6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

@Balek-Vriege

What I think it really means is there are enough plot holes in the story that people can come up with a million different possabilities or excuses.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 08:48 .

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dont know unless try.

This is not a good defense. The point is to show more logical courses of action.

Probe or your own ship with special crew on the results are the same.

Which is why we didn't try crossing until we had the IFF installed...

Send enough, it won't matter plus nukes come after probes and probes tell you whats on other side.

No it doesn't, since you have absolutely not clue what the hell you are trying to aim at.

Hence probe goes through first and probes tell you whats on other side.

No IFF. Probes doesn't come back.

Probe > see whats on other side > nukes if something is on other side that poses a risk else no need for nukes.

Apparently we can control nukes from our side of the relay? 

Nice to see you would rather send you team through to suffer same fate as probe, you don't jump off a cliff without looking why would you fly thrugh a relay doing the same..

I already said Shepard going through the Relay without intel made no sense. Try to keep up.

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...
-snip-

Shepards team are the last hope against them apparently according to the plot of ME2 with importance placed on him. What person in their sane mind send the last best hope... First.

You may wish to try to find needles in a haystack or grasp at straws but the most logical course of action is do [everything] possible before sending the most important team and ship through. Doesn't matter if it's probes, nukes or a crate full of chinese finger traps.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 08:53 .

[Il Divo]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

The reason this amounts to a plot hole is because Cerberus never attempted this obvious solution. If they had then the narrative must explain the infeasibility. 

Still, it sounds closer to a nitpick here. Illusive Man initially explains to us that "no ship has ever returned". Would the plotline really be much improved if he added a single line regarding probes as well? Personally, I think it's minor enough that we can either infer that he has investigated into the Collectors without much success, or barring that can say that launching probes wouldn't be advantageous based on his knowledge at the time.

While you are correct in that the IFF corrects for drift, the story drives home the ideology nothing has ever returned; the most noteworthy statement being, "No ship has ever returned from doing so." If one probe successfully returned, then we need to build from this feat, sending in superior probes or look for ways to integrate the IFF into them if a copy can be created. Every outlet and plausible theory should be beaten into the ground before we charge forward for the reasons mentioned.

But based on the narrative, that's not possible. Prior to the Collector Base, TIM himself has no idea why no ship has ever returned from the relay, hence the idea of launching probes ad infinitum is problematic at best. The Shadowbroker himself was successful, but was TIM aware of this? If not, the integrity of that ideology remains.

Ultimately, we can't say what constitutes superior probes. It was simple probability which allowed the Shadowbroker to successfully pass the Omega IV relay. TIM can't correct the problem until after he acquires the IFF, at which point I agree it's a plothole for Shepard to charge through the relay.

[Il Divo]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


Shepards team are the last hope against them apparently according to the plot of ME2 with importance placed on him. What person in their sane mind send the last best hope... First.

You may wish to try to find needles in a haystack or grasp at straws but the most logical course of action is do [everything] possible before sending the most important team and ship through.

I'm glad to see that you consider launching nukes at non-existent enemies a logical course of action.

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Still, it sounds closer to a nitpick here. Illusive Man initially explains to us that "no ship has ever returned". Would the plotline really be much improved if he added a single line regarding probes as well? Personally, I think it's minor enough that we can either infer that he has investigated into the Collectors without much success, or barring that can say that launching probes wouldn't be advantageous based on his knowledge at the time.

Because they did not have the IFF of which you do, that IFF can be installed on any of other ships, probably nukes too or probes.

But based on the narrative, that's not possible. Prior to the Collector Base, TIM himself has no idea why no ship has ever returned from the relay, hence the idea of launching probes ad infinitum is problematic at best. The Shadowbroker himself was successful, but was TIM aware of this? If not, the integrity of that ideology remains.

Which is the whole point about sending a probe with the IFF onbaord through first instead of your most important asset through first with IFF.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 08:58 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


Shepards team are the last hope against them apparently according to the plot of ME2 with importance placed on him. What person in their sane mind send the last best hope... First.

You may wish to try to find needles in a haystack or grasp at straws but the most logical course of action is do [everything] possible before sending the most important team and ship through.

I'm glad to see that you consider launching nukes at non-existent enemies a logical course of action.

I'm beginning to think either your ignorant of what others say or just plain suffering from selective reading.

Regardless I think I'm done banging my head against brick wall with regard to this debate with some people.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 09:02 .

[Balek-Vriege]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

@Balek-Vriege

What I think it really means is there are enough plot holes in the story that people can come up with a million different possabilities or excuses.


