thesnake777 wrote...
1337haxwtg wrote...
But didn't the Reapers primarily ignore Tuchanka at first..?
They were **** footing around...there was Reaper activity but nothing substaintial...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
o Ventus wrote...
Fireblader70 wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
Not denying what's there. I just don't like how they handled his priorities.
Then again, I can say that for a number of characters.
Well, I always thought it was to boost morale. Nothing better than a Krogan who's suddenly free of the problem that has been haunting the species for a long, long time.
But that's just me.
But if they don't stop the Reapers, they'll never be able to enjoy a life free of the genophage.
That's how I've seen it.
txgoldrush wrote...
thesnake777 wrote...
1337haxwtg wrote...
But didn't the Reapers primarily ignore Tuchanka at first..?
They were **** footing around...there was Reaper activity but nothing substaintial...
No, the Reapers tried to poison the atmosphere...killing the Krogan with little effort.
Fireblader70 wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
Fireblader70 wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
Not denying what's there. I just don't like how they handled his priorities.
Then again, I can say that for a number of characters.
Well, I always thought it was to boost morale. Nothing better than a Krogan who's suddenly free of the problem that has been haunting the species for a long, long time.
But that's just me.
But if they don't stop the Reapers, they'll never be able to enjoy a life free of the genophage.
That's how I've seen it.
Yeah, well, we all know how Krogan are... stubborn as all hell! I think that's the point of the story, though. Shepard tries to unite the galaxy against the Reapers, but all these species are too grounded in grudges of the past.
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
o Ventus wrote...
Fireblader70 wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
But if they don't stop the Reapers, they'll never be able to enjoy a life free of the genophage.
That's how I've seen it.
Yeah, well, we all know how Krogan are... stubborn as all hell! I think that's the point of the story, though. Shepard tries to unite the galaxy against the Reapers, but all these species are too grounded in grudges of the past.
I know I'm tooting an old horn at this point, but the grudges a lot of the species hold by the time ME3 rolls around are just plain retarded.
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
Wrong its a contradiction of established logic of the plot or character......which you can't really prove in the ending because really the ending doesn't give you much detail to show contradictions.
Just because they do not explain it doesn't mean its a plot hole.
It however, doesn;t mean their isn;t a problem. The problem is that the ending doesn't flesh out or explain things they should have like the fate of your crew, your decisions, and the Catalysts character and level of power....not plot holes. Once again plot holes can only be suggested in ME3's ending, not proven.
Jassu1979 wrote...
Every jedi is but a sith lord waiting to happen, as they deny their shadow side and keep it festering deep within their unconscious. That's the dark secret the jedi order consistently fails to comprehend throughout the ages, leading to a repeating cycle of destruction. Those who try to look only at the light will cast long, dark shadows.
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
Wrong its a contradiction of established logic of the plot or character......which you can't really prove in the ending because really the ending doesn't give you much detail to show contradictions.
Just because they do not explain it doesn't mean its a plot hole.
It however, doesn;t mean their isn;t a problem. The problem is that the ending doesn't flesh out or explain things they should have like the fate of your crew, your decisions, and the Catalysts character and level of power....not plot holes. Once again plot holes can only be suggested in ME3's ending, not proven.
3 things consitute a plot hole.
1. A blatant contradiction of source material.
2. An omission of source material.
3. An inconsistency in source material.
Of course, there are many variations on those 3, I just listed the most basic and broad criteria.
Because I know you don't like to read
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
Wrong its a contradiction of established logic of the plot or character......which you can't really prove in the ending because really the ending doesn't give you much detail to show contradictions.
Just because they do not explain it doesn't mean its a plot hole.
It however, doesn;t mean their isn;t a problem. The problem is that the ending doesn't flesh out or explain things they should have like the fate of your crew, your decisions, and the Catalysts character and level of power....not plot holes. Once again plot holes can only be suggested in ME3's ending, not proven.
3 things consitute a plot hole.
1. A blatant contradiction of source material.
2. An omission of source material.
3. An inconsistency in source material.
Of course, there are many variations on those 3, I just listed the most basic and broad criteria.
Because I know you don't like to read
Which is all in the end, leads to contradictions, try again.
Which then again needs to be proven by hard evidence, not speculation.
Grimwick wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
This. OP you are arguing against a straw man here and for the forseeable future at least you will continue to do so.
And the ending isn't just bad because of plot holes, y'know.
Grimwick wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
A plot hole is more than just a contradiction.
Wrong its a contradiction of established logic of the plot or character......which you can't really prove in the ending because really the ending doesn't give you much detail to show contradictions.
Just because they do not explain it doesn't mean its a plot hole.
It however, doesn;t mean their isn;t a problem. The problem is that the ending doesn't flesh out or explain things they should have like the fate of your crew, your decisions, and the Catalysts character and level of power....not plot holes. Once again plot holes can only be suggested in ME3's ending, not proven.
