YeGodz wrote...
1. Nobody could say for sure what the Crucible would do once it fired. It was possible that it would fry the entire system once it went off. The big battle for Earth was a fient, so sticking around once it powered up was unneccessary. Why would Joker (or anybody else) think that standing between the Death Star and its targets was a good idea?
My guess is that Normandy, being the fastest ship out there, made it through the Charon relay first.
2. Time elapsed between Harbinger decimating Hammer and the Crucible firing. Maybe somebody managed a quick search and rescue. Again, once the Citadel had been borded and the Crucible was in place, staying on Earth was no longer strategically required, and may have been a very bad idea. You evac who you can.
3. We don't have "established lore", we have a single data point. Overloading a relay with the Crucible may not have the same effect as crashing an asteroid into one. There's also relative distance between the relay and earth to consider.
Or maybe Earth was fried regardless. That would be a downer, but not a plot hole.
4. Assuming there was much of said armada left after the fight and the Crucible, yeah. So what? Not elaborated, but that doesn't make it a plot hole.
5. Yes, it's very sad, but so what? People were gonna die in this thing. You can't save everyone, remember? Not a plot hole.
6. Is this along the lines of "Paragon Shepard wouldn't have blown the relay in Arrival"? Its not giving in, its making due with the options available. We've been there before.
7. That's quite a supposition, given that we don't have any info on where that planet was, and the condition of Normandy's communication setup (QECs don't need comm buoys to make calls). Conventional FTL is still possible. And obviously somebody got there eventually.
8. So, you don't like the logic of a billion year old omnicidal AI? Then don't take synthesis. Trash the Reapers, or tell them to go back to hell.
IMO, its the weakest ending of the three, but so what? You don't have to take it if you don't agree with it.
9. Your choices meant everything in terms of getting the armada to that point, and how you put it together. I don't think that the lack of "here's the fate of X" epilogue slides invalidates that. YMMV.
So yeah, a lot of those people that you helped or saved along the way probably wound up killed offscreen. The Reapers are serious business. If the issue is that you want a happy ending where everyone lives, fair enough. Your preferance. But the lack of a happy ending for everyone doesn't consititute a plot hole.
10. Shepard's hard to kill. Ask anyone.
1. Except Shepard’s decision and the subsequent consequence happens during the ensuing battle. Joker has no time in between to be told to retreat and neither he nor the crew would abandon Earth while the battle rages on. What feint? No one had any idea about the Catalyst or the Godchild, therefore no one had any foreknowledge what Shepard could or would do. What if they still had to fight the Reapers head on; Joker fleeing would be nothing more than an act of cowardice. You claiming this as a feint is inventing narrative because this was never established.
2. Using this logic, we are to assume Joker flew down to Earth, rescued the squad, and still had time to escape. If another ship did a pick up, then the crew would have to board a shuttle to get on the Normandy, while a battle is raging. Both are asinine attempts at stretching believability and frankly impossible.
3. Uh, that is established lore mate. When an event transpires in a narrative it becomes “canon” and abruptly changing it with no exposition is called a retcon. Originally, we were told Mass Relays could withstand a supernova, the most intense explosion in existence, yet Arrival contradicted this as supposedly ramming an asteroid into one is enough to not only destroy it but for the resulting blast to annihilate everything in its wake. Now in ME3 if they are hit at precisely the right point, from one specific target, the explosion is condensed to cause minimal damage. None of the games provides any explanation for these abrupt changes beyond “Oh, yeah that can happen now” which constitutes both a retcon and a plot hole.
4. Just a bleak and hopeless conclusion in complete contradiction with the theme of the series. I wonder if all the species would be willing to help Shepard had he/she mentioned everyone doing so is doomed regardless of the results.
5. See above, this contradicts the theme of the series. In both previous games, Shepard is defying the odds and a disappointing ending is optional. In ME3, it’s mandatory. You lose.
6. No, what happened on Arrival is clearly defined as “no other choice” and even explicitly said on more than one occasion. This is not the case whilst we talk to the Godchild. Shepard neither asks the obvious questions nor calls out the child. Sovereign did nearly say same thing, citing organics as inferior, and their confident born from ignorance. The cycle was absolute and could not be halted, yet Shepard was defiant and determined to find a way. With the Godchild, he/she just accepts what is told at face value. It is akin to my telling you “ME3’s ending suck” and you believing me just because I said it without playing the game to see for yourself.
7. Considering Turians and Quarians have a difficult biological structure to every other organic species, a planet existing that would support all species nutritional needs would be next to impossible, but for argument sake, let’s assume a few do exist through the wonders of space magic. The odds the Normandy would maroon on precisely the right planet for everyone to survive is so ridiculous a notion it doesn’t border on insulting, it leaps across. This is incredibly contrived writing.
8. While the state of the Normandy appears obvious, it really would not make a difference. The Relays have been destroyed and therefore no one could reach the Normandy before several decades elapsed, unless they just happened to be in close proximity to Earth, which yet again is terribly contrived writing. Have you noticed a trend here? All we have are “what ifs” and unknowns. The ending creates a series of questions without answering any. Even open-ended conclusions are not this vague. Either we are forced to use contrived and convoluted logic to explain events or everyone dies. That is not good writing.
My point is it again contradicts the theme of the series and even ME3 itself. We are struggling to unite the galaxy only to be told organics are inferior to synthetic and it is their destiny to merge. Frankly, it borders on racism. Sure, I can opt for another ending but they are all near identical and this limits me to even less choice, not that I had any to begin with.
9. Nope, the armada and battle for Earth is fundamental pointless when the conclusion amounts to picking your favorite color. The fleets do not determine the battle or do much of anything. This is demonstrated by how you receive virtually the same exact ending even if you have half the possible War Assets. You can also just clock a few hours into Multiplayer and completely undermine War Assets. It is not the lack of an epilogue depicting what became of your crew, but that nothing is resolved, no closure, just a near identical ending all of which is largely negative. No not bittersweet, but bleak and hopeless regardless of the choice you make.
What it does is once again contradict the series’ theme and overall premise.
This picture is quite damning.10. Yes, because being completely incinerated is survivable under any remote circumstance. This makes even less sense than Shepard being revived with all his/her memories intact and that alone is an absolute feat. In essence, space magic. So much for sci-fi and explaining things....
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 19 mars 2012 - 07:38 .
Retour en haut