Also The thing is Shepards team are the last hope against them apparently according to the plot of ME2 with importance placed on him. What person in their sane mind send the last hope first...

A million plot holes, which can be narrowed down with facts in game to at most a dozen.  Because you disagree about how a situation went down or how it effects your choices ingame, doesn't make it a plot hole.  It's a part of the plot you didn't like.  If a part of the plot can be explained by facts in game then it's not a plot hole.  At most a plot dent.
 

For example.  A real obvious plot hole would be:

-How did Spacer Shep's mother save Shepard by ramming her ship into a Reaper, when we just saw her ship get blown up 2 minutes before in a the fleet battle?

Or a more believable plot hole:

-How did Spacer Shep's mother save Shepard by ramming her ship into a Reaper, when her engines/navigation went down  in the first 2 minutes of the fleet battle and never came back online?

Plot holes obviously.

Rather than:

-How did Spacer Shep's mother save Shepard by ramming her ship into a Reaper, when the human fleet is getting killed left right and centre.  Totally unrealistic.

The simple answer is:  Her ship didn't get destroyed yet so she had just enough time to ram the Reaper.

Not a plot hole.

Just because you can argue it should have been destroyed first because its a Dreadnought etc etc etc., doesn't change the fact that realistically it could have survived that long and it did in the story.  Enough time to ram a Reaper and kill/harm it.  Therefore not a plot hole.

That's what it feels like when arguing against a lot of this plot hole stuff.  Just by presenting supporting ingame facts of how it logically went down ingame proves something isn't a plot hole.  Does that mean there couldn't have been a more logical option or way of doing it?  No.  However, it's still not a plot hole just because we would have written it differently.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 28 août 2011 - 09:03 .

[Eckswhyzee]

I can't find the exact audio, but wasn't the line from the Shadow Broker drone something like "the remains of the probes have been recovered" meaning the probes through the relay were not successful?

Feel free to correct me on this as I am unable to find the original audio anywhere....

[Eckswhyzee]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


Shepards team are the last hope against them apparently according to the plot of ME2 with importance placed on him. What person in their sane mind send the last best hope... First.

You may wish to try to find needles in a haystack or grasp at straws but the most logical course of action is do [everything] possible before sending the most important team and ship through.

I'm glad to see that you consider launching nukes at non-existent enemies a logical course of action.

I'm beginning to think either your ignorant of what others say or just plain suffering from selective reading.

Regardless I think I'm done banging my head against brick wall with regard to this debate with some people.

No, please stay. I'm very amused by your ideas for fighting the Collectors

[Dragoonlordz]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

I can't find the exact audio, but wasn't the line from the Shadow Broker drone something like "the remains of the probes have been recovered" meaning the probes through the relay were not successful?

Feel free to correct me on this as I am unable to find the original audio anywhere....

If so then wouldn't a probe have had to make it through to be able to send that message about the other probes?

It only take one to know if something is waiting on the other side, that probe is equiped with IFF or however many probes it take all with IFF's. If the way is clear on the other side by all means head on through but if it is not clear and enemy are waiting you wouldn't go through first, you would either send cannon fodder or nukes all with the IFF to help them get through.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 09:11 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

No, please stay. I'm very amused by your ideas for fighting the Collectors

Move the relay so when things pop out they head directly into a sun.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 09:13 .

[ABCoLD]

Skipping 17 pages of reactionary nerd-rage, I have to throw more gasoline on the fire by saying I love Smudboy, he always brings up important points.

[ABCoLD]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Eckswhyzee wrote...

No, please stay. I'm very amused by your ideas for fighting the Collectors

Move the relay so when things pop out the head directly into a sun.

I think you'll notice from the very first Relay usage we see in Mass Effect 1 that while traveling through a relay is a bit like slamming your ship towards a net, your drift, direction and distance are all relative when you emerge.

[Dragoonlordz]

ABCoLD wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Eckswhyzee wrote...

No, please stay. I'm very amused by your ideas for fighting the Collectors

Move the relay so when things pop out the head directly into a sun.

I think you'll notice from the very first Relay usage we see in Mass Effect 1 that while traveling through a relay is a bit like slamming your ship towards a net, your drift, direction and distance are all relative when you emerge.

A lot of suns then.

Or push relay into a black hole.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 28 août 2011 - 09:14 .

[Balek-Vriege]

ABCoLD wrote...

Skipping 17 pages of reactionary nerd-rage, I have to throw more gasoline on the fire by saying I love Smudboy, he always brings up important points.

And unreactionary nerd rage is any better/worse?

