232 réponses à ce sujet

[gvaveris]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Except it doesn't, because believing that the Relays kill everything is ridiculous. Patrick Weekes even said so - the writers NEVER thought people would jump on this "OMG EVERYONE'S DEAD AND THE GALAXY IS KABLOOIE" wagon because it's so incredibly obvious that there is a difference between what happened in Arrival and what happened in ME3.

Yet another reason why Arrival was a huge can of worms, plot-wise.  Given how hard they pushed for Arrival to be the prologue of ME3 (or epilogue of ME2), with an exploding mass relay wiping out a system, they should have expected that people woudl assume destroying a mass relay would destroy a system.

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...


1.  According to the Codex Palavan has the greater concentration, and dark space would give the reapers a further advantage.

2.  Consiousness doesn't work that way.  You need a working brain in order to have consiousness.  This was actually adressed within the game itself... again, plot hole.

Is there anything I can say that will convince you that those "plot holes" aren't actually plot holes, or are you dead set in your thinking? Because if it's the latter, I'm just not going to bother anymore.

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...



The simple fact that Weekes had to try impotantly to explain it proves that, within the game itself, it is a huge plot hole.  The galaxy should have been completely destroyed according to the rules set up by the previous game.

The rules of "This is what happens when you slam a planet-sized asteroid into a relay"? Those rules? Because... that's not what happened in ME3. Assuming the same rules apply for two COMPLETELY different situations is much more of a problem than anything in the ending itself.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...


1.  According to the Codex Palavan has the greater concentration, and dark space would give the reapers a further advantage.

2.  Consiousness doesn't work that way.  You need a working brain in order to have consiousness.  This was actually adressed within the game itself... again, plot hole.

Is there anything I can say that will convince you that those "plot holes" aren't actually plot holes, or are you dead set in your thinking? Because if it's the latter, I'm just not going to bother anymore.

You can't argue against facts.

[Father_Jerusalem]

gvaveris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Except it doesn't, because believing that the Relays kill everything is ridiculous. Patrick Weekes even said so - the writers NEVER thought people would jump on this "OMG EVERYONE'S DEAD AND THE GALAXY IS KABLOOIE" wagon because it's so incredibly obvious that there is a difference between what happened in Arrival and what happened in ME3.

Yet another reason why Arrival was a huge can of worms, plot-wise.  Given how hard they pushed for Arrival to be the prologue of ME3 (or epilogue of ME2), with an exploding mass relay wiping out a system, they should have expected that people woudl assume destroying a mass relay would destroy a system.

Really? Because I assumed it meant they wanted the game to start on Earth, and were simply setting up a reason for why Shepard would be on Earth, not that "omg if you do completely unrelated things, the results will be the exact same no matter what!"

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...


1.  According to the Codex Palavan has the greater concentration, and dark space would give the reapers a further advantage.

2.  Consiousness doesn't work that way.  You need a working brain in order to have consiousness.  This was actually adressed within the game itself... again, plot hole.

Is there anything I can say that will convince you that those "plot holes" aren't actually plot holes, or are you dead set in your thinking? Because if it's the latter, I'm just not going to bother anymore.

You can't argue against facts.

So no then. Thanks for giving me a heads up not to bother anymore.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...



The simple fact that Weekes had to try impotantly to explain it proves that, within the game itself, it is a huge plot hole.  The galaxy should have been completely destroyed according to the rules set up by the previous game.

The rules of "This is what happens when you slam a planet-sized asteroid into a relay"? Those rules? Because... that's not what happened in ME3. Assuming the same rules apply for two COMPLETELY different situations is much more of a problem than anything in the ending itself.

It's pretty clear that it was the destruction of the relay not the way in which it was destroyed that cause it.
Fact one:  According to Weekes there needs to be a rupture.
Fact two: we actually did see the casing crack prior to the full explostion.
Therefore the existance of anything within a system with a mass relay (or at least the Sol relay since we didn't actually see the others blow up), should not be.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...


1.  According to the Codex Palavan has the greater concentration, and dark space would give the reapers a further advantage.

