What plot-holes? (ME3 spoilers)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

Why use the crucible when it's just going to destroy all the mass relays and therefore destroy any and all planets near it, meaning you might as well just try and defeat the reapears yourself?

Why isn't Shepard talking to the catalyst more? Because you would think if the fate of the galaxy was in your hands you'd have some questions.

And why is Joker and the squad on the Normandy, leaving you on Earth when they've stood by you through everything else and aren't cowards? Especially since you have died before so think they might want to check your vital signs first?

Not to mention it's so vague as to the "cycle" going on that it doesn't make sense. Who created the reapers and why? To fix order vs. chaos? Well if synthesis was the way to fix that then why didn't the original creator of the reapers (who may or may not have been the creator of the catalyst though if they aren't how come the catalyst can control the reapers?) work to achieve synthesis instead of making the reapers? How come the crucible works with the citadel/catalyst? Supposedly the crucible has been worked on by many different cycles of species fighting the reapers so how did they so conviently make it to work with the one thing in the galaxy that would stop the reapers?

I mean if you sat down with the writers and got to discuss this, I think you could probably make them trip over their words as they tried to explain it to you.

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

Here, these should help you out:

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_A7SeawU4

(Captcha: "infra dig")

EDIT: Here're a couple of articles specifically about how the ME3 ending fails by literary and artistic standards. Because you know how loads of people are suddenly going "BUT IT'S ART!"? It's bad art. (My favorite quote from the first one: "The inability to convey intent is the definition of failed art.")

http://calitreview.com/24673

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

Ugh another bloody ME3 thread... at least put the title of the game in the thread so I know to ignore it. Not all of us stayed up for 3 days to finish it, some of us have uni deadlines...

Fucking hell people, spoiler tags!

usmarine4160:
What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

That is just a lack of an ending with any character resolution. This game ends with the falling action of the story, it never actually has an ending. The closest to an ending you get is the grandfather scene which is craptastic. Plot holes more akin to something that invalidates part of the story. Like how your crew is magically on the Normandy and it makes no sense as to how that is even possible. Or how the end decision is based on the idea that "organics and sythetics" can't co-exist despite the fact that the Geth are walking proof of this being wrong. (I tell you the sky is blue, then ask you if the sky is orange, yellow, or red? You can't pick blue) Pretty much the entire sequence where you meet Anderson on the Citadel. They are all over that part. The wound, Anderson already being there (an unnecessary plot device), etc.

Overall, even if indoctrination theory is true, which I find a pretty awesome twist, the presentation of the writing specifically towards the end is very poor. Your audience should NEVER be asking "what the hell is going on" but rather "which of these events are true". That is why Inception is good writing. Anytime a writer makes the audience lose grasp of the situation, you go back and fill it in and make sure it makes sense later by explaining what they need to know to understand that scene. Mass Effect 3 doesn't do that. It just throws a bunch of shit at you that doesn't make sense and then says "The End, figure it out."

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

Oh where to start...

1) The Normandy's apparent escape relies on the cast acting out of character, which is a rather definitive example of a plot hole.
1a) On a similar note - given that there may very well be Geth ships fighting the reapers and dying to protect organics, and especially considering the fact that the Geth/Quarian plotline revolved in no small part around the former's unwillingness to fight the Quarians - it seems very out of character for Shepherd not to point that out (or even have the option to) when the catalyst gets on its soapbox about how synthetics and organics always destroy each other.

2) There are numerous reports of the crew exiting the Normandy including those party members you took with you for the final mission, making their presence on the ship a logical impossibility given all available data.

3) It's been priorly established that destroying a Mass Relay results in at least the same level of destruction as a supernova, meaning that by the lore we're aware of, the ending should have resulted in basically a class X-3 apocalypse (basically all life in the Galaxy is destroyed), and that occurs in every ending variant, though most of those endings imply this doesn't happen. Thus it's a plot hole. Various fans have suggested "it's a different kind of explosion", but even if this is assumed to be true, the plothole remains due to how no existing canon even alluded to such a possibility.