[Bourne Endeavor]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

I find it kind of funny.  The fact that we're still debating various parts of the plot with back and fourth facts pretty much proves there's enough background information and in game to support for the way the story was written/advanced. Showing that ME2's plot isn't exactly as simple and awful as Smudboy presents it to be (one of the worst plots ever with 10 billion plot holes).  Especially now since the arguments are going deep into metagaming, gameplay, choice and what if arguments.  No longer truly about the writing/plot.

Then there's the arguments similar to the following:

-What if Neo didn't take the right pill in the Matrix!  It was obvious his world was going to become crap. Total plot fail.

-It was stupid that Luke "happened" be absent while his uncle/aunt were being killed by Stormtroopers.  Wouldn't they have waited until everyone was home?  Total plot fail.

-Why didn't that guy/group get out of the haunted house before nightfall (most common and obvious)?  He/They should have known it was haunted.  The writing was on the wall (even though the characters don't believe in ghosts and nothing bad happened until after nightfall...)!  Total plot fail.

-Frodo should have been a stronger character beause Sam overshadows him in personality.  Total plot fail.

-Why didn't the Reapers just invade after Sovereign first tried to activate the Citadel hundreds of years before Mass Effect?  Shepard's story is stupid.  Total plot fail.

Because then you wouldn't have a plot which is kind of needed for for a story.  People are going to make mistakes, assume the best, assume the worst, do stupid things, get lucky and not get luckly, just like real life.  Sure you may not like how a story may have unfolded, but others might have.

You are completely off the mark because you are changing an existing plot in order to claim it fails, which is self defeating. Mass Effect 2's issues are lack of a cohesive structure with properly maintained consistency and exposition.

Take your Reaper example; they did not invade because it was not possible, they were trapped in dark space. This is explained fact supported by the narrative and the antagonists themselves. Now we shift to Shepard's revival via reconstruction. There is nothing to support this is feasible whatsoever. Shepard's body would have to survive planetary reentry, being hurled at terminal velocity into rock and ice and finally exposure to subzero temperature. Even if we negate the first by way of Alchera having a stable enough atmosphere to not incinerate flesh, which is mind boggling to begin with, it is beyond comprehension Shepard's brain would be intact under the second and third scenarios. All that would remain is slush.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the narrative to explain how this feat was accomplished. We know kinetic shields are not enough and there is no codex entry to support the belief a parachute is compacted into N7 armor. We are simply told moments subsequent Shepard is being reconstructed. This is what is known as a hand wave, the story did not explain the previously scene and hastily processed onward with the plot for convenience sake. That is bad writing.

Mordin abruptly having a seeker swarm aboard the Normandy when we have never encountered even the Collectors, let alone a single seeker by its lonesome, demonstrates a plot hole. The plot required its device to move forward, so Mordin literally pulled it from his ass. That is bad writing.

The conversation with Ashley/Kaidan on Horizon, where they accuse Cerberus of being behind the colony abductions after just witnessing Shepard, who works with Cerberus, rescue half the colony and their own ass. When attempting to explain your reasoning for this cooperation, even acknowledging you have been in a coma for two years, they insinuate you are a traitor. In this scene VS has essentially stated Cerberus is using Shepard to attack themselves. This is an example of a retcon, specifically in Kaidan's case as he was built to be an rationally minded and levelheaded individual prior to the Ashdan/Kaishy merge. Regardless, neither act in character, both make ridiculously horrendous leaps in logic for no adequate reason and fail their own mission, which was to collect data on Cerberus, something Shepard offered them. This is extremely bad writing.

Note the difference in your plot comparison and my own. You had to alter your examples to cite them failures, whereas I simply had to point to a scene in ME2 and watch it sink, completely unedited. That is why ME2's plot is poorly written.

[ABCoLD]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Eckswhyzee wrote...

No, please stay. I'm very amused by your ideas for fighting the Collectors

Move the relay so when things pop out the head directly into a sun.

I think you'll notice from the very first Relay usage we see in Mass Effect 1 that while traveling through a relay is a bit like slamming your ship towards a net, your drift, direction and distance are all relative when you emerge.

A lot of suns then.

Or push relay into a black hole.

I think you do not understand the size of space, a Mass Relay and economics of energy expenditure. 

Not that I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried a whole lot of other things first.  After all, if the relay leads nowhere and is in the terminus systems, you don't think Cerberus wouldn't have tried to convince people to crack it open to see how it worked?  (And making sure they broke it in the process?)

