178 réponses à ce sujet

[Aspex]

Vasparian wrote...

There is no point trying to explain it to people such as this. They don't want to see any kind of negative, so they blind themselves to what is in front of them.

Look, it's responses like this that does make the lot of us seem like immature, unreasonable and whiny fans.  Your tone was completely uncalled for in response to a question that might have simply been born out of lack of understanding, and as far as I can tell was not asked in a trolling or spiteful manner.

But back to the question: plotholes are when there are gaps in the progress of the plot which are not adequately explained, if at all, and do not make sense.  Most of them others have covered already: how Anderson managed to get ahead of Shepard, TIM's mysterious appearance (though I personally can reason that to his indoctrination), why the Normandy was fleeing battle and how squadmates managed to get from being zapped by reaper to said fleeing Normandy.  Last two in particular irk me greatly.

[Star fury]

http://fc01.devianta...soccerdemon.jpg
Do not feed the troll.

Modifié par Star fury, 13 mars 2012 - 04:52 .

[JasonTan87]

MattFini wrote...

ME3 is impressive because it is the actual definition of a Deus Ex Machina ending.

You mean a Deus Ex Machina ending that actually falls flat on its face due to terrible writing.

First time I've seen anyone use that and fail so badly.

Modifié par JasonTan87, 13 mars 2012 - 04:51 .

[clonedoriginzero]

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

[jijeebo]

Tequila Man wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Good lord. <_<

Drinks in the corner. I know, right?

Cheers

I'll go grab a bottle and, y'know... Hide under a table and cry.

[Tequila Man]

To OP:

[jijeebo]

clonedoriginzero wrote...

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

Surely the latter is simply a result of the former?

Bad writing = Plot holes

[JasonTan87]

clonedoriginzero wrote...

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

They're inter-related to some extent. 

[Tequila Man]

Not all bad writing has plot holes.

But all plot holes are bad writing.

[Caz Neerg]

VirtualAlex wrote...

 I have seen literally hundreds of threads with people saying the ending is full of plot holes. But I actually don't know what plot holes they are talking about. Maybe people don't know what plot hole means?

Can you guys please tell me what the plot holes are? I don't want to rage against the ending, I am just curious what these "plot holes" are everyone is talking about but never going into detail about. A list would be wonderful.

There are a lot more problems than just plot holes, but as others have pointed out, the big problems that fall into that category are pretty much everything about the Normany cutscene, and the options available to Shepard in the conversation with the Catalyst.

In regard to the Normandy, it's like the ripped a minute out of the middle of a ten minute sequence and just tossed it into the game without any context.  We are given no reason why the Normandy is in space at all, rather than on Earth waiting for Shepard.  We are given no reason why people who were standing right next to Shep less than ten minutes ago are now on board the Normandy.  We are given no reason why the Normandy is fleeing the shockwave, or why any color of the shockwave would be a danger to the Normandy.  Absolutely nothing about the sequence makes any sense, or takes place within any context.  The whole thing is a massive string of plot holes.

As for Shep with the Catalyst, we are given absolutely no reason why Shepard suddenly believes everything the master of the Reapers is saying, without any real discussion or opposition.  He just accepts everything he is told, and then does the Reaper's bidding.  Huh?  That extreme of a shift in who the main character is isn't something that can just happen at the drop of a hat, without any build up or explanation.

So those are the plotholes.  Most of the rest of the problems, like the Catalyst child existing at all, are just examples of a creative direction that is wildly out of sync with and inappropriate for the series into which it was placed.

[HKR148]

jijeebo wrote...

clonedoriginzero wrote...

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

Surely the latter is simply a result of the former?

Bad writing = Plot holes

Well especially when 90% of the problems existing within the storyline can be processed through your mind less than 10 seconds... they really did a terrible job at covering those plot holes as well.

[clonedoriginzero]

jijeebo wrote...

clonedoriginzero wrote...

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

Surely the latter is simply a result of the former?

Bad writing = Plot holes

that is not solid logic.

bad writing can easily lead to plot holes, but it doesn't neccessarily mean plot holes. there are a few plot holes in the ending, like the whole normandy and the crew being onboard thing.

but most of the "plotholes" people list aren't actually plotholes.

i mean, why in ME2 did the normandy FTL jump at the end? wouldn't they be FTL jumping into a black hole? lol

[zarnk567]

Deus Ex (2000) great use of Deus Ex Machina ending..... Mass effect 3...... just copied and pasted that Deus Ex Machina ending and called it their own.....

Modifié par zarnk567, 13 mars 2012 - 04:56 .

[JasonTan87]

jijeebo wrote...

clonedoriginzero wrote...

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

Surely the latter is simply a result of the former?

Bad writing = Plot holes

Not always.  

Plot holes are a symptom of bad writing, yes, but the presense of plot holes do not always indicate bad writing.

You can carry a story with gigantic plot holes if your narrative and writing is strong enough.  As long as the writing is able to support a suspension of disbelief.

The ending of ME3 has plot holes, but it's ultimately the terrible writing that kills it.

[Taleroth]

DemGeth wrote...

