205 réponses à ce sujet

[Terraneaux]

AurorusBorealus wrote...

For a more recent example,  the United States' government (along with many other governments) have assumed and continue to assume debts that cannot be repaid: ever.  Federal insolvency is a reality.  Evidence abounds.  No one in power really believes this is reality or does anything meaningful about it.  

You don't quite understand the political and economic situation of what's going on if that's what you think.  In any case, the Council clearly states that they are thankful you saved them from the 'reapers' at the end of the first game.  Not 'reaper,' no air quotes, they were thankful.  Then the writing team ****ed it all up.  

(9) WHERE: Councillor Anderson's office on the Citadel
    WHAT: Gathered evidence such as security camera footage from Freedom's Progress, DNA evidence from the Collector ship, the attack on Horizon, the derelict Reaper or information from Legion convinces the Council that there is a Reaper threat.
    TYPE: Category 2, MAGIC WAND
    WHY: This is a plot hole that gets worse the longer you take to visit Anderson on the Citadel. Quite literally the Council is supposed to be stupid but the evidence you can accumulate is beyond belief in it being able to be ignored. Moreover Shepard only needs to go public with that evidence of incompetence and the political fallout for the Council/Alliance should have anyone denying the truth of the threat running for cover because of the political ****storm that would occur.
    NOTE: NOT ACCEPTABLE - this is pure bad writing at its finest. It is intended to emphasise that Shepard cannot get support from the Council/Alliance but the way this is handled is amateurish beyond belief. Emily Wong would have a field day if you had the option to bring it to her attention.

This bit right here is kind of a big deal.  After consideration, I don't think that this was a direct result of Bioware's writing team, but more likely a result of cutting corners as the game was rushed to market.

[DeathsHands5]

It wasn't cut corners; it was a 'preventive' thing I suppose you could say. It would be somewhat unnecessary work, since that ordeal with proving the existence of the Reapers is most likely going to be handled in ME3.

[Terraneaux]

DeathsHands5 wrote...

It wasn't cut corners; it was a 'preventive' thing I suppose you could say. It would be somewhat unnecessary work, since that ordeal with proving the existence of the Reapers is most likely going to be handled in ME3.

Except it totally broke the verisimilitude of the game world.

[massive_effect]

Coordinating a story as large as ME is a huge challenge. I was impressed that Garrus could discuss every detail of the area around him. This means that the level was designed before it was written. (Or some kind of back-and-forth coordination.)

Nitpicking plot holes is pretty futile, but your skill in finding them could be useful if you were employed by Bioware.

[Terraneaux]

massive_effect wrote...

Coordinating a story as large as ME is a huge challenge. I was impressed that Garrus could discuss every detail of the area around him. This means that the level was designed before it was written. (Or some kind of back-and-forth coordination.)

Nitpicking plot holes is pretty futile, but your skill in finding them could be useful if you were employed by Bioware.

I find it frustrating that things that you mention, details like Garrus talking about his surroundings, got in there, and the main plot just seems shoddily written.  The game world in ME2 is much more immersive, the world seems much more lived-in, but the main plot suffered.

[Sharn01]

Some of the thing's the OP commented on where nitpicking, I agree with that assessment. Where I to make a post like this I would only include plot hole's that detracted from the game.



Regardless they are still plot hole's and if he plan's to continue posting and get help from other's then he could perhaps put together a very comprehensive list of every plot hole in the game and its severity, I would not mind being a part of that undertaking, it would be enjoyable.

[Massadonious1]

I think people are just having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that certain things that "don't make sense" are done for gameplay or asthetic reasons.



Would you really go without ammo or health packs for an entire level just to satisfy the need for a fully coherent story? Sure, it might be a challenge to some, but what about everyone else? I would imagine at that point that the "where's mah ammoz?" and "why can't I heal ppl?" complaints will eventually overwhelm and will cause more discontent and threats to boycott future BioWare products among the populace than the "consitency" issues ever will.

[Terraneaux]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I think people are just having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that certain things that "don't make sense" are done for gameplay or asthetic reasons.

Would you really go without ammo or health packs for an entire level just to satisfy the need for a fully coherent story? Sure, it might be a challenge to some, but what about everyone else? I would imagine at that point that the "where's mah ammoz?" and "why can't I heal ppl?" complaints will eventually overwhelm and will cause more discontent and threats to boycott future BioWare products among the populace than the "consitency" issues ever will.

