Walters was bound by ME 2 because they would have to make a multidisc game for ME 3 if they were going to finish the trilogy, am i supposed to accept their reasons for failing me and by saying "its ok, the game was alright anyway"?   you don't reward failure, you push that company to do better next time while telling them that respect is lost so they need to work on that too.

And has anything been officially said that they're somehow going to fail on this go?  So far I'm seeing plenty of panic, and rampant speculation.  Now if this was September or October and what info we've got now's all that's been said, then all the wangsting going on would be well justified.  I'd likely be doing my own share of kvetching.  But it's only April with November a far ways off and I don't see the point in getting worked up without something other than speculation that something's not going to pan out as promised.

ha, i prefer shaking fist in anger rather than "panic", i'm going to keep speculating on failure from my point of view, rpg and class elements were butchered in ME 2, lack of difference in cut scenes for each class seemed off too, my Adept behaves the same as a soldier in cut scenes... overall ME 2 felt more like a 3rd person shooter than an rpg.

[M-Sinistrari]

Last Vizard wrote...

ha, i prefer shaking fist in anger rather than "panic", i'm going to keep speculating on failure from my point of view, rpg and class elements were butchered in ME 2, lack of difference in cut scenes for each class seemed off too, my Adept behaves the same as a soldier in cut scenes... overall ME 2 felt more like a 3rd person shooter than an rpg.

I guess this is where we agree to disagree.  Yeah, I thought the cutscenes for both ME1 and 2 were off for my adept Shepards as well along with wishing there were more RPG choices in ME2 than what we ended up with, but I just don't see much of a point of getting worked up over it.  Now, if we were talking Bioware promising something specific for a particular release version of the game that ends up not happening, then yeah, I'd be getting my horns up over it.

[Last Vizard]

M-Sinistrari wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

ha, i prefer shaking fist in anger rather than "panic", i'm going to keep speculating on failure from my point of view, rpg and class elements were butchered in ME 2, lack of difference in cut scenes for each class seemed off too, my Adept behaves the same as a soldier in cut scenes... overall ME 2 felt more like a 3rd person shooter than an rpg.

I guess this is where we agree to disagree.  Yeah, I thought the cutscenes for both ME1 and 2 were off for my adept Shepards as well along with wishing there were more RPG choices in ME2 than what we ended up with, but I just don't see much of a point of getting worked up over it.  Now, if we were talking Bioware promising something specific for a particular release version of the game that ends up not happening, then yeah, I'd be getting my horns up over it.

Agreed.

[JeffZero]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Out of curiosity, what specific events do you consider plot holes? (Other than stuff in Arrival. I do not want to argue about Arrival. I will admit that it has a lot of... issues.)

The two I've heard put forth most often in this thread are these:

1. The Council admits there are Reapers, and then Turian Airquotes them away.
I see this as just a politics thing - it seems realistic for a politician to say "I believe X" and then later say "Now, I never said I actually believed X." I am not giving any examples! This is not that kind of thread! But it seems like a thing that happens both in history and in literature. (Please do not give examples.)

2. Cerberus is said to be a Terrorist organization, but once you get an internal view of them, it doesn't seem like they are one.
I see this as an issue of perspective: The Alliance has classified Cerberus as a terrorist organization. For those who have Cerberus connections, this helps the Alliance diplomatically, as it gives them plausible deniability. For those who aren't "in the loop," Cerberus has done some shady, scary things and, if their true motivation is unknown, it's easy to consider these things terrorists acts. If someone sets Rachni loose on the Citadel in order to cause a distraction so they can rob a bank... people might still think it was a terrorist act, even if it was just a distraction to cover a non-terror operation. Make sense?

Both of these are slight inconsistencies, but I wouldn't call either of them plotholes. Was there something else you were thinking of, or was it one of these things?

The two above aren't plot holes, its just part of the story, the couple that stand out are"
1.Thermal clips being a plot hole, doesn't make any logical sense (they even said it was so they could add the ammo mechanic)--- plus Jacobs loyalty mission has modern mechs and thermal clips...
2. Yes, the Reaper Arrival methods that Nazzara forgot about (corrupted data?) think not.
3. The Collectors not helping Nazzara attack the citadel, while there are reasons against this being a plot hole IMO Nazzara would've used them aswell but story in ME 3 might reveal more about Reaper to Reaper interactions and such.
4.Relay travel times, they seem to change from instant to hours
5.they changed the way Protheans looked in the vision to Collectors.... yes they are the same race but why change?
thats all that comes to mind but i'll probly have to edit this later maybe....

