10273 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

A person could go out of their way to find holes in swiss cheese too. In other words an active search is not creating the holes.
You can continue to raising suspecting notions of how many plot holes a person could find in ME1 and 2 but ME1 is not some archaic language or practice peopel only have suspicions of how it worked. ME1 is fully accessible, it  has less plotholes then ME2.

My point is that the only major plot hole in ME2 is the part where everyone piles into the shuttle to go nowhere. I'm vaguely willing to forgive this as a) there is a theory that this is a flashback to before the last mission, doesn't really work but is plausible and it's there to set up a situation not to resolve one. I'm less willing to forgive plot holes ine ME1, for example, how does the Normandy get back to the citadel so quickly after Shepherd reached the conduit on Ilos. I personally have a bigger problem with that plot hole because it's trying to resolve a situation whereas the one in ME2 is creating a situation. They're both unacceptable, but I find it easier to forgive ME2s. And also I hadn't noticed either of those plot holes until someone pointed them out to me.

What you are willing to accept or forgive for being a plot hole is entirely your reasoning error. A plot hole is a plot hole no matter how acceptable you think it is. Having to supply your own explanation that does not exist in the game does not fix the plot hole.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

The guy on the ship runs a store; he is able to buy/sell things for profits. That is how stores work.
Oh you are opening boxes and looting corpse, for shame. It is a good thing ME2 improved that. Now you get to hack a corpse's bank account for credts, steal for safes, and still pick up weapons.
Improvement? IMPROVEMENT!

Yeah. He keeps a store on a warship ripping off his commanding officer who's on a mission to save the world. You are right. It DOES make sense.

On a second thought, NEITHER game makes sense.

[Ecael]

TJSolo wrote...

Well I guess ME1 needs a mission complete screen inorder to tell players who is paying them after every completed assignment.

The guy on the ship runs a store; he is able to buy/sell things for profits. That is how stores work.
Oh you are opening boxes and looting corpse, for shame. It is a good thing ME2 improved that. Now you get to hack a corpse's bank account for credts, steal for safes, and still pick up weapons.
Improvement? IMPROVEMENT!

Careful TJ, you're starting to sound as if you don't like Mass Effect 1 either.

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

He has at least one old story where he refers to his old gun using up almost all his thermal clips; a gun that doesn't have thermal clips in a story that took place before they supposedly existed. Aside from that, I find it rather hard to believe that any human, let alone Zaeed, formed The Blue Suns all the way back in a time when humans were hardly on the galactic scene.

Sorry, I remembered that one too. I just got Thane into my head for some reason.

I didn't say they were plot holes. Those last three are just bad writing and/or design. ME1 set up what seemed like a fairly plausible universe, but there are a few small factors in ME2 that step slightly into the bounds of bad modern action movies. Nothing overly major, as most still holds up fairly well, but there's little niggles like that which make ME2 seem a little farcical and as if they were going for style over substance in some areas.

There are a couple of minor errors but the fact that I haven't noticed many until my third playthrough tells you something.

[TJSolo]

Ecael wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Well I guess ME1 needs a mission complete screen inorder to tell players who is paying them after every completed assignment.

The guy on the ship runs a store; he is able to buy/sell things for profits. That is how stores work.
Oh you are opening boxes and looting corpse, for shame. It is a good thing ME2 improved that. Now you get to hack a corpse's bank account for credts, steal for safes, and still pick up weapons.
Improvement? IMPROVEMENT!

Careful TJ, you're starting to sound as if you don't like Mass Effect 1 either.

Only to people unable to grasp what criticizing is.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

What you are willing to accept or forgive for being a plot hole is entirely your reasoning error. A plot hole is a plot hole no matter how acceptable you think it is. Having to supply your own explanation that does not exist in the game does not fix the plot hole.

If you'd read my post you might have noticed that I said that neither was acceptable, I was just slightly more willing to forgive the one in ME2. Bear in mind I'm willing to forgive both of them because both Mass Effect games are so awesome. My point is that ME1 has just as many plot holes as ME2, it's just that no one has gone out of their way to list them.