3 things consitute a plot hole.
1. A blatant contradiction of source material.
2. An omission of source material.
3. An inconsistency in source material.
Of course, there are many variations on those 3, I just listed the most basic and broad criteria.
Because I know you don't like to read
Which is all in the end, leads to contradictions, try again.
Which then again needs to be proven by hard evidence, not speculation.
How is an omission of material a contradiction?
txgoldrush wrote...
Which is all in the end, leads to contradictions, try again.
Which then again needs to be proven by hard evidence, not speculation.
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which is all in the end, leads to contradictions, try again.
Which then again needs to be proven by hard evidence, not speculation.
...
How is an omission a contradiction?
And the difference between an inconsistency and a blatant contradiction is when the author is merely mistaken, instead of retconning what happened beforehand.
Modifié par txgoldrush, 23 juin 2012 - 10:33 .
txgoldrush wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which is all in the end, leads to contradictions, try again.
Which then again needs to be proven by hard evidence, not speculation.
...
How is an omission a contradiction?
And the difference between an inconsistency and a blatant contradiction is when the author is merely mistaken, instead of retconning what happened beforehand.
Retconning it allows you to contradict it, plain and simple.
See Wynne of the DA series.
txgoldrush wrote...
Mouseraider wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
You keep using the phrase "plot hole", but I don't think you know what it means.
No, ME3 ending bashers do not know what it means...hell the ending is so ambigious plot holes really can't even be proven.
However having Bastila completely step out of her character in KOTOR is a plot hole.
1) Why are the mass relay explotions different than the one we see in arrival. An explotion within the ball of energy that is released from the first relay is clearly visible.
2) None of the solutions solve the Catalyst's problem. An organic brain isn't capable of processing information or evolving to the point where it could compete with the advancements that an Ai would in a technological singularity. Without an explanation for why it would suddenly be possible to alter an organic brain in such a drastic way this remain a plot hole.
3) Sloppy cinematic work or a plot hole?. There is no logical reason for why the elevator would activate (Shepard doesn't manage to push any buttons). The Catalyst isn't hinted at having been offline or incapable of operating the citadel systems and since there is no logical reason for why the elevator would activate otherwise, I am left to question why Sovereign even had to make the attempt in the first game.
4) The Catalyst claims that the citadel is both his home and a part of him.... My brain is a part of my body... the Sun if a part of our solar system.. the solar system is a part of the milkey way.... the Catalyst is a program which probably has a processing unit somewhere in the citadel. How can his existance extend beyond the citadel. Just because something may be located within an electromagnetic field doesn't mean that the object in question is a part of that field.
5) How is TIM capable of controlling the motor functions of both Shepard and Anderson without first indoctrinating them. Without an explanation for how this is possible then it remain a plot hole since it is stated to only be possible after the subject is fully indoctrinated.
6) How did Anderson get from the walkway that is located to the right over to the one that Shepard walks on without us noticing him right after opening the door.
Too many inconsistant, illogical and unexplained things happen in such a short timespan that I rapidly lost my suspension of disbelief... it is much like waking up halfway through a convincing and almost realistic dream which you only realise doesn't make any sense once you wake up.
!) Unknown weapon, therefore no plot hole. We don't know how it works so no contradiction can be claimed.
2) No thats a Deus Ex Machina....which really the green ending is the only one that qualifies. A plot hole is a contradiction, not a contrivance.
3) No plot hole here...where is the contradiction. Sloppy direction, yes, but the Catalyst should know that the Crucible is here and that Shep is on the station.
4) And when did he state that his existance extends beyon d the Citadel other than the Reapers he created? He doesn't. And we do not know the level of control or influence he ha son the Reapers.
5) And yet he doesn't fully control their functions. Once again, no plot hole, Shep resists him an dcan even shoot him.
6) When does Anderson get on Shepard's walkway...he doesn't.
Face it, the problem isn't plot holes......you are misdiagnosing the problem here. The problem is the lack of clarity and the lack of explanation fo rmany of the plot points in the ending. Plot holes can only be suggested, not proven.
thesnake777 wrote...
About Kotor
You know nothing of the Dark Side....I also find your lack of Faith disturbing.
Deep down she knew the sith way was the right way. Embrace it..Embrace it.
About Bioware.
There have always been minor inconsistencies in the older games. I think the big difference in the reactions was what was advertised and promised to the fans up to two weeks before launch and what was given. This may seem strange but that fact that so many people are upset about it, shows how much people love the company. *shrug*
HelpingFR wrote...
Don't feed the troll.
Guest_simfamUP_*
simfamSP wrote...
It's an imitation of the attitude of a lot of ME3's haters. They'll just spill random nonsense. Of course, there are others with good points. But then, those with good points are nitpicky or trying to be the unfunny version of Yahtzee.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut