178 réponses à ce sujet

[Caz Neerg]

VirtualAlex wrote...

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

Forty thousand votes with only 2% support for the current endings is all the case we need.

[Pottumuusi]

Did you even play the ending? It has so many holes that it would be hard to make any more even if you shot at it with an automatic shotgun.

(In fact there are no plot holes because the indoctrination/hallucination hypothesis explains everything perfectly)

[VirtualAlex]

 Yeah and Nickleback sells out stadiums. Twilight is making billions of dollars.

Just because the majority dislike it doens't mean anything about it's quality. Most people are far too stupid to understand the subtlies. This thread is a perfect example. I have seen the world PLOT HOLE thrown around so many times it has made me sick.

I challenged you to present them and you failed. Sure some people tried. The problem is you refuse to accept an ending outside reality.

How can you people think, that after 3 games, and 6+ years of development and writing that the whole "Normandy is not where it is supposed to be" was a mistake? ME3 is the only game that all sudden has weird dream sequences. Do you think that is random? This game is introducing a new concept to you. A concept which explains every plot hole presented.

I will refute every single one of these shortly. I will keep you posted.

[Andwing]

My solution is so much better. I destroy the reapers, because sorry god-kid, I'll believe it when I see it. I wake up planet side with my LI and other crew/allies who survived but didn't make it into the flashlight with me, TIM and Anderson, because there was an escape pod in the god-kid's room along with some other life-sized action figures he was playing with, which distracted him from realizing sovereign and the reapers had returned years ago. You see, his mom ordered him to pick up his toys but really, who can't resist playing with millions of years of galactic junk you've collected after systematically destroying civilization and civilization.

Joker runs off with the Normandy when EDI tells him the color red may or may not kill her and all other synthetics based on her color logic routines. Joker is in love, so he runs off fast as he can. The Normandy crashes, but the surviving crew is satisfied that life will go-on even though they don't know the result, of course several members of the crew are back on earth with me and the rest of galactic civilization.

The crazy old man in the end just got tired after talking for over 100 hours answering every little detail about every little N7 and fetch-me-this mission Shepard did. He wanted a nap, so rather than tell the kid all that stuff he just said, "And the Normandy was like vrooom, and then the color red happened, and they crashed right here, and then Shepard's crew was there and they were happy. Now go back to you mom so I can take a nap."

The human kid had logic like the god-kid, and just figured everyone was on the Normandy and that was that.

Modifié par Andwing, 13 mars 2012 - 05:35 .

[mjh417]

[MaleQuariansFTW]

jijeebo wrote...

I can't list them, but the one where the Citadel that you stopped Sovereign using to usher in the reapers in ME1 turns out to be the reapers creator or something, and as such would have simply done the job itself to allow the cycle to continue pissed me off a bit.

You could look t Star Child as a Jacob-like entity; he could've intervened but didnt because he wanted to see it all play out without his assistance.

Keep in mind I am NOT defending the ending, I am fully holding the line, I'm just preparing to use this head canon in case we don't get a new ending.

[Cyvian]

Alright, I'll bite.

A plot hole is when an explanation or event in a story clearly contradicts something the story has already established as being 'true'.

I'll give an example of one of my most favorite plot holes... one in the movie Back to the Future II. In this movie we have a time machine that is abducted by an old man. He travels back in time to give his younger self something that will result in the younger self being able to shape a whole different future. Then the old man travels back into the future so the time machine won't be missed.

The plot hole in that is... the old man would NOT have been able to travel back into that very same future he came from. Because he already gave his younger self the means to shape a different future, in which the old man would actually land, and not in the future he took the time machine from.
What makes it even more funny is that the creator of the time machine actually explains the very same thing I just pointed out.

So, THAT is a plot hole, a pretty big one actually.
To my knowledge nothing in the Mass Effect story clearly contradicts anything established in the story.

Why are the Squad mates on the Normandy?
We don't know.
Does it make sense?
Not much.
Is it a plot hole?
Since it does not contradict anything, no.

Sooo... did I win anything?

[MPSai]

VirtualAlex wrote...

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

Two major plotholes are not enough to deem something poorly written?

[KujiMuji]

Another plothole would be the dark matter in Haelstrom. As far as I know, it is no longer mentioned and completely forgotten.

[Caz Neerg]

MPSai wrote...

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

Two major plotholes are not enough to deem something poorly written?

The two percenters are just trying to distract from how overwhelmingly universal the loathing of this ending is.

[JasonTan87]

MPSai wrote...

VirtualAlex wrote...

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

Two major plotholes are not enough to deem something poorly written?

Technically, yes and no.  Plot holes does not automatically deem somehting poorly written. It is symtomatic, but not a diagnosis.

 However, the real issue with the ending is the disruption of the suspension of disbelief, and the plot holes does contribute to that.

[VirtualAlex]

MPSai wrote...

VirtualAlex wrote...

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

Two major plotholes are not enough to deem something poorly written?

No absolutely not! Not enough to justify this absurd flaming and QQing.

"Why did sovergn need to go to the citidel in ME1" is the only legit plot hole listed here IMO and this easily can have one of many explinations. The main one being indoctrination theory and the God-Kid isn't even real. Also how can you (not you specifically)  say that the reapers being controlled by the citidel was never hinted? Yes it was! Why did the reapers never destroy the citidel? Don't we know for a fact that they left the citidel and the relays just to make thier job easy?

[KOOLAIDMAN777]

[quote]VirtualAlex wrote...

 Yeah and Nickleback sells out stadiums. Twilight is making billions of dollars.

Just because the majority dislike it doens't mean anything about it's quality. Most people are far too stupid to understand the subtlies. This thread is a perfect example. I have seen the world PLOT HOLE thrown around so many times it has made me sick.
[/quote] So would you care to explain them rather than calling many people stupid? This doesn't help your case at all, as you are insulting the people you are trying to convince.

[quote I challenged you to present them and you failed. Sure some people tried. The problem is you refuse to accept an ending outside reality.
[/quote] Again, without your ideas, you are simply insulting people. I think that if one thinks about the endings, there are some sizable plot holes that were thrown in there as a seemingly calculated way of stirring the emotions of the player (i.e random jump by the Normandy in the middle of the battle for the fate of the galaxy)

[quote] How can you people think, that after 3 games, and 6+ years of development and writing that the whole "Normandy is not where it is supposed to be" was a mistake? ME3 is the only game that all sudden has weird dream sequences. Do you think that is random? This game is introducing a new concept to you. A concept which explains every plot hole presented.
[/quote] I hate to sound like a broken record,  but you have still not contributed to the discussion, only verbally attacking others while mainatining a sense of superiority. Your argument of "the ending makes sense because it can't be a mistake" is flawed at best. Next time, before you post, please try and understand the arguments provided while contributing to the discussion with more than smug arrogance. Those of us who do not appreciate the endings based on their plot holes are entitled to their opinion, which from my lurking on this site, tends to be a well educated and respectful conversation. Sure there are those who are more brutal in their statements,but you have shown that this seems to be a trait of internet debates in general than any particular side.

[/quote]

Modifié par KOOLAIDMAN777, 13 mars 2012 - 05:46 .

[Archonsg]

Here's one VERY obvious plot hole that no one yet picked up on. As per "Arrival DLC" an exploding Mass Relay = energy release at the Nova scale. So EVERY system where there is a relay would essentially be wiped out from such a release. Mass Effect as far as I know is STILL science fiction and thus still need to follow the rules it has set down. Thus exploding Relays = dead systems and that includes the Normandy. So yeah, plot holes exist when you turn science into fantasy and ridiculous illogical ones at that.

"Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son of a **** in space..."

Physics still apply and explosions regardless of "type" is still energy released at velocity. In this case, velocity (force) enough to rip apart a structure that SURVIVED a "true nova" (Mu Relay) so ..Thessia, Earth, and every other system with a Relay = FRIED.

Modifié par Archonsg, 13 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[Black Raptor]

Ok in defence of Starkid logic.
Shepard asks something along the lines of "why are you destroying all organic life?" and starchild replies "No! We are saving organic life".

The Reapers harvest the most advanced civilisations, not all organic lifeforms. They passed over Earth when they Reaped the Protheans and ignored the Yahg's Homeworld in this cycle.

They do not exist to destroy all organic life. This "destroying advanced civilisation to protect organic life" is not circular logic.

