[quote]Bourne Endeavor wrote...
[quote]SpiffySquee wrote...
Let me give you a really good example of a plot hole. Thermal clips on Jacobs loyalty mission. They were not invented until 8 years after their ship had been stranded. The fact that the mission has them is impossible according to the logic of previous story.[/quote]
Thermal Chips as a whole are a retcon, and a poorly worded one at that but alas we are making progress. I even agree this was something we can overlook due to its irrelevance to the plot.[/quote]
You should look up the term retcon. Thermal clips are a new tech. The codex explains that they were developed and why. It is only a retcon if they just suddenly appeared with no explanation, or the game pretend it was always like that.
[quote]
[quote]Shepard Resurrection may have been handled wrong form you point of view. It may be hard to believe from your point of view. It may even be stupid from your point of view. But it is not a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. Cerberus developed a new technique. They explained that that is what they did. Unless at some point the story established that it would be impossible for Cerberus to develop new techniques it is not a plot hole. It is a new concept. [/quote]
Sigh, well so much for progress. We have been over this, wherein I presented on a point by point basis why this was in fact a plot hole. You chose not to respond. While Cerberus developed new technology, it remains unknown how they recovered Shepard's body or brain. In order for the events of Act Two (Shepard's Resurrection) to logically fit, the questions in Act One must be addressed (Shepard's body/brain being intact.) Devoid of this exposition, the conclusion of Act One is inconsistent with Act Two, and therefore a plot hole.[/quote]
You assume they had to find it intact. The Lazarus project claimed it was able to revive Shepard from the state they found him in. It did not say it can only do this when the brain is intact. Is it unlikely that Shepard could be brought back to life? About as unlikely that an element could change the mass of an object with electricity. The point is the game told you the Lazarus was able to bring him back from the state they found him in. That is all the info necessary to move the plot forward. hand wave? Perhaps. Plot hole? not even close.
[quote]The collector trap is also not a plot hole. There is nothing in the story that says it would be impossible for the collectors to lay such a trap. Just because you feel they laid a very bad trap and handled it in a stupid way does not mean this event could not take place. Unlikely events or unanswered questions are not plot holes. [/quote]
Allowing Shepard to board their ship to begin with, let alone reach the control panel however is a plot hole, unless we determine Harbinger is simply incompetent. There was no rationality behind these actions. TIM's subsequent betrayal of you worsens this since he has even less of a reason to do so.[/quote]
Again, the fact you think something is stupid does not make it a plot hole. Nothing in the story gave the impression that the collectors could not lay such a trap, and you can't say is was against their character when you don't even know what their character is.
[quote]
[quote]Even I agree the team leaving for the IFF trap could have been handled better and was Bioware dropping the ball. Again, however, there is no plot hole here. Where in the story was it established that they could not all get on a shuttle and leave the ship? Were was it establish that they could not test the IFF on the Normandy first? For it to be a plot hole, you would have to prove that the story informed us that this event could not take place. Again, stupid decisions, or unlikely decisions do not equal plot hole.[/quote]
The story has long established this when throughout the course of two games, we have never been required to take everyone. It then does not provide any exposition whatsoever to illustrate why we are abruptly told our team of badasses must abandon the Normandy. Not testing the IFF on the Normandy first is what we attribute common sense. We have no idea what this thing might do, in what warped degree of logic would any rationally minded individual think to install the thing and hope for the best as the first conclusion? Coincidently, the same logic is used when rushing through the Omega 4 Relay; no planning just charge and pray.
Harbinger not destroying the Normandy and winning the game, or at least severely hampering Shepard, is a massive plot hole.
A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as
unlikely behaviour or actions of characters,
illogical or impossible events,
events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
Installing the IFF on the Normandy equates to being illogical
Harbinger acts completely unlike his character, unless he was built to be a moron
That last one covers the shuttle to nowhere since we are never told what the mission is, why it required are whole team and why Shepard just abandons the Normandy. The only reason it happened was because the plot needed a way to move forward and the writers were lazy. [/quote]
And what should they have installed it in, a coffee maker? I don't see any other ships around with a mass drive they could have installed it in that also had an AI that could keep it from going haywire. Let's say you install it in another ship and it does something crazy. You might lose the ship and your only hope of ever getting to the other side of the omega 4 relay. It would be less of a risk to install it in the one ship with an Advanced AI to control it.
You have no idea what Harbingers character is, but we do know he wants Shepard something bad. When you want to capture a body intact, the best way to do so is to board it.
I give you that everyone leaving is bad writing, but unless something in the story shows that they could not do it if they wanted to, it is not a plot hole. Miranda said they were going on another assignment and that they would take everyone on the mission. without knowing what they were planning to do, we can't say this choice is illogical.
[quote]
[quote]The collector base is so broad an idea that I don't even know what you a referring to, but if you mean the entire suicide mission, it is most defiantly not a plot hole. Just because you feel it was stupid to rush in there with a team of 14 does not mean the story established at some point that they could not do this.[/quote]
Remember that whole "unlikely behavior or actions of characters" definition? You have two options, call it a plot hole or call Shepard a moron. You cannot have it both ways, either the action was incompetence on Shepard or a plot hole. [/quote]
that's odd, becasue it made perfect sense to me. My Shepard did not want to wait since his crew could be getting slaughtered over there. Also, sending any probe of any kind with no stealth system is like announcing to everyone that you are coming. THAT would be incompetence in my opinion. either way... as I have said a hundred times, just because you would have done it differently does not make it a plot hole.
[quote]
We have no idea what awaits us beyond the Relay. It could lead to a fleet of Collector Cruisers were our bunch of guys are useless in every fundamental way. In actuality, we still had yet to conclude if our badass squad would be required since we, once again, have no idea what is the other side. It all just happens to, you know, work out for the best.[/quote]
When you have no idea what is on the other side it is logical and common place to send an advanced party for recon. Sending a probe would only work if you could install the IFF, it works, and the probe could operate it on it's own. We see no evidence that this was possible. Even EDI could not make it work right at first, so you think a probe could do it? The best option was to send a highly trained team to do stealth Recon. If it had been a crap load of ships, they would have just come back. Things "worked out" because it is a video game. It would have been a very odd ending if they had found a 1000 ships and just turned around and went home.
[quote]
[quote]You can call all of these bad writing. It's your opinion and you are eintiled to it, but you can not call them Plot holes. At least not by the criteria YOU provided.
[/quote]
While it may be my opinion, I also have fact to back it up. What you are doing here is taking only one definition of a plot hole and applying it to everything. It doesn't work that way.[/quote]
First of all, I took the definition presented to be by the people claiming they were plot holes. Their list did not even hold up to the definition THEY presented. Wiki had a more extensive definition, but it is an unreliable source. Just ask any teacher. in any case, that was not the definition I was given to work with.
Also, you have no fact to back up your arguments other than you thought it was dumb. Lazarus never claimed it needed an intact brain. The brain could have been goo for all we know. Lazarus was apparently able to repair it. It is not a plot hole unless it somehow contradicts itself. you do not know Harbinger's, or the collector's personalities so you can not call ANYTHING they do against their personalities. Therefore it can not be called a plot hole. Even by your definition, these "plot holes" make perfect sense from the stories stand point.
Modifié par SpiffySquee, 30 août 2011 - 05:43 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
right now.