For further reading, I'd reccomend this

usmarine4160:
What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this just "not addressed" as opposed to a "plot hole"? Because a plot hole means an actual error.

I think a lot of the things people complain are really just dangling plot threads or things left open. And sure, some of the things already mentioned you could say are legitimately outside the scope of the ending. Others are pretty irritating though.

Asita:

Oh where to start...
*Snip*

Asita is quite right. The Normandy's final flight and who appears after the crash is baffling. You can explain it away, but having to do so in the first place pretty much pegs it as a plot hole anyway.

Assuming this isn't all a stealth indoctrination theory thread.

There are no plot holes if you accept that the whole final sequence is a hallucination / indoctrination sequence. They lack substance and many found them disappointing and unsatisfying, but all of the endings do actually stand up. I still think all of them are a lot clearer and easier to understand than the endings of, say, Chrono Cross or Final Fantasy 8. Mindfuck endings can be great; it's just that most people felt this wasn't the right place for one.

ms_sunlight:
There are no plot holes if you accept that the whole final sequence is a hallucination / indoctrination sequence. They lack substance and many found them disappointing and unsatisfying, but all of the endings do actually stand up. I still think all of them are a lot clearer and easier to understand than the endings of, say, Chrono Cross or Final Fantasy 8. Mindfuck endings can be great; it's just that most people felt this wasn't the right place for one.

Well to be perfectly fair, 'dream sequence' would also explain everything in the Room, Alone in the Dark (movie) Star Trek V, Big Rigs Racing...as dreams have no set rules and anything can happen in them, the claim kinda rings hollow. Yes, nothing contradicts the notion, but then again, nothing could.

Pearwood:
Ugh another bloody ME3 thread... at least put the title of the game in the thread so I know to ignore it. Not all of us stayed up for 3 days to finish it, some of us have uni deadlines...

Fucking hell people, spoiler tags!

hah! i started uni recently, hence why it took me two weeks to finish;D

usmarine4160:
What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

Those aren't really plot holes. Those are just unresolved questions.

A plot hole is an inconsistency with the established plot of the story. An example of a plot hole in ME3 is that in the end, we know that the Mass Relays are destroyed, but we learn in Arrival in ME2 that destroying a Mass Relay will annihilate an entire system. So there is a plot hole in the ending of Mass Effect 3 because either:

A: The ending of Mass Effect 3 results in the extinction of all advanced life in the Galaxy anyway due to the Mass Relays exploding

or

B: The way in which the Mass Relays blow up in ME3 is somehow different from in Arrival, in which case we are without crucial information to let us know this.

Mind you, B is pretty clearly the correct choice, but it still constitutes a plot hole in the story.

Screamarie:
Why use the crucible when it's just going to destroy all the mass relays and therefore destroy any and all planets near it, meaning you might as well just try and defeat the reapears yourself?

Why isn't Shepard talking to the catalyst more? Because you would think if the fate of the galaxy was in your hands you'd have some questions.

And why is Joker and the squad on the Normandy, leaving you on Earth when they've stood by you through everything else and aren't cowards? Especially since you have died before so think they might want to check your vital signs first?

Not to mention it's so vague as to the "cycle" going on that it doesn't make sense. Who created the reapers and why? To fix order vs. chaos? Well if synthesis was the way to fix that then why didn't the original creator of the reapers (who may or may not have been the creator of the catalyst though if they aren't how come the catalyst can control the reapers?) work to achieve synthesis instead of making the reapers? How come the crucible works with the citadel/catalyst? Supposedly the crucible has been worked on by many different cycles of species fighting the reapers so how did they so conviently make it to work with the one thing in the galaxy that would stop the reapers?

I mean if you sat down with the writers and got to discuss this, I think you could probably make them trip over their words as they tried to explain it to you.