2.  Consiousness doesn't work that way.  You need a working brain in order to have consiousness.  This was actually adressed within the game itself... again, plot hole.

Is there anything I can say that will convince you that those "plot holes" aren't actually plot holes, or are you dead set in your thinking? Because if it's the latter, I'm just not going to bother anymore.

You can't argue against facts.

So no then. Thanks for giving me a heads up not to bother anymore.

I'm saying that because you weren't arguing againt the facts you were just whining because I essentially won the argument.

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...



The simple fact that Weekes had to try impotantly to explain it proves that, within the game itself, it is a huge plot hole.  The galaxy should have been completely destroyed according to the rules set up by the previous game.

The rules of "This is what happens when you slam a planet-sized asteroid into a relay"? Those rules? Because... that's not what happened in ME3. Assuming the same rules apply for two COMPLETELY different situations is much more of a problem than anything in the ending itself.

It's pretty clear that it was the destruction of the relay not the way in which it was destroyed that cause it.
Fact one:  According to Weekes there needs to be a rupture.
Fact two: we actually did see the casing crack prior to the full explostion.
Therefore the existance of anything within a system with a mass relay (or at least the Sol relay since we didn't actually see the others blow up), should not be.

We also see the energy being shot off into space before the Relay actually explodes. Fact three.

[HiddenKING]

gvaveris wrote...

At around 2 minutes for this video.

and around 2:35 for this video.

Compared to this video.

Apart from the color, the explosions look pretty similar to me.  It looks like the Earth mass relay is destroyed.  Only in the Control ending are the Mass Relays "less destroyed." 

Looks explicitly different to me.

What I see in Arrival is the Mass Relay bein destroyed as the asteroid hits it. The Element Zero core destabalizing, and explodin in a supernova fasion. 

Whereas in ME3 the Element Zero in the core is transformed into RGB energy and shot across the Galaxy. With the Relay overloadin and explodin afterwards. Minus the supernova explosion.

[What a Succulent Ass]

>"Explain plot holes"

I believe that's BioWare's job.

[Vormaerin]

If you don't understand enough of the physics of explosions to realize that the "how" is crucial to the what, its going to be difficult to point out why you are wrong.

An uncontrolled explosion will topple a building, while a controlled explosion can drop it straight down. Just for example. They are both explosions of the same building.

There is every reason to believe that the arrival impact detonation was a burst while the triggered self destruction of the ending was, effectively, a shaped charge explosion. Nearly all the energy was released in that beam, in other words.

[JBONE27]

Vormaerin wrote...

If you don't understand enough of the physics of explosions to realize that the "how" is crucial to the what, its going to be difficult to point out why you are wrong.

An uncontrolled explosion will topple a building, while a controlled explosion can drop it straight down. Just for example. They are both explosions of the same building.

There is every reason to believe that the arrival impact detonation was a burst while the triggered self destruction of the ending was, effectively, a shaped charge explosion. Nearly all the energy was released in that beam, in other words.

Uh huh, you do realise that controlled explosions look very different from non-controled explosions right?

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

If you don't understand enough of the physics of explosions to realize that the "how" is crucial to the what, its going to be difficult to point out why you are wrong.

An uncontrolled explosion will topple a building, while a controlled explosion can drop it straight down. Just for example. They are both explosions of the same building.

There is every reason to believe that the arrival impact detonation was a burst while the triggered self destruction of the ending was, effectively, a shaped charge explosion. Nearly all the energy was released in that beam, in other words.

Uh huh, you do realise that controlled explosions look very different from non-controled explosions right?

And the Relay's destruction in ME3 looks very different from the Relay's destruction in Arrival.

[barademaz]

All i'm going to say in regards to the space magic arguments "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

2.  Did you actually see the ending cinematic?  The Mass Relays looked prety explody to me.

1. Not in all the endings.

2. They explode with a pretty normal looking explosion in the endings, as opposed to a gigantic white ball of supernova energy as in The Arrival. Which is all the evidence you need of this not remotely being a plothole.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

1.  Why would the Reapers bring the Citidel to Earth instead of Palavan or somewhere in dark space?

Because it's the first planet they invaded and conquered, and thus the most tactically secure.

