494 réponses à ce sujet

[Zuka999]

>2012
>thinks plot twists are good story devices
>thinks adam and eve references are clever

[KingKhan03]

Glad you enjoyed it I was not able to.

[Barict78]

The sad facts are u basically Destroyed more of the galaxy and more people in 30 seconds then the Reapers have since ME1. Destroying the Mass Relays Kills the Corrisponding Solar System each is in so theres a few Trillion ded right there and the rest would slowly starve to death due to the lack of resources on their planets and no viable trade routes due to no Mass Relays. And i havent even mentioned the Trillions of aliens and ships left above earth that have no way home and will all end up killing each other to claim the earth which is basically barren now anyways. No the only people u save were Joker and EDI and somehow magically ur ground team

[phat0817]

*sigh* here we go again

[lillitheris]

So basically this boils down to pro-enders (anti-plotholers?) being able to rationalize everything in some manner.

Congratulations. The game ending sucks, but you have a fantastic imagination.

If any of you want to help me fill the holes while respecting the information we have in the codex:

1. Why is Normandy in FTL?
2. Why are people who were on Earth in the Normandy?
3. How does the Normandy survive an uncontrolled collapse of the FTL tunnel?
4. Why doesn't the Cherenkov radiation kill everyone?
5. How does the Normandy land essentially intact without any controls?
6. Why is everyone uninjured?
7.How far was the Normandy to A) be near a habitable planet (the nearest we know of is 10 LY away, i.e. about 18 hours of FTL flight) but also be affected by the blast radius of whatever it is that was exploding?
8. How large *was* the explosion if it was able to affect the Normandy at least 10 LY away?

We'll start with those. I've got some more.

[KingKhan03]

lillitheris wrote...

So basically this boils down to pro-enders (anti-plotholers?) being able to rationalize everything in some manner.

Congratulations. The game ending sucks, but you have a fantastic imagination.

If any of you want to help me fill the holes while respecting the information we have in the codex:

1. Why is Normandy in FTL?
2. Why are people who were on Earth in the Normandy?
3. How does the Normandy survive an uncontrolled collapse of the FTL tunnel?
4. Why doesn't the Cherenkov radiation kill everyone?
5. How does the Normandy land essentially intact without any controls?
6. Why is everyone uninjured?
7.How far was the Normandy to A) be near a habitable planet (the nearest we know of is 10 LY away, i.e. about 18 hours of FTL flight) but also be affected by the blast radius of whatever it is that was exploding?
8. How large *was* the explosion if it was able to affect the Normandy at least 10 LY away?

We'll start with those. I've got some more.

Unfortunately the only answers you will get is "JUST USE YOUR IMAGINATION!"

[Gruzmog]

It is a plot hole when there is not really any conceivable way that it could have happened.

You can't concieve anything to fill in that blank?  It's not inconceivable.  Maybe Joker hijacked the ship.  Maybe he recieved orders from Hackett.  Maybe EDI did it.  The possibilities are endless. 

Joker cannot land on the planet, thus he cannot pick them up himself.  We have been told that the only ships who can land on a planet are the Reapers because of their massive mass effect drives.  Cortez could not have picked them up in his shuttle, because he was shot down. 

Not to be nitpicking, but the normandy 1 could land on planets. It did have a drive core twice the size of a normal frigate so I don't know about other frigates. The normandy SR2 is almost cruiser size so that might be a bit harder. The drive core was double aswell I think though.. so perhaps its still possible.

The reason it is a plothole is that while we can image ways in which crewmates could have been picked up. There is no reason that makes sense while keeping Joker/EDI's/Hackets personna intact and staying true to the objective of the mission.

It is an all or nothing mission either you succeed or you die trying. The only thing you would achieve by fleeing is that you die a few months later while doing less damage to the reapers. So either Joker went coward, EDI can't do logic (yeah right), or Hacket gives an order that makes no sense, without something like a new way to fight the reapers if the normandy escaped. If this was the case it should have been introduced.

This battle had only two possible outcomes, succes or death, that was the whole premise of the fight, without new info you can't make sense of anything that shows something different.

Modifié par Gruzmog, 31 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[Barict78]

Zuka999 wrote...

>2012
>thinks plot twists are good story devices
>thinks adam and eve references are clever

They are if done well and u CANNOT introduce the main bad guy in the last 5 min of any well told story its a literary NoNo. And the end was not in the same spirit as the rest of the games. Shepard had no dialogue Options with the little brat and was told to pick one of 3 bad choices. Now i dunno how YOU play SHepard but the SHepard ME presented me with and the way i play him he would never have done any of that with out a damn good reason not just becuz some magical space AI says so. He would question and question and eventually Debunk The AIs Flawed Logic. i mean i thot for sure id get a chance to at least argue my point to him Shepard always has b4.

