349 réponses à ce sujet

[DocDoomII]

Baronesa wrote...

IF he does not die due to crashing... I mean... you practically broke the poor guy's arms when you tried to save him on the Original Normandy "Ahhh watch the arm"   And crashing on the jungle planet leaves him with no injury... at all????

The strange part in that is that Shepard broke his arm.
For what Joker said in ME1 he has brittle bone syndrome only for his lower body.

[Saul Iscariot]

 Okay Shepard advises Hackett to withdraw the fleet. Joker lives or dies depending on if you pick the synthesis ending, does that cover everything?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

The Angry One wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

IF he does not die due to crashing... I mean... you practically broke the poor guy's arms when you tried to save him on the Original Normandy "Ahhh watch the arm"   And crashing on the jungle planet leaves him with no injury... at all????

Space magic.

OBVIOUSLY he made a mass effect field around him so when the ship crashed he crashed with 0G 



Gosh.

[JPN17]

Saul Iscariot wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saul Iscariot wrote...

As for Joker fleeing having picked up the remaining crew members the fault is entirely BWs. A few cut scenes and it easily could have made sense.

No it doesn't, it still doesn't explain why he's fleeing, where he is, how he could safely land in a planet and why they apparently forgot that being dragged out of FTL speeds in an uncontrolled manner will, you know, kill the crew.

Before Shepard enters the beam you have a scene where Joker decides to go looking for survivors, when he gets there he finds his squad mates but no Shepard who has now gone to the Crucible.
Game continues as per what we know. Before making his choice Shepard orders Joker too flee in case he fails. Joker argues but relents. Joker being a great pilot manages an emergency landing in the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Tell me why the inclusion of such scenes wouldn't make sense? It doesn't change the story but makes Joker's escape make more sense.

But that also implies that the squadmates, who know the what the reapers represent and know that they must get to the citadel to have any shot at stopping them, up and leave when they're mere feet away from the Earth conduit. We've come all this way but finish it? Nah let's just leave. IMO that's worse than seeing them dead on the ground. Plus if Joker was able to get that close, then everyone on the Normany who knows what's at stake should have grabbed a gun and rushed the conduit. There's really no logical way at all to get the squadmates back on the Normandy. Or how about just flying the Normandy or even Kodiak shuttles into the conduit.

[Iconoclaste]

TIM has the answer : "Because I NEED you to BELIEVE !!"

[Baronesa]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Oh I notice what you say. I just don't see much point in discussing this further with you. You're too belligerent in your arguments and I find it destructive to civil discourse and debate. So, my logical conclusion is that is unhealthy for me to continue such a debate as it may lead to anger and a loss of civility. You're welcome to disagree with my conclusion just as you are with the starchilds.

Sorry.

Besides, since you disagree with me my logic must be faulty. So why would you possibility want my answer?

Really? Who cares about my tone? If your point is sound it doesn't matter.
Not that I've been belligerent in any case, I've just been applying your logic against you.

Regardless, the hybrid point disproves the Catalyst's logic entirely.
Even if they had overcome the Protheans (which they didn't) and destroyed all organic life in the galaxy then destroyed the Reapers, organic life would still exist within them, because they are hybrids.
Therefore organic life is preserved.

I care. I have a certain standard of debate when I discuss things. I don't want to get into pissing contests or arguments. I want to get into debates. So to me tone is very important. Because if someone doesn't respect my opinion enough to engage me civilly I feel no desire to awknowledge theirs, but I still respect it.

You call it whatever you want. It's not about the content but about the contextual attitude I'm reading in every. single. post you make. My conclusion could very well be wrong. In fact, knowing me, it can often be a safe bet. But so long as I see them in that fashion I cannot, or should I say will not, debate you further.

But again, logical does not mean the conclusion is correct.

You do know that people can be quite civil in appereance and be far more insulting than even a bad word. A clear example is when someone tells you that you are an abomination or whatever other sillyness etc, and you responds with a small strong word AS PART of your argument... Who is actually being offensive there? There are many examples of this... Some of the videos on youtube with Matt Dillahunty could illustrate that point when some of the callers get offended

[CombustiblePanda]

DocDoomII wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

IF he does not die due to crashing... I mean... you practically broke the poor guy's arms when you tried to save him on the Original Normandy "Ahhh watch the arm"   And crashing on the jungle planet leaves him with no injury... at all????