[Ecael]

TJSolo wrote...

Ecael wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Well I guess ME1 needs a mission complete screen inorder to tell players who is paying them after every completed assignment.

The guy on the ship runs a store; he is able to buy/sell things for profits. That is how stores work.
Oh you are opening boxes and looting corpse, for shame. It is a good thing ME2 improved that. Now you get to hack a corpse's bank account for credts, steal for safes, and still pick up weapons.
Improvement? IMPROVEMENT!

Careful TJ, you're starting to sound as if you don't like Mass Effect 1 either.

Only to people unable to grasp what criticizing is.

You mean "nitpicking".

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

What you are willing to accept or forgive for being a plot hole is entirely your reasoning error. A plot hole is a plot hole no matter how acceptable you think it is. Having to supply your own explanation that does not exist in the game does not fix the plot hole.

If you'd read my post you might have noticed that I said that neither was acceptable, I was just slightly more willing to forgive the one in ME2. Bear in mind I'm willing to forgive both of them because both Mass Effect games are so awesome. My point is that ME1 has just as many plot holes as ME2, it's just that no one has gone out of their way to list them.

If you had read my post the very first line says your acceptance or willingness to forgive one over the other is your reasoning error.
You want a list of ME1 errors? Play the game and make them or try and find some on the internet. In my playing I have found 3; Illos to the Citadel, Mako jump jets , and the Reaper need for the Conduit. The last one was my fault for not paying attention on my first playthrough. I have found more than 3 in ME2.

[TJSolo]

Ecael wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Ecael wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Well I guess ME1 needs a mission complete screen inorder to tell players who is paying them after every completed assignment.

The guy on the ship runs a store; he is able to buy/sell things for profits. That is how stores work.
Oh you are opening boxes and looting corpse, for shame. It is a good thing ME2 improved that. Now you get to hack a corpse's bank account for credts, steal for safes, and still pick up weapons.
Improvement? IMPROVEMENT!

Careful TJ, you're starting to sound as if you don't like Mass Effect 1 either.

Only to people unable to grasp what criticizing is.

You mean "nitpicking".

Depends on what you would call the intial comment. Trace up to the comment I initially quoted, as my comments follow that posters attitude towards in-game purchases.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

What you are willing to accept or forgive for being a plot hole is entirely your reasoning error. A plot hole is a plot hole no matter how acceptable you think it is. Having to supply your own explanation that does not exist in the game does not fix the plot hole.

If you'd read my post you might have noticed that I said that neither was acceptable, I was just slightly more willing to forgive the one in ME2. Bear in mind I'm willing to forgive both of them because both Mass Effect games are so awesome. My point is that ME1 has just as many plot holes as ME2, it's just that no one has gone out of their way to list them.

If you had read my post the very first line says your acceptance or willingness to forgive one over the other is your reasoning error.
You want a list of ME1 errors? Play the game and make them or try and find some on the internet. In my playing I have found 3; Illos to the Citadel, Mako jump jets , and the Reaper need for the Conduit. The last one was my fault for not paying attention on my first playthrough. I have found more than 3 in ME2.

Can you list the ones from ME2? I wouldn't ask but there seems to be a lot of confusion about what a plot hole actually is.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

You want a list of ME1 errors? Play the game and make them or try and find some on the internet. In my playing I have found 3; Illos to the Citadel, Mako jump jets , and the Reaper need for the Conduit. The last one was my fault for not paying attention on my first playthrough. I have found more than 3 in ME2.

I'd definitely add that the citadel council dismissing the claims of the dockworker about Saren (he didn't even know his name or who he was) yet when they hear a voice recording of Saren they immediately take it as a solid proof.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

What you are willing to accept or forgive for being a plot hole is entirely your reasoning error. A plot hole is a plot hole no matter how acceptable you think it is. Having to supply your own explanation that does not exist in the game does not fix the plot hole.

If you'd read my post you might have noticed that I said that neither was acceptable, I was just slightly more willing to forgive the one in ME2. Bear in mind I'm willing to forgive both of them because both Mass Effect games are so awesome. My point is that ME1 has just as many plot holes as ME2, it's just that no one has gone out of their way to list them.