All of this.

why did sovereign need to activate the citadel mass relay if the creator of the reapers controls the citadel and couldve done it

It would appear people have confused plot holes with unresolved questions

dreadedcandiru99:

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

Thank you for that. It was a really illuminating read. Personally I didn't really mind the ending. Probably comes from reading so much sci-fi that ends on a similar note that I can rationalize most problems with ME3 away, but this gave me some great insights. :)

captcha: have an inkling

Very astute.

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

my response to another thread.

- quarians supposed to live as long as humans (80-100 years)
- the quarians have been exiled from their homeworld around 300 years ago.
- tali has never seen her homeworld nor felt the sun on her skin. she always wore her suit.
image
and now find the things that contradict the lore! i dare you!

edit:
tali, smart as she is, just gave you on of these random stock photos that are always included in picture frames when you buy it.

the rest are more unresolved questions.

image

what i am asking myself is why do the reapers only 'cleanse' this galaxy ('milky way')
or do they pass by other galaxies and do their genocide there too?

and if so: you know The universe consists of an almost infinite amount of galaxies. so they might be bussy for an infinite amount of time plus they need almost 100 years to cleanse a galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy


in hd http://blog.recitdevoyage.fr/public/National_Geographic_-_The_Universe_Map.jpg

here is the scale in a interactive form:
http://htwins.net/scale2/

Elamdri:

usmarine4160:
What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

Those aren't really plot holes. Those are just unresolved questions.

A plot hole is an inconsistency with the established plot of the story. An example of a plot hole in ME3 is that in the end, we know that the Mass Relays are destroyed, but we learn in Arrival in ME2 that destroying a Mass Relay will annihilate an entire system. So there is a plot hole in the ending of Mass Effect 3 because either:

A: The ending of Mass Effect 3 results in the extinction of all advanced life in the Galaxy anyway due to the Mass Relays exploding

or

B: The way in which the Mass Relays blow up in ME3 is somehow different from in Arrival, in which case we are without crucial information to let us know this.

Mind you, B is pretty clearly the correct choice, but it still constitutes a plot hole in the story.

Not a plot hole in my opinion. It is explained somewhat before you make the choice. The catalyst mentions that regardless of what you choose the relays expend and release more energy than they can recover from. This would create quite a different destruction than impacting an asteroid into one and disrupting and releasing the power contained within in an uncontrolled fashion. Think of it as the difference between exploding a brick of C4 in the middle of a room or exploding a shaped charge made from the same brick. One is uncontrolled and radiating force in all directions, the other directs the force in a very specific way to achieve exactly what you want. It is entirely probable that a mass relay exploding in a controlled fashion can create a specific result such as wiping out all the reapers and only reapers(assuming they are uniquely vulnerable to a specific type of radiation that no one else is) while blowing one up in an uncontrolled fashion would create a blast wave that wipes out everything.

ms_sunlight:
There are no plot holes if you accept that the whole final sequence is a hallucination / indoctrination sequence. They lack substance and many found them disappointing and unsatisfying, but all of the endings do actually stand up. I still think all of them are a lot clearer and easier to understand than the endings of, say, Chrono Cross or Final Fantasy 8. Mindfuck endings can be great; it's just that most people felt this wasn't the right place for one.

And if you accept that then you have to accept that there is no ending. Either universe destroying plot holes or Bioware didn't finish the game and will sell the ending as DLC.

Ken Sapp:

Elamdri:

usmarine4160:
What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

Those aren't really plot holes. Those are just unresolved questions.

A plot hole is an inconsistency with the established plot of the story. An example of a plot hole in ME3 is that in the end, we know that the Mass Relays are destroyed, but we learn in Arrival in ME2 that destroying a Mass Relay will annihilate an entire system. So there is a plot hole in the ending of Mass Effect 3 because either:

A: The ending of Mass Effect 3