The strange part in that is that Shepard broke his arm.
For what Joker said in ME1 he has brittle bone syndrome only for his lower body.

Shepard is a hardened soldier, and Joker is just a pilot.
I don't think it's too far of a stretch to assume that Shepard could accidently hurt Joker just by grabbing him.

[Iconoclaste]

Please, try to cut the precise quotes to lessen the pyramids. We're all trying to follow, here.

[WizenSlinky0]

thrawn8586 wrote...

I don't know if I buy that.  Firstly, agree to agree its not a plot hole.  The issue I have (and I think many other people) is that the ending forces you to accept the catalyst's logic, which I think most people would agree Shepard would never do.  Its not really about the catalyst being right or wrong, its the inability to call the catalyst on out on his faulty logic and being forced into accepting that organics and synthetics will always be fighting.

Maybe thats not much of a plot hole or whatever, but just a bad ending.  But it is entirely unstatisfying and terrible writing regardless: Shepard would have never ceeded to the catalyst's faulty logic with the overbearing amount of proof to the contrary right in front of him.

I already consider it a bad ending so we already agree there.

See, they do give you the choice to disagree with its conclusion. It's the Destroy ending. You're basically telling him his entire theory is bull**** and you will not have the reapers interfering in self-determination any longer. It's done through action rather than words.

Does it matter if you have a dialogue choice telling him he's wrong? Do you think he'll say "Oh, right, the Geth. Heh...I guess I dropped the ball there. We'll all self-destruct so enjoy life." He's the villian in the story.  Using the crucible is only "agreeing with the catalysts logic" if there is any other way to stop the reapers. As far as we know in the game, there isn't. If you feel there should be it means you don't like the story(or the end of the story, I should say). Not that it has a plothole.

[squee913]

Saul Iscariot wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Saul Iscariot wrote...

As for Joker fleeing having picked up the remaining crew members the fault is entirely BWs. A few cut scenes and it easily could have made sense.

No it doesn't, it still doesn't explain why he's fleeing, where he is, how he could safely land in a planet and why they apparently forgot that being dragged out of FTL speeds in an uncontrolled manner will, you know, kill the crew.

Before Shepard enters the beam you have a scene where Joker decides to go looking for survivors, when he gets there he finds his squad mates but no Shepard who has now gone to the Crucible.
Game continues as per what we know. Before making his choice Shepard orders Joker too flee in case he fails. Joker argues but relents. Joker being a great pilot manages an emergency landing in the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Tell me why the inclusion of such scenes wouldn't make sense? It doesn't change the story but makes Joker's escape make more sense.

This does not work for one main reason... time. You have what? maybe 10 minutes from the time Shep enters the beam till the explosion of colors? Joker cannot land the Normandy on the planet since the codex says it's mass is too big. This means he would have to disengage from the battle in space, prep a shuttle, send a pilot in the shuttle to down to the surface, locate the survivors that are in at least two separate locations (the two you took with you and the others) board them on the shuttle, fly the shuttle back to the Normandy, safely maneuver your way back through the giant battle in space, and THEN fly off like a bat out of hell.

[Dendio1]

Dendio1 wrote...

Heres a question. Anderson and shep were both part of the same run to the citadel where harby blew up hammer squad. Sheps armor is in rags and his face is torn up and bloodied. Anderson is clean as a whistle, no armor damage, no damage at all.

Explain this plot hole
thanks

Indoctrination theory: give it a look

Im waiting.....

[Saul Iscariot]

Dendio1 wrote...

Heres a question. Anderson and shep were both part of the same run to the citadel where harby blew up hammer squad. Sheps armor is in rags and his face is torn up and bloodied. Anderson is clean as a whistle, no armor damage, no damage at all.

Explain this plot hole
thanks

Indoctrination theory: give it a look

Have you ever seen Ghostbuster just after they destroy Gozer's Staypuft form?