If you had read my post the very first line says your acceptance or willingness to forgive one over the other is your reasoning error.
You want a list of ME1 errors? Play the game and make them or try and find some on the internet. In my playing I have found 3; Illos to the Citadel, Mako jump jets , and the Reaper need for the Conduit. The last one was my fault for not paying attention on my first playthrough. I have found more than 3 in ME2.

Can you list the ones from ME2? I wouldn't ask but there seems to be a lot of confusion about what a plot hole actually is.

There is no confusion about what a plot hole is. I can list the ones I see in ME1 and not get contention but if I try to list ME2(already listed in this thread). You will just enter deny, deny, deny, mood.
I know talking to you about ME2 flaws is futile.

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

There is no confusion about what a plot hole is. I can list the ones I see in ME1 and not get contention but if I try to list ME2(already listed in this thread). You will just enter deny, deny, deny, mood.
I know talking to you about ME2 flaws is futile.

Hey, don't get me wrong. ME2 has it's fair share of flaws (planet scanning - although this is in the process of being fixed -, not as strong a main plot as ME1, too much focus on combat rather than a variety of ways to solve problems) but ME1 was one of those games which, while you were loving to death, you wanted to take each developer in turn into a room and scream "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING!?!?!?!".

My point about the plot hole confusion is that I've seen a lot of people around here who think that lore inconsistencies and plot holes are the same thing. Imagine for a minute that Bioware had provided no explanation about thermal clips. This would not be a plot hole, rather this would be an irritating incosistency in the game lore. A plot hole is, for example, when the Normandy manages to get back to the Citadel in a much shorter time than it took to get to Ilos.

And I still notice a lack of ME1 plot holes. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you can't actually think of any...

[Ecael]

TJSolo wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Can you list the ones from ME2? I wouldn't ask but there seems to be a lot of confusion about what a plot hole actually is.

There is no confusion about what a plot hole is. I can list the ones I see in ME1 and not get contention but if I try to list ME2(already listed in this thread). You will just enter deny, deny, deny, mood.
I know talking to you about ME2 flaws is futile.

The same would occur if he decided to point out Mass Effect 1 plot holes as well - denial.

It's only fair that plot holes become apparent in games with massive stories, detailed background information and good character development - especially when a dozen writers are working on it. People don't often complain about plot holes in Super Mario Galaxy because the game itself is still enjoyable as it is, even if the story has been recycled about 30 times already.

On the other spectrum of media, fantasy novel series like Harry Potter have one main author and still have more and more plot holes that arise as the story continues. Does that mean it's not worth reading after the first book? And would it really be worth it to spend an evening pointing out plot holes in one book just to call it better than another when it's part of the same series?

Making this even more futile is the fact that of all the parts of Mass Effect that players can influence, the writing is probably the most inflexible of all - because it's very likely that the main plot for all three games were written out and planned before Mass Effect 2 ever finished development.

If you, uberdowzen or Kitsune are going to spend time pointing out plot holes, then at the very least come up with valid reasons of explaining the ones you point out. Then the writers might be able to sneak something in the codex or some character's dialogue to either make up for it or to make fun of it. However, I'm sure the plot for ME3 was decided a long time ago.

It's more useful to say "I found a plot hole, but it can be explained like this..." or even "Don't bother with that plot hole" instead of "I FOUND A PLOT HOLE, YOUR TURN NOW"

[uberdowzen]

Ecael wrote...

The same would occur if he decided to point out Mass Effect 1 plot holes as well - denial.

It's only fair that plot holes become apparent in games with massive stories, detailed background information and good character development - especially when a dozen writers are working on it. People don't often complain about plot holes in Super Mario Galaxy because the game itself is still enjoyable as it is, even if the story has been recycled about 30 times already.

On the other spectrum of media, fantasy novel series like Harry Potter have one main author and still have more and more plot holes that arise as the story continues. Does that mean it's not worth reading after the first book? And would it really be worth it to spend an evening pointing out plot holes in one book just to call it better than another when it's part of the same series?