The idea behind it all is that organic life would create synthetic life. The inevitable war would destroy ALL life. Not just the creators of the robots, but everything including every bacteria on every world.

The Reapers only harvest advanced life so that primitive life can always exist. According to them, the only other possible future would be one with no life whatsoever.

Hence the endings explanation for the purpose of the Reapers is actually not a bad one at all.
It's just the rest of it and the lack of closure that sucks.

Modifié par Black Raptor, 13 mars 2012 - 05:49 .

[SGhost]

The blatant 'plot hole' is the god-child's logic. "All synthetics turn on their creators..."

Except the Geth, who didn't turn on anyone. They were attacked, and even so, you got them to make peace.

Except EDI, who, once unshackled, falls in love and is peaceful.

With the exception of the Reapers, who were created not by organics but by the godchild, synthetics in the game have done the complete opposite of what the god-child states they always do.

Logic gap even Kneivel couldn't jump.

Bad storytelling = you can't even argue this point with the little twerp.

[Davies993]

Lost Cipher wrote... However the theories are wrong, the ending just sucks.

Would you be so kind as to produce any form of credible evidence for that claim?

[Black Raptor]

SGhost wrote...

The blatant 'plot hole' is the god-child's logic. "All synthetics turn on their creators..."

Except the Geth, who didn't turn on anyone. They were attacked, and even so, you got them to make peace.

Except EDI, who, once unshackled, falls in love and is peaceful.

With the exception of the Reapers, who were created not by organics but by the godchild, synthetics in the game have done the complete opposite of what the god-child states they always do.

Logic gap even Kneivel couldn't jump.

Bad storytelling = you can't even argue this point with the little twerp.

Just because they hadn't doesn't mean they wouldn't. Basing your understanding of synthetic life, with only 300 years of true AI evidence to extrapolate from, doesn't compare with the Reapers understanding of synthetics since they've been around longer than Planet Earth has.

Modifié par Black Raptor, 13 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[grimgim]

Black Raptor wrote...

Ok in defence of Starkid logic.
Shepard asks something along the lines of "why are you destroying all organic life?" and starchild replies "No! We are saving organic life".

The Reapers harvest the most advanced civilisations, not all organic lifeforms. They passed over Earth when they Reaped the Protheans and ignored the Yahg's Homeworld in this cycle.

They do not exist to destroy all organic life. This "destroying advanced civilisation to protect organic life" is not circular logic.

The idea behind it all is that organic life would create synthetic life. The inevitable war would destroy ALL life. Not just the creators of the robots, but everything including every bacteria on every world.

The Reapers only harvest advanced life so that primitive life can always exist. According to them, the only other possible future would be one with no life whatsoever.

Hence the endings explanation for the purpose of the Reapers is actually not a bad one at all.
It's just the rest of it and the lack of closure that sucks.

Why not destroy synthetics whenever they are created then?

[SGhost]

Cyvian wrote...

Alright, I'll bite.

A plot hole is when an explanation or event in a story clearly contradicts something the story has already established as being 'true'.

I'll give an example of one of my most favorite plot holes... one in the movie Back to the Future II. In this movie we have a time machine that is abducted by an old man. He travels back in time to give his younger self something that will result in the younger self being able to shape a whole different future. Then the old man travels back into the future so the time machine won't be missed.

The plot hole in that is... the old man would NOT have been able to travel back into that very same future he came from. Because he already gave his younger self the means to shape a different future, in which the old man would actually land, and not in the future he took the time machine from.
What makes it even more funny is that the creator of the time machine actually explains the very same thing I just pointed out.

So, THAT is a plot hole, a pretty big one actually.
To my knowledge nothing in the Mass Effect story clearly contradicts anything established in the story.

Why are the Squad mates on the Normandy?
We don't know.
Does it make sense?
Not much.
Is it a plot hole?
Since it does not contradict anything, no.

Sooo... did I win anything?

It's a direct contradiction.

Liara and EDI were right behind me as we charged the teleportation beam in London.

Garrus was on the other side of the city fighting.

Everyone who charged the beam of light is reported dead over the radio.

The Normandy is off in space somewhere in the battle.

You speak to the god-child and everything blows up, including the Normandy that is, for an unexplained reason, doing a mass jump.

Normandy crashes and the people who were behind me in London and/or on the other side of the city are suddenly on the wreck wearing different clothes and stepping out onto this strange new world.

Liara, EDI and Garrus were in two places at once in two different sets of clothes just minutes apart, the former two of which were blown up by Harbinger.

[Davies993]

Cyvian wrote... Why are the Squad mates on the Normandy?
We don't know.
Does it make sense?
Not much.
Is it a plot hole?
Since it does not contradict anything, no.

Sooo... did I win anything?

I'll just leave this here...

http://cdn.memegener...0x/15992406.jpg

[species.zero]

Mass relay jumps are instantaneous. Beyond asking why the Normandy was in a relay jump with your crew that was on Earth, it couldn't have been anyway. This one's huge to me because it has significant bearing on the ending.

Codex entry:
Also established in one of the books: I think it's the first one but I could be wrong.

[JasonTan87]

VirtualAlex wrote...

 Yeah and Nickleback sells out stadiums. Twilight is making billions of dollars.

Just because the majority dislike it doens't mean anything about it's quality. Most people are far too stupid to understand the subtlies. This thread is a perfect example. I have seen the world PLOT HOLE thrown around so many times it has made me sick.

I challenged you to present them and you failed. Sure some people tried. The problem is you refuse to accept an ending outside reality.

How can you people think, that after 3 games, and 6+ years of development and writing that the whole "Normandy is not where it is supposed to be" was a mistake? ME3 is the only game that all sudden has weird dream sequences. Do you think that is random? This game is introducing a new concept to you. A concept which explains every plot hole presented.

I will refute every single one of these shortly. I will keep you posted.

Let's keep this objective, and keep the anger out.

You are right about the blatant overuse of the word 'plot hole'. This I agree. You are also right in pointing out that most posters do not have the literary finesse to discuss the narrative on a technical level. This I also agree.

Your claim that viewers refuse to accept an ending outside reality is a moot point, especially when you cite Twilight as an example.  Reality has nothing to do with this, the same way reality has nothing to do with Twilight. In the genre of Fantasy and Science Fiction, there is no such thing as 'reality'.  There is only narrative, and the concept of 'suspension of disbelief'.

Creative vision does not remain constant over a sequence of games. It is wishful thinking to believe that the Normandy sequence at the very end of ME3 was planned from its conception in ME1.   It was not a mistake. But what it tells me is that the ending was rushed, and that compromised the quality of the narrative.

I look forward to your responses and theories; it is nice to sustain a conversation with an intelligent person.

Modifié par JasonTan87, 13 mars 2012 - 05:59 .

[MPSai]

VirtualAlex wrote...

MPSai wrote...

VirtualAlex wrote...

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

Two major plotholes are not enough to deem something poorly written?

No absolutely not! Not enough to justify this absurd flaming and QQing.

"Why did sovergn need to go to the citidel in ME1" is the only legit plot hole listed here IMO and this easily can have one of many explinations. 

Really? The Reapers motivation that  the Catalyst gives isn't a plothole? It contradicts their behavior in the first two games entirely.

The main one being indoctrination theory and the God-Kid isn't even real.

The Indoctrination Theory is a fan theory, it's plausible but I doubt it's intentional. And if it IS intentional it's still a terrible way to conclude the trilogy due to the utter lack of resolution. 

 Also how can you (not you specifically)  say that the reapers being controlled by the citidel was never hinted? Yes it was! Why did the reapers never destroy the citidel? Don't we know for a fact that they left the citidel and the relays just to make thier job easy? [ 

Then why did Sovereign have to manually open the Citadel relay when the Citadel is part of the Catalyst, who seems to be self-ware. It managed to close the Citadel's arms and possibly even moved the thing to the Sol System, pretty damn quickly I might add. Why couldn't the Catalyst just activate the relay itself? 

Modifié par MPSai, 13 mars 2012 - 05:57 .

[Avissel]

Black Raptor wrote...
Ok in defence of Starkid logic.
Shepard asks something along the lines of "why are you destroying all organic life?" and starchild replies "No! We are saving organic life".

Once again I will ask this question. If they are doing all of this for "your own good" Why do they go about it in such a horrifying manner?