Gonna trim the top of the quotem pole, there.

1. Thermal clips - I hate 'em. However, I'm going to put them in the "casualties of game design" bucket, along with "Why can't I use a Phoenix Down on Aeris?" Sometimes mechanics change or are weird or inconsistent due to the demands of game design. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but if you're going to be playing games rather than reading books or watching TV, you'll have to accept mechanic changes. I mean I suddenly know how to Biotic Charge, something pretty antithetical to everything I know about my character previously. Hate 'em? Yes. Plot hole... not reeeeeally.

2. Not sure what you're talking about here. Reapers hoofing it to the galaxy rather than using the Citadel? Doing so loses them a significant strategic advantage, so it's silly to try it unless you're pretty sure you can't take the Citadel. (If that's not what you're talking about, sorry! That was just my guess.)

3. I think Nazzara was just cocky, and the Collectors were off doing their job - buying slaves and testing them to see what race might make good goo. So yeah, logical inconsistency, maybe? Plot hole? not so much.

4. Mass Relay travel times may be inconsistent, though it has been established there are different kinds of relays - primary and secondary. It may be that the variation is based on this? I haven't noticed significant inconsistencies here, can you cite times when travel times have been shown as different?

5. Art design, handwaved away by saying they were genetically manipulated. Same thing with Klingons in Star Trek - their heads look really really different from TOS to TNG. This was handwaved away as a genetic manipulation as well. All I'm going to say here is this: you do not mess with the Art Department. They have exacto knives. Always the little knives, in their filing cabinet. They say it's for cutting free watercolor pages but I know... I know...

Wow, Mass Effect? Aeris reference? Klingon metaphor? Art Department joke? Do you have a blog?

Oh, so you do. *reads it*

[wulf3n]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Both of these are slight inconsistencies, but I wouldn't call either of them plotholes. Was there something else you were thinking of, or was it one of these things?

I was thinking more retcon than plothole. As both actions are perfectly plausible given the situation. But the problem is no explanation is given as to how things got to from where they were to where they are. things are completely different to how they were, but no one seems to notice or acknowledge it, as if it never happened.

Sure the council would most likely back flip for numerous reasons, but shepard nor anyone else called them out on it, everyone even people that would keep pointing that out just act as though it never happened for no apparent reason.
Sure the council/alliance would want to distance themselves from cerberus by any means necessasry, but they didn't seem to mind 2 years ago. But still theres no link between ME1 cerberus and ME2 cerberus except for miranda describing a few "experiments".

Modifié par wulf3n, 21 avril 2011 - 02:01 .

[008Zulu]

Last Vizard wrote...

I think you'll find that Your country and Cerberus have alot in common, i don't like it but you can't tie your arms behind your back and stop threats with harsh words, i think the weapons and such on Reapers can be back engineered without the need to harvest people to build them... If harvesting people was the only way to build weapons that will stop the Reapers then i'd do it because its a necessary evil.

Empires rise and fall, TIM's will be the same.

How is Cerberus anything like Australia?

We already have the tech to beat the Reapers, we just don't yet have the numbers.

Cerberus is a terrorist organisation. By your statemant I can only conclude that, you support terrorism.

[Seboist]

008Zulu wrote...

There's a lot of talk about how Cerberus has only tried to help Humanity and how most if not all of their plans have backfired, atleast they had good intentions.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Cerberus is the legendary 3 headed dog guarding the gates to make sure no one gets out. The writing is on the wall people, Cerberus are the bad guys.

Some things in the ME verse have been retconned (Thermal Clips, Jacob on Eden Prime {big planet yeah, was a small settlement]).

TIM was going to use Shep to make a Reaper with the Cerberus logos plastered all over it. If you think Cerberus is worth sticking with in spite of that, then I strongly recommend you avoid some of the more extremist websites out there.

Uh, the mythological Cerberus guards the underworld which houses BOTH the Greek "Heaven" (Elysium fields) and "Hell" (Tartarus).

Oh and Cerberus all the way.

[ExtremeOne]

If TIM was going to use Shepard why bring him back only to kill him again . It makes no sense at all . Anti Cerberus fans do not give a sh*t they have what they want and that was a retcon of ME 2 . But the story does not make sense at all with 2 .

[didymos1120]

008Zulu wrote...
Some things in the ME verse have been retconned (Thermal Clips, Jacob on Eden Prime {big planet yeah, was a small settlement]).

Relatively small.  It's population was 3.7 million.