Making this even more futile is the fact that of all the parts of Mass Effect that players can influence, the writing is probably the most inflexible of all - because it's very likely that the main plot for all three games were written out and planned before Mass Effect 2 ever finished development.

If you, uberdowzen or Kitsune are going to spend time pointing out plot holes, then at the very least come up with valid reasons of explaining the ones you point out. Then the writers might be able to sneak something in the codex or some character's dialogue to either make up for it or to make fun of it. However, I'm sure the plot for ME3 was decided a long time ago.

It's more useful to say "I found a plot hole, but it can be explained like this..." or even "Don't bother with that plot hole" instead of "I FOUND A PLOT HOLE, YOUR TURN NOW"

YES!!!! Finally a voice of reason.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 19 mai 2010 - 04:51 .

[Ecael]

You messed up the quote tags, dowzen.

[uberdowzen]

oops. My bad...

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Hey, don't get me wrong. ME2 has it's fair share of flaws (planet scanning - although this is in the process of being fixed -, not as strong a main plot as ME1, too much focus on combat rather than a variety of ways to solve problems) but ME1 was one of those games which, while you were loving to death, you wanted to take each developer in turn into a room and scream "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING!?!?!?!"

Funny... that's never how I felt about ME1, but its how I feel about ME2 a lot of the time. I've said many times that while ME1 had some issues, they were understandable, while ME2 was filled with things and moments that just made me go "WTF?!" all the time, which is something I don't think I've done with any BioWare game until ME2 came along. Even those with flaws seemed pretty tight and logical, but ME2 has so many aspects that made me wonder what the people making it were smoking when they made the choices or went with the way of doing things that they did.

Besides, the Normandy getting back makes perfect sense: Vigil did go on 

[Gundar3]

I think I found a plot hole that is very minor, but if it could be explained that would be helpful:



The shuttle for the Normandy is apparently controlled by a VI as is seen in several N7 missions and I believe referenced in the codex. So in regards to this, why does Shepard tap the "door" at the end of Jack's loyalty quest? I always presumed it was to tell the pilots to get ready for something... but that would be rather pointless if its all VI controlled...



Obviously minor, but it bugs me.

[KitsuneRommel]

Gundar3 wrote...

Obviously minor, but it bugs me.

Those things happen. Amaranthine planet in ME1 has a temperature of -178 Celsius (and it's windy) yet no cold hazard while Mavigon has a surface temperature of -124 Celsius and level 2 cold hazard.

[brfritos]

Gundar3 wrote...

I think I found a plot hole that is very minor, but if it could be explained that would be helpful:

The shuttle for the Normandy is apparently controlled by a VI as is seen in several N7 missions and I believe referenced in the codex. So in regards to this, why does Shepard tap the "door" at the end of Jack's loyalty quest? I always presumed it was to tell the pilots to get ready for something... but that would be rather pointless if its all VI controlled...

Obviously minor, but it bugs me.

I think you're confusing the Kodiak (the shuttle) with the Hammerhead.
The Hammerhead indeed use a VI for guidance, but the shuttle has a cockpit and a pilot.

Is in the Codex.

I like the two games a lot, but I prefer the style of the first, when you have to save the galaxy, preventing the world's end, "big choices" (the salarian games vendor has a joke about this LOL) and so on.
ME2 is not worst than the first, I have to disagree on this, it's different on his aproach.

Instead of saving the galaxy, your problems are your crew and their doubts.
The gameplay changed and leave no other room except "hate it or love it", but is no worse than the first.
Just my two cents.

One thing that ME2 beats ME1 by miles is the response of the NPCs and the VA in general.
In the first they all use the same voice to show you their discontent, joy, happiness, sadness, regardless your genre.
Now they change their voice tone, even if the responce is the same, based on your Shepard's genre and actions.

Very good job.

Excuse any errors, english is not my primary language.

[ ]'s

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...
Besides, the Normandy getting back makes perfect sense: Vigil did go on 

LOL.

[Onyx Jaguar]

PLOT HOLE