[Barict78]

If i want to use my imagination id have bought a D&D table top game instead bro this is a video game you dont leave the end up to imagination when u have promised CLOSURE many many times

[Wolven_Soul]

[quote]Gruzmog wrote...

[quote]

[/quote]

Joker cannot land on the planet, thus he cannot pick them up himself.  We have been told that the only ships who can land on a planet are the Reapers because of their massive mass effect drives.  Cortez could not have picked them up in his shuttle, because he was shot down. 
[/quote]

Not to be nitpicking, but the normandy 1 could land on planets. It did have a drive core twice the size of a normal frigate so I don't know about other frigates. The normandy SR2 is almost cruiser size so that might be a bit harder. The drive core was double aswell I think though.. so perhaps its still possible.

The reason it is a plothole is that while we can image ways in which crewmates could have been picked up. There is no reason that makes sense while keeping Joker/EDI's/Hackets personna intact and staying true to the objective of the mission.

It is an all or nothing mission either you succeed or you die trying. The only thing you would achieve by fleeing is that you die a few months later while doing less damage to the reapers. So either Joker went coward, EDI can't do logic (yeah right), or Hacket gives an order that makes no sense, without something like a new way to fight the reapers if the normandy escaped. If this was the case it should have been introduced.

This battle had only two possible outcomes, succes or death, that was the whole premise of the fight, without new info you can't make sense of anything that shows something different.[/quote]

Really?  My memory is a little shaky on the first game admittedly...Wait...wait...I think your right.  I think the Normandy did land on a couple of planets.  Noveria and...Theros...I believe.

Modifié par Wolven_Soul, 31 mars 2012 - 09:31 .

[Barict78]

Um they cant land cuz the Effing planet is OVERRUN with reapers and thats before u take into accout the ME drive

[humes spork]

lillitheris wrote...

4. Why doesn't the Cherenkov radiation kill everyone?

For one thing, the codex gets it wrong on Cherenkov radiation. Cherenkov radiation is non-ionizing. Even if it were, due to the very nature of Cherenkov radiation the crew of the Normandy would not be exposed to it. Cherenkov radiation moves away from the object exceeding the phase velocity of light.

EDIT: Actually, that kind of action wouldn't even create Cherenkov radiation. That can't happen in a vacuum.

Modifié par humes spork, 31 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[Gruzmog]

Wolven_Soul wrote...


Really?  My memory is a little shaky on the first game admittedly...Wait...wait...I think your right.  I think the Normandy did land on a couple of planets.  Noveria and...Theros...I believe.

Nah, those were spaceship docks/hangars on the planets.

On Virmire the Normandy lands next to the Salarian camp. You then have to take out the AA guns before it can take off again.

Modifié par Gruzmog, 31 mars 2012 - 09:35 .

[Zan_Vaelius]

I just love the fact that the "Anti-enders" or "pro-plotholers" are essentially "Stop Having Fun Guys". We are not allowed to enjoy the ending of the game because in their quite justified opinion, it's bad.
So yes I admit it. I concede defeat. You guys are right. The ending is filled with plot-holes and could have been done better. I will play the DLC with new ending if it is released. However I am still entitled to enjoying the ending as it is.

[Barict78]

Lets Look at it like this: If they COULD land on the planet RIGHT BESIDE The Beam Then why in the name of all thats Holy did we have to fight to it on foot why didnt Joker just drop us in there or why didnt this Magical shuttle come pik US up and drop Shepard there and then take ur other 2 squaddies to Normandy??

[Barict78]

Zan_Vaelius wrote...

I just love the fact that the "Anti-enders" or "pro-plotholers" are essentially "Stop Having Fun Guys". We are not allowed to enjoy the ending of the game because in their quite justified opinion, it's bad.
So yes I admit it. I concede defeat. You guys are right. The ending is filled with plot-holes and could have been done better. I will play the DLC with new ending if it is released. However I am still entitled to enjoying the ending as it is.

Then answer the questions weve asked u all plz, Please Enlighten us

[Barict78]

I want u to Explain how u can justify it in anyway so i can enjoy it too why are u hoarding all the Knowledge? WHYYYYYYYY??? let me know how to enjoy it!!

[Zan_Vaelius]

Barict78 wrote...

Zan_Vaelius wrote...