I don't really care about the gameplay changes, ammo, your character going down in levels, whatever.  I care more about the plot holes that actually don't make any sense in the context of the story, like the council not believing Shepard and stuff like that.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terraneaux wrote...
I don't really care about the gameplay changes, ammo, your character going down in levels, whatever.  I care more about the plot holes that actually don't make any sense in the context of the story, like the council not believing Shepard and stuff like that.

That isn't a plot hole either.

That's how the story is being told. You don't like how that story is being told, but that doesn't make it a plot hole.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Also, trying to point out things that are not fully explained when you're only 2/3 through a fictional work is pretty futile to begin with. Should I complain that I don't know the identity of a killer in a murder mystery when I hit the 2/3 mark?

[Sharn01]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terraneaux wrote...
I don't really care about the gameplay changes, ammo, your character going down in levels, whatever.  I care more about the plot holes that actually don't make any sense in the context of the story, like the council not believing Shepard and stuff like that.

That isn't a plot hole either.

That's how the story is being told. You don't like how that story is being told, but that doesn't make it 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

The actions of the council go against every part of this definition, which I quoted straight from a dictionary.

[Mossa_missa]

TheUnusualSuspect at page one pretty much explains it.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Sharn01 wrote...
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

The actions of the council go against every part of this definition, which I quoted straight from a dictionary.

No it doesn't because it is completely consistent with how the council behaved towards you in the first game and secondly is likely going to be fully explained in the third game since, as I've discussed in other threads, there are a lot of supposed inconsistencies in how the denizens of the Citadel act towards the Citadel that seem to indicate some level of influence is being exerted upon them.

PS: If you do not accept my second point, you have to necessarily accept that any time the Citadel was dismissive towards you in the first game was ALSO a "plot hole"

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 04 mars 2010 - 08:34 .

[Terraneaux]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...


No it doesn't because it is completely consistent with how the council behaved towards you in the first game

Not quite.  The council changed their opinion about the situation at the end of the first game.  They've seen a Reaper, and they admit that there are more out there, and they thank you for saving them.  Then in ME2 it's 'Ah, yes, 'reapers''  What happened in those two years?  Oh yeah, the writing team changed.  

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terraneaux wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...


No it doesn't because it is completely consistent with how the council behaved towards you in the first game

Not quite.  The council changed their opinion about the situation at the end of the first game.  They've seen a Reaper, and they admit that there are more out there, and they thank you for saving them.  Then in ME2 it's 'Ah, yes, 'reapers''  What happened in those two years?  Oh yeah, the writing team changed.  

You assume the council is first, truthful with you and second, that they can't change their mind later. Two very large assumptions.

The writing team was mostly the same between the first and second game and the overall plot of the trilogy was written prior to the first game being released. You don't just start writing into a trilogy without any idea of where it's going.

Again, the fact that the Keepers are not even acknowledged on Citadel and that nobody has investigated it for thousands of years also stands as a "plot hole" from the first game if you're an idiot and think that those points weren't made blatently obvious as foreshadowing.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 04 mars 2010 - 08:44 .

[Xandurpein]

It is simply an exercise in frustration to find "holes" in the story in any game you choose, if you do not separate things that are simply part of the game mechanics from the actual story.

Any computer PRG you can mention have a number of illogical features that are just there, because it's a fun game mechanic. Some of them are so integrated in the whole RPG concept, that we never really question them. Let me give you a few examples:
- No one is ever seen carrying huge backpacks with tons of armor found during ME1.
- No one questions when Cerberus can spend billions of credits to revive Shepard and build Normandy 2, they can't give Shepard decent funding so he doesn't need to spend time stealing loot. There is even a scene in the Archangel quest where paragon Shepard stops a gang of looters, when he is the worst looter of them all.
- No one questions the fact that a 600 year old Asari Justicar isn't already level 30 decades ago, when she meets Shepard.
- No one seems bothered by tha fact that regardless of how difficult a mission is, Shepard never takes more than 2 companions in the Shuttle (except for the suicide mission), when clearly bring the whole group would give much better chance of quick success in many battles.

I could add to the list, but the point is that it's part of the game logic, not the story. Looting wall safes/treasure chests/whatever is fun, so they make it part of the game logic, even if it makes no real sense viewed purely from the story.

Ammo/Thermal clips is an established part of the shooter genre, but not the RPG genre, so at first it stands out like a sore thumb to an RPG purist I suppose, but it's not any strager than some of the established RPG norms. Mass Effect was always meant to incorporate the combat mechanics of a shooter, so it's perfectly ok, in my mind, to use established parts of the genre's logic, and then not explain it satisfactorily in the story. It's game logic, not story logic.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 04 mars 2010 - 08:54 .