[Sgt Stryker]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the narrative to explain how this feat was accomplished. We know kinetic shields are not enough and there is no codex entry to support the belief a parachute is compacted into N7 armor. We are simply told moments subsequent Shepard is being reconstructed. This is what is known as a hand wave, the story did not explain the previously scene and hastily processed onward with the plot for convenience sake. That is bad writing.

Do we know this? There are basically two problems with the Alchera incident. First, the audience comes in with their own predispositions about how they think futuristic space suits should work - namely that despite 170 years of technical advances, we still believe that N7 hardsuits cannot withstand the intense heat of reentry. It's OK for the audience to have this idea however, because modern technology is not capable of that, and we are never shown anything in ME that directly contradicts this idea, until the depiction of Shepard's death.

Second, we are never explicitly shown what exactly happened to Shepard's body after he went on his involuntary spacewalk. As a result, the audience has to mentally fill in the gap, and we get all kinds of wild theories on here, including the following:
(1) Shepard entered a stable orbit around Alchera
(2) Shepard was incinerated (!) and had to be rebuilt from ashes and a saved brain pattern or, the most radical theory thus far,
(3) Shepard managed to climb into the Mako while tumbling about and the Mako was what enabled his body to not be destroyed

If we were shown more, i.e. maybe a brief cutscene of Shepard actually entering the atmosphere and smacking into the planet, then this problem would not be as large as it is. Even better, why not use 100k's idea for a second, albeit damaged escape shuttle?

[Merchant2006]

Oh god, this again?

[Lunatic LK47]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

People like to fault Zaeed's inefficient leadership skills, yet he leads the squad flawlessly, in fact, so does Grunt.

Problem with your statement. Grunt and Jack mention in their assessment of the team "They don't give a damn." Not a good sign of leadership. For Zaeed, even going out for ice cream tends to be lethal for his friends (hint: Talk to him in Club Afterlife).

[littlezack]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

The fact the Shadow Broker sent probes, which successful returned, completely undermines ME2's plot and makes TIM an utter moron. Yes they were damaged however the game illustrates that nothing has ever accomplished this feat, yet the Shadow Broker just subverted this. The intelligent approach would be to build from this measure of success and continue to scope our mission parameters, not charge ahead and hope for the best.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I played LotSB, but I'm not sure how much the probes would be a plot hole.

Based on the explanation of the IFF's purpose in Mass Effect 2, it allows more accurate jumps to be performed through Mass Effect relays. Based on this, it is possible for something to successfully make it through the Omega IV relay, it would simply be very difficult. At the start of Mass Effect 2, TIM believes that nothing can pass through the relay (whether he tried sending probes or not). The Shadowbroker's success could be seen as mere luck. Just my opinion, anyway.

The reason this amounts to a plot hole is because Cerberus never attempted this obvious solution.

Actually, come to think of it, how do we know TIM didn't try sending in a probe? Simply because he never mentioned it?

[Rockworm503]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...


That was smudboy's whole point, they just used the resurrection as a blatant plot device.

His opinion was that it was handled badly. I think it was handled rather well. Opinions! 

So having someone die, then ressurect him without much explanation just so he can join a terrorist group..is handled rather well? Now, if you like it you like it. But some people also like Justin Bieber, that doesn't make him a good singer.

Ok we get it your sucking Smudboys dick.  He doesn't need it his ego is so huge he's already right just by stating his opinion.
This is my biggest problem with Smudboy.  He comes off as the ultimate authority of writing and story telling like he can't possibly be as bad as him.  He goes on endless tangents about every single thing about the game's story and I'm supposed to sit here and take his boring voice.
His entire videos come off as "I know what I'm talking about so therefore anyone who doesn't disagree with me is stupid"
I don't care how right he is... He comes off as arragont rude and downright boring.
And plus his total cynasim makes me want to shove a rusty fork up my nose.

[littlezack]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...


That was smudboy's whole point, they just used the resurrection as a blatant plot device.

His opinion was that it was handled badly. I think it was handled rather well. Opinions! 

So having someone die, then ressurect him without much explanation just so he can join a terrorist group..is handled rather well? Now, if you like it you like it. But some people also like Justin Bieber, that doesn't make him a good singer.

Ok we get it your sucking Smudboys dick.  

Hey, cool it, there's no need to bring it down to that level. 

[Dragoonlordz]

ABCoLD wrote...

I think you do not understand the size of space, a Mass Relay and economics of energy expenditure. 

Not that I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried a whole lot of other things first.  After all, if the relay leads nowhere and is in the terminus systems, you don't think Cerberus wouldn't have tried to convince people to crack it open to see how it worked?  (And making sure they broke it in the process?)

Problem solved.