2.  How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?

You don't need a body if your mind is in the machines, now do you?

Shepard "loses everything that he is" by shedding his body and letting his consciousness control the Reapers. Whatever force controls the Reapers after the process isn't Shepard anymore.

Uploading your consciousness into machines is such a well-worn science fiction concept that I don't even know why you really need to ask the question " How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?"

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

1.  Why would the Reapers bring the Citidel to Earth instead of Palavan or somewhere in dark space?

Because it's the first planet they invaded and conquered, and thus the most tactically secure.

2.  How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?

You don't need a body if your mind is in the machines, now do you?

Shepard "loses everything that he is" by shedding his body and letting his consciousness control the Reapers. Whatever force controls the Reapers after the process isn't Shepard anymore.

Uploading your consciousness into machines is such a well-worn science fiction concept that I don't even know why you really need to ask the question " How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?"

1.  I think you're forgetting about the Batarian home world.

2.  This was refferenced before.  You need a brain in order to have a mind.  We learned this at the Cerberus base.  Shepard's brain was vaporised along with the rest of her body.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

If you don't understand enough of the physics of explosions to realize that the "how" is crucial to the what, its going to be difficult to point out why you are wrong.

An uncontrolled explosion will topple a building, while a controlled explosion can drop it straight down. Just for example. They are both explosions of the same building.

There is every reason to believe that the arrival impact detonation was a burst while the triggered self destruction of the ending was, effectively, a shaped charge explosion. Nearly all the energy was released in that beam, in other words.

Uh huh, you do realise that controlled explosions look very different from non-controled explosions right?

And the Relay's destruction in ME3 looks very different from the Relay's destruction in Arrival.

You're willing to put money on that?

[SpiderFan1217]

Dear OP,

I beat you to it. In fact, I have not found a single supposed plot-hole in game that could not be explained with a little thought. I don't feel like doing it anymore as you and yours will simply brush my responses to the side and continue to hate on one of my favorite games. If you feel like searching for my explainations, yes there are several threads out there where I fill in the supposed plotholes, go ahead and find them.

Your truely,
TiredME3Fan1217.

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

If you don't understand enough of the physics of explosions to realize that the "how" is crucial to the what, its going to be difficult to point out why you are wrong.

An uncontrolled explosion will topple a building, while a controlled explosion can drop it straight down. Just for example. They are both explosions of the same building.

There is every reason to believe that the arrival impact detonation was a burst while the triggered self destruction of the ending was, effectively, a shaped charge explosion. Nearly all the energy was released in that beam, in other words.

Uh huh, you do realise that controlled explosions look very different from non-controled explosions right?

And the Relay's destruction in ME3 looks very different from the Relay's destruction in Arrival.

You're willing to put money on that?

How much you got?

  - Arrival.
  - ME3.

[Legion64]

The relays kind of just shot a beam and then fell apart. The Arrival was a HUGE supernova explosion. I do not understand how people cannot see the difference between them.

[Bat32391]

So has anyone posted the LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE! thing yet?

[I_eat_unicorns]

The IT is just an over-analysis of the endings done by a bunch of ignorant fans who dont understand how things work in theater. Things like:

- omg shepard move closer to the beam than he was shot, IT IS VALID
- omg TIM and anderson arguing saying to destroy/control, IT IS VALID

Those things are there thats how cinematics are performed. Watchh movies/read books, you'll get the gist of it.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

If you don't understand enough of the physics of explosions to realize that the "how" is crucial to the what, its going to be difficult to point out why you are wrong.

An uncontrolled explosion will topple a building, while a controlled explosion can drop it straight down. Just for example. They are both explosions of the same building.

There is every reason to believe that the arrival impact detonation was a burst while the triggered self destruction of the ending was, effectively, a shaped charge explosion. Nearly all the energy was released in that beam, in other words.

Uh huh, you do realise that controlled explosions look very different from non-controled explosions right?

And the Relay's destruction in ME3 looks very different from the Relay's destruction in Arrival.

You're willing to put money on that?

How much you got?

  - Arrival.
  - ME3.

Take away the asteroid, and choose the control ending, and they look the same.