[General Tiberius]

The Angry One wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...


All reasoning and arguments is inherently flawed. That's not my point. My point is that his position has logical basis. His conclusion does not have to be correct for his logic to be sound and for him to make sense.

....... are you kidding? He bases a faulty conclusion based on faulty logic and complete assumptions.
Again, nothing he says is provable. Everything is contradictable.

I will say this in all caps so you notice.
ANSWER THE POINT ABOUT THE PROTHEAN CYCLE HYBRIDS.

Nothing is provable except mathematics.

There is an example of Synthetics turning on their masters in Mass Effect 3. Talk to Javik, hear about the Metacon war in which only a united Prothean Empire was able to start to turn the tide against Synthetics. Then the Reapers came, harvested the advanced organic life and destroyed the Metacons.

What are these Prothean Cycle Hybrids you keep talking about?

[IndustrializedTaco]

The Angry One wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

IF he does not die due to crashing... I mean... you practically broke the poor guy's arms when you tried to save him on the Original Normandy "Ahhh watch the arm"   And crashing on the jungle planet leaves him with no injury... at all????

Space magic.

Yep has to be space magic

[CombustiblePanda]

Dendio1 wrote...
Im waiting.....

I'm pretty sure this thread is about discussing the plot-holes without introducing a theory.

[usmack5]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

The Illusive Mans appearance wasn't a plot hole.

As for your second one, all I see are rationalizations for genocide. We can argue that one in circles all day.

So are you going to address any of the actual plot holes?

I agree mostly here, but my one question was "where the f*** did the IM come from?" Shepard comes from basically a one way hallway of death and somehow the IM just "shows up"? I know there are unexplored parts of the Citadel, but some clarification around his appearance would have been nice! Granted, this is one the last things that I'd have them fix on my gripe list: over changing/removing/denying the nonsenical logic of the Star Child? Heck no.

[WizenSlinky0]

Baronesa wrote...

You do know that people can be quite civil in appereance and be far more insulting than even a bad word. A clear example is when someone tells you that you are an abomination or whatever other sillyness etc, and you responds with a small strong word AS PART of your argument... Who is actually being offensive there? There are many examples of this... Some of the videos on youtube with Matt Dillahunty could illustrate that point when some of the callers get offended

Perhaps. But I don't consider calling someone an abomination in any form to be civility in a debate. But using words like that after someone has used them doesn't mean you aren't being offensive. It's why I cut off the debate rather than continuing and potentially participating in a manner where I'd consider myself belligerent as well. Regardless of whether or not other peoples experiences leads them to believe I am, I do conciously try to avoid doing so.

But I never meant to imply that it was objectionably belligerent. Only my subjective experience with it.

[Archer]

Point one i agree with.

Point Two, disagree it really makes no sense.

Creating synthetics to save organics from being killed by synthetics makes no sense. How does this explain for example why the reapers have left their technology in the galaxy for the races to use and evolve on the path the reapers desire?

If the Reapers are protecting organics from being destroyed by synthetics why dont they just come back every 50,000 years wipe out any synthetic life and then bog off back to dark space?

By the Catalysts logic it would have made more sense for the Reapers to have come back in ME1 and killed all the Geth rather than utilising them in a bizzare plan to protect organics from being destroyed by the race the Reapers are using againsnt them.

Its circular logic, just plain sloppy ill thought out writing

[Saul Iscariot]

So the Normandy can't get close enough to Earth to find the attack squad? No wonder Anderson chose to stay behind at the beginning.

[Ieldra]

@OP:
The way the Catalyst says it - without explaining - it makes no sense. Add to that that the Catalyst is a synthetic as well, so why doesn't it destroy all organics? Add to that the counterevidence from friendly AIs like the geth and EDI, plus the proven hostility of an organic/synthetic hybrid (ME2, Overlord), and well... at the very least it needs more elaboration to make sense. To take it at face value is stupid.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[Mandemon]

The Angry One wrote...


The Geth had total control of Rannoch for 300 years.
There are birds in the sky.
There are trees on the ground.

Organic life = not destroyed. The Catalyst's reference is nebulous and we have only his word to take, when IT is the one causing chaos and destroying organics.