No, but it's pretty evident after the first game even that the Reapers are someone elses tool, that it's part of a galatic wide uplift/extinction event.

The only thing "evident" in the first game is that the Reapers are independent. They do it because they want to.

[Epique Phael767]

 Let's see:

1. What about the dark energy on Haestrom?
2. Synthetics killing people so they don't get killed by synthetics. (perfect sense, right?)
3. Why is joker randomly leaving the battle and why are my squadmates WHO WERE JUST WITH ME on the normandy all of a sudden?
4. Why does the ending seem so different from everything leading up to that point, and why does shepard not seem himself at all?
5. The ending does not match up with Harbinger and Sovereign's speeches.
6. Why does a pistol I DIDN'T AQCUIRE IN A MISSION OR OTHERWISE suddenly show up in my hand with unlimited ammo?
7. Who is this stargazer guy and what importance does he have?

Bioware claimed we would not get a "Lost" styled ending that creates more questions than it answers. Guess what? The normandy (air plane) crash landed on a random jungle planet (Island) and we have no clue why.

Maybe if you payed attention to the ending, the story from game 1, the forums, and the star god child's lines you wouldn't be here looking like a complete imbecile.

Modifié par Epique Phael767, 13 mars 2012 - 05:00 .

[Ileanos07]

Mass Effect destruction = destruction of every star system nearby...
How did Anderson get to the place where you meet him and Illusive man (there is just one way)?
Where is thanix canons (they are supposed to shred reapers quite easily)?
What is Normandy doing away from the battle?
... And so on.

[Atraiyu Wrynn]

MattFini wrote...

ME3 is impressive because it is the actual definition of a Deus Ex Machina ending.

As well as the actual endings from Deus Ex.   

[Foehamer1]

Why does most of the galaxy not explode with the Mass Relays like the system did in Mass Effect 2 Arrival?

[DemGeth]

Taleroth wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

No, but it's pretty evident after the first game even that the Reapers are someone elses tool, that it's part of a galatic wide uplift/extinction event.

The only thing "evident" in the first game is that the Reapers are independent. They do it because they want to.

Not really.  Just the arbitrary figure of 50k years is enough to make you realize something more is going on.  

[jijeebo]

clonedoriginzero wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

clonedoriginzero wrote...

theres a big difference between stupid bad writing, and plot holes.

apparently most people dont understand that.

Surely the latter is simply a result of the former?

Bad writing = Plot holes

that is not solid logic.

bad writing can easily lead to plot holes, but it doesn't neccessarily mean plot holes. there are a few plot holes in the ending, like the whole normandy and the crew being onboard thing.

but most of the "plotholes" people list aren't actually plotholes.

i mean, why in ME2 did the normandy FTL jump at the end? wouldn't they be FTL jumping into a black hole? lol

I don't do solid logic.

Yea I probs put them the wrong way round, and even then I know it's not always the case, especially in very intricate stories and canons... But the plotholes in ME3 feel like the resut of bad writing and could have been avoided easily.

And the ftl jump at the end of ME2 hadn't even registered with me... I think on their way through the Omega 4 relay, they opened the cargo hold and got Legion to throw out a trail of space-breadcrumbs for them to follow back.

[STAR_KILLER423]

clonedoriginzero wrote...

[*]
[*]you know too little about the catalyst to know if he was active or not. its easy to assume he was dormant and/or inactive till the crucible was attached to the citadel. also, we dont even know if the reapers are aware of the catalyst.
[*]why is TIM being on the citadel so crazy?
[*]who's to say you got in first?

Are you refering to Anderson here? Because he himself says that he followed you up, but came out in a different spot. After Coats said no one was alive and no one made it to the beams even tho I was up and shooting. Which I thought was really odd. 

[VirtualAlex]

Wow there are maybe two actual plot holes listed here. You ending-haters do not have a very compelling case at all.

[Aulis Vaara]

DemGeth wrote...

Not really.  Just the arbitrary figure of 50k years is enough to make you realize something more is going on.  

I always saw that being due to an unreliable narrator. Sure, the guess was that this happened every fifty thousand years, but how could anyone know? And even then, maybe it does statistically even out to every fifty thousand years simply because that's how long it takes a species to evolve from being beneath notice to being spacefaring and out there.

Remember that in the current cycle, the protheans messed with the evolutionary paths of practically all major spacefaring species. And that Sovereign had meant to initiate the return much, much earlier than the timespan of the first game. He had been working on the problem for at least a thousand years (the Rachni wars). So yeah, every fifty thousand years is probably more of an estimate than a real, solid number.

[Taleroth]

DemGeth wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

No, but it's pretty evident after the first game even that the Reapers are someone elses tool, that it's part of a galatic wide uplift/extinction event.

The only thing "evident" in the first game is that the Reapers are independent. They do it because they want to.

Not really.  Just the arbitrary figure of 50k years is enough to make you realize something more is going on.  

"something more" does not mean that they have an entirely new boss character. They could have been stealing tech, harvesting as ME2 implied, or anything else. It doesn't mean they're controlled by an unseen force.