I just love the fact that the "Anti-enders" or "pro-plotholers" are essentially "Stop Having Fun Guys". We are not allowed to enjoy the ending of the game because in their quite justified opinion, it's bad.
So yes I admit it. I concede defeat. You guys are right. The ending is filled with plot-holes and could have been done better. I will play the DLC with new ending if it is released. However I am still entitled to enjoying the ending as it is.

Then answer the questions weve asked u all plz, Please Enlighten us

I believe the entire point of conceding defeat is admitting that I don't have answers for the questions you are asking. However, that does not prevent me from enjoying the game despite it's faults.

[DxWill103]

Dava Flava wrote...

DxWill103 wrote...

Disappointed again

Every time I come to one of these threads I'm hoping for an explanation as to why the OP thinks the endings provide closure, why they're okay with our choices not mattering at all, or their opinions on the galactic dark age and the pointless Normandy scene

Still looking

A good ending doesn't have to provide closure.  The endings are open-ended, like a cliffhanger.  It's meant to encourage questioning, like what if...?  It's probably framed like that to leave the developers with lots of potential options to play with in future ME games.  Is that so bad? 

 

When the Devs promise closure, and in actuality there is none, yes, it is.

[Gruzmog]

Barict78 wrote...

I want u to Explain how u can justify it in anyway so i can enjoy it too why are u hoarding all the Knowledge? WHYYYYYYYY??? let me know how to enjoy it!!

Chill out a bit plz, this is not a chat box, 3 posts in a row is a bit overdoing it...

I
believe the entire point of conceding defeat is admitting that I don't
have answers for the questions you are asking. However, that does not
prevent me from enjoying the game despite it's faults.

Fair enough.

I just hope the april info is good. I have trouble enjoying replaying with my second char.

Modifié par Gruzmog, 31 mars 2012 - 09:43 .

[Barict78]

DxWill103 wrote...

Dava Flava wrote...

DxWill103 wrote...

Disappointed again

Every time I come to one of these threads I'm hoping for an explanation as to why the OP thinks the endings provide closure, why they're okay with our choices not mattering at all, or their opinions on the galactic dark age and the pointless Normandy scene

Still looking

A good ending doesn't have to provide closure.  The endings are open-ended, like a cliffhanger.  It's meant to encourage questioning, like what if...?  It's probably framed like that to leave the developers with lots of potential options to play with in future ME games.  Is that so bad? 

 

When the Devs promise closure, and in actuality there is none, yes, it is.

EXACTLY. u cant have a effing Cliffhanger in the Conclusion of a Trilogy thats Over!! Not to Mention they did promise us Closure

[T-0pel]

Zan_Vaelius wrote...

I just love the fact that the "Anti-enders" or "pro-plotholers" are essentially "Stop Having Fun Guys". We are not allowed to enjoy the ending of the game because in their quite justified opinion, it's bad.
So yes I admit it. I concede defeat. You guys are right. The ending is filled with plot-holes and could have been done better. I will play the DLC with new ending if it is released. However I am still entitled to enjoying the ending as it is.

That is true but I am afraid there is not much left to discuss :-D

[Barict78]

Gruzmog wrote...

Barict78 wrote...

I want u to Explain how u can justify it in anyway so i can enjoy it too why are u hoarding all the Knowledge? WHYYYYYYYY??? let me know how to enjoy it!!

Chill out a bit plz, this is not a chat box, 3 posts in a row is a bit overdoing it...

Ok im sorry, i didnt realize Stanley Woo had another Account im sorry Mr. Woo

[Barict78]

Zan_Vaelius wrote...

Barict78 wrote...

Zan_Vaelius wrote...

I just love the fact that the "Anti-enders" or "pro-plotholers" are essentially "Stop Having Fun Guys". We are not allowed to enjoy the ending of the game because in their quite justified opinion, it's bad.
So yes I admit it. I concede defeat. You guys are right. The ending is filled with plot-holes and could have been done better. I will play the DLC with new ending if it is released. However I am still entitled to enjoying the ending as it is.

Then answer the questions weve asked u all plz, Please Enlighten us

I believe the entire point of conceding defeat is admitting that I don't have answers for the questions you are asking. However, that does not prevent me from enjoying the game despite it's faults.

I was screwing with u as my 2nd post should illustrate.

[Zan_Vaelius]

Barict78 wrote...

I want u to Explain how u can justify it in anyway so i can enjoy it too why are u hoarding all the Knowledge? WHYYYYYYYY??? let me know how to enjoy it!!

As to that, it's simple. The ending was in context with story I  was personally playing in ME trilogy (The so-called Role-playing aspect) and the fact that I despise happy endings. Enjoying a story and it's ending in RP games is in my opinion a very personal thing. That's the beauty of Role-playing.