[Terraneaux]

Xandurpein wrote...
Let me give you a few examples:
- No one is ever seen carrying huge backpacks with tons of armor found during ME1.
- No one questions when Cerberus can spend billions of credits to revive Shepard and build Normandy 2, they can't give Shepard decent funding so he doesn't need to spend time stealing loot. There is even a scene in the Archangel quest where paragon Shepard stops a gang of looters, when he is the worst looter of them all.
- No one questions the fact that a 600 year old Asari Justicar isn't already level 30 decades ago, when she meets Shepard.

I agree.  These are all artifacts of gameplay, not plot holes.  I care about the actual holes in the plot.  

[Terraneaux]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...


You assume the council is first, truthful with you and second, that they can't change their mind later. Two very large assumptions.

The reason that I think the idea you presented is wrong is because there's no opportunity to say something like 'But what happened to you being grateful for saving me from the ReaperS, plural.  Was that all BS?'  And then the Turian councilor just gives you this look.  And then you go 'Oh, right, you guys are dicks.  I forgot.  Sorry.'

Instead, it isn't even mentioned, like the writing team didn't want it to have happened.  That's a plot hole, as it's implausible that they would either change their mind or forget and Shepard wouldn't call them on it.  

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terraneaux wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...


You assume the council is first, truthful with you and second, that they can't change their mind later. Two very large assumptions.

The reason that I think the idea you presented is wrong is because there's no opportunity to say something like 'But what happened to you being grateful for saving me from the ReaperS, plural.  Was that all BS?'  And then the Turian councilor just gives you this look.  And then you go 'Oh, right, you guys are dicks.  I forgot.  Sorry.'

Instead, it isn't even mentioned, like the writing team didn't want it to have happened.  That's a plot hole, as it's implausible that they would either change their mind or forget and Shepard wouldn't call them on it.  

You don't think Shepard was tired of calling them on it 20 seperate times in the first game?

Regardless, it's not a plot hole. A plot hole cannot be explained by any logical means. Plot holes are completely objective... there's either context there or there is not. I provided several explanations which properly explain their actions, which makes it not a plot hole, but rather a greivance of yours against the way the story is being told. Thermal Clips dropping on Jacob's mission is a plot hole. The Council being rude or dismissive has several dfiferent explanations and is a major plot point untold until the third game so up to this point it's at best perfectly indicative of their past relations with Shepard or at worst simply hasn't been revealed to us yet as we are still only 2/3 of the way through the story.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 04 mars 2010 - 09:03 .

[Terraneaux]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

You don't think Shepard was tired of calling them on it 20 seperate times in the first game?

No.  He finally got through to them and then they backpedal?  This is new levels of fail, even for them.  

Call it what you want, plot holes, bad writing, poor characterization.  It was a screwup.  

[Massadonious1]

The remains of Sovereign are gone, Vigil on Illos is busted.



It might as well of been the Flying Spaghetti Monster as far as people like the Council are concerned.

[XWAU_Forceflow]

Terraneaux wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...


No it doesn't because it is completely consistent with how the council behaved towards you in the first game

Not quite.  The council changed their opinion about the situation at the end of the first game.  They've seen a Reaper, and they admit that there are more out there, and they thank you for saving them.  Then in ME2 it's 'Ah, yes, 'reapers''  What happened in those two years?  Oh yeah, the writing team changed.  

The essential point here is:

Nothing happened! For two years! I am sure the council did some stuff
right after ME1, but they found nothing beyond the few remaining evidence. And
all that was only proof of one reaper attacking, and that one
reaper was destroyed. Then nothing happens for two years and you show up
magically from the dead working with a known terrorist organization.

I find it very plausible that they dismiss your case. You don't have any
evidence that the reapers pose an actual danger now. They (like any
'good' politicians) do not care if the reapers might pose a threat in 50 or a
100 years. This is not how politics works, is it a threat right now? Then
we can talk about it. Will it be a problem that will only affect the next
council? Then let’s ignore it and make our voters happy…

Modifié par XWAU_Forceflow, 04 mars 2010 - 09:12 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terraneaux wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

You don't think Shepard was tired of calling them on it 20 seperate times in the first game?

No.  He finally got through to them and then they backpedal?  This is new levels of fail, even for them.  

Call it what you want, plot holes, bad writing, poor characterization.  It was a screwup.  

Only to you based on your preconcieved perceptions as to how you thought the council should have behaved. To many others on this board it's perfectly acceptable and expected.

Plot hole =/= bad writing. Plot holes can accompany bad writing, but they are not analogous with one another.