Just want to add to this that Geth actively repaired the damage to the Rannoch that was caused by the war and preserved natural beauty.

If Geth didn't care for organics, they would just leave it as it was and build indiscriminetly over anything organic.

Instead, they do complete opposite. Fix and preserve, they don't even live on the damn planet. Moment you create peace Geth Prime even says that Quarians are welcome to return.

[squee913]

Also, I just realized... if the idea was to preserve the higher races by "Harvesting" them, why did the Reapers try to get the Geth to wipe out ALL of the Quarians? Where is the preservation in that?

[january42]

2. The Catalyst's Logic Makes No Sense

Not sure why people are having trouble understand the cycle thing. People keep saying "why do they use synthetics to kill organics to prevent synthetics from killing organics?" The answer - that's not what the Catalyst is saying at all.

The Reapers are "pruning" the populace and getting rid of only the most advanced civilizations and the synthetics (or taking over the synthetics.) This gets rid of the synthetics to prevent them from destroying ALL life and gets rid of the beings capable of producing more synthetics... for a time. They leave the young races. The idea is that in this way non-synthetics are never totally wiped out. Seems clear enough.

Also, using the possible Geth/Quarian peace as an example to say the Catalyst is wrong is silly. The Geth DID rebel against their creators at one point. The fact that Shepard (might have) brokered a peace doesn't change that, nor does it prevent other organics from making other synthetics in the future  that will rebel and destroy all organic life as the Catalyst fears. The Catalyst has seen this happen over and over. His reference point is not as limited as our experience.

Now, whether Shepard should just believe what the Catalyst says is another matter, but what he actually says is not illogical.

The Catalysts logic is like solving drunk driving by killing everyone when they reach the age of 16. 

Logic is a process that generates conclusions from premesis.  Insane peopel can be perfectly logical. Doesn't make them any less insane.


(Substitute whatever the driving test age is in your local area. I think 16 is the most common in the US).

[CaFe87]

It is still possible for a synthetic civilization, that killed his organic creators to be the first culture who discovers the Mass Relays and Citadel after the Reapers killed all advanced civilizations.
They could just waltz through the galaxy and kill all those frog and monkey people without a problem, while the Reapers are hibernating in Dark Space.

[Bourne Endeavor]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Definition of a 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.

What the Catalyst says is not logical but regardless, by your own admission, he never brings up the Geth. That constitutes a plot hole because he is not refuting established fact. The Catalyst made a blanket statement all synthetics will destroy organics, yet we have evidence to the contrary. Even if the percentage is astronomically low, its logic is not fact

Well then, every game is pretty much one giant plothole. Because tons of relevant information regarding plots is never brought up. Because it's all contextual. Shepard never brings up the Geth, so why would the starchild? My assertion stands. It is not a plothole but a result of sloppy design. Or perhaps just a controversial design choice. Because Shepard is barely standing at that point. Nevermind thinking critically.

The Catalyst has reached one of many possibily logical conclusions. Logical does not mean "correct". To be logical is to apply the correct methods of reasoning. Those methods can still lead to vastly different conclusions based on experiences and avaliable knowledge.

Relevant information that omitted, makes the narrative contradictory. You are generalizing the necessity of information. In most circumstance, we do not need to know much, but enough for logical flow to maintain. (ie. Character motives and etc) Shepard not bringing this up is another reason the scene is a plot hole. It is something relevant to the discussion, as it contradicts what the Catalyst claims, yet Shepard, who experienced it first hand, is not mentioning anything.

Your rebuttal relies on the notion Shepard is essentially incompetent or deluded, regardless of exterior factors. Great, the fate of the galaxy rested upon the shoulders of a (wo)man who couldn't think straight. No wonder it turns out so bleak.

Except its logic only makes sense to itself, not Shepard, the Mass Effect lore or the player. Therefore, it becomes relevant. We have information contradicting what the Catalyst claims but are never provided an opportunity to refute it. The Catalyst needs to explain why prior events do not apply to the current situation and Shepard must inquire if it does not. By denying this option, it becomes a plot hole.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 27 mars 2012 - 07:30 .