Gigamantis wrote...
1.) If it was true when they were asked it wasn't a lie. If they were asked after the change and lied then it was a lie, but you have nothing indicating that happened. You assuming they omitted information when asked is based on nothing.bigbade wrote...
Gigamantis wrote...
1.) Alright, if someone asks me if I have a dog right now my answer will be yes. If I get rid of my dog in 2 months and that same person visits me in 3 months I won't have a dog. Did I lie to them?
2.) Of course it's possible. There are 10's of uncreative and unsatisfying ways I could come up with off the top of my head to handle the problems people have, but I'm not going to list them here. The point is that in a work of science fiction everything is explainable and if you have good writers it can be done well.
3.) ME3 was never meant to be a standalone game like ME1 could've been, and ME2 left me with more questions than ME3 did. The collectors were a supplemental issue to the main problems; literally none of the overlying problems in the world were addressed satisfactorily because there was more content planned. There's more content planned for ME3 as well.
1) You're warping the question, that has nothing to do with a validating someting to someone and then instead of clarifying the changes which you knew were happening, kept quiet and led them to believe your initial statement.
if someone asked you if they could see your dog in 3 months and you say yes, then get rid of your dog but never tell them that when they ask supplementary questions you are withholding the truth aka, a lie of omission.
2) In science fiction sure, but an answer that follows with mass effect's established lore and continuity? Still waiting for that PM/other thread.
3) ME2 leaves you with the questions about the reaper plot, but the reaper invasion took a back seat to the threat at hand as the game was about the collectors abducting humans. What questions did me2 leave you with?
2.) Most of the problems people have are with conception of character behavior and motive, not physical or material impossibilities. These kinds of things are easily addressed in writing, even with something as unsatisfying as a change in character or collective opinion.
3.) At the end of just ME2 I had questions about harbringer, the shadow broker, the genophage and mainly the reapers. The looming reaper threat was a GAPING plothole if we weren't assuming more content.
1) The whole BSN is asking questions about the endings...Still doesn't take away from the fact that, in this case, Gamble lied to the interviewer's face, and in more recent cases Mac Walters lied on February 28th (week before release) about the rachni consequences and the endings.
2) Not at all, complaint about space magic is far from problems with character behavior. Space magic doesn't belong in the mass effect universe because it was never established as a part of the series, star wars can handwave almost anything away as the force, mass effect doesn't have that luxury and can't permit themselves to even try if they want to respect their own lore.
3) Questions about harbinger were not answered in ME3, the shadow broker was addressed in ME2 dlc but before the dlc played an even smaller part than in ME1, the genophage storyline is expanded upon in me3 but its consequences are, also, not addressed and as said before the looming reaper threat wasn't a plothole because ME2 was simply the chapter leading up to it. I don't see what more you could have wanted to learn about the reaper invasion in ME2 if the game were to, once again, stick to its lore and stand by the fact that we know NOTHING about the reapers.
I agree that more content is planned for ME3, that's obvious. It doesn't even have to be about Shepard (see Take Back Omega feat. Aria rumor) but advertising a conclusion to a series and not concluding 'EVERYTHING' like you put it is not satisfying for anyone.
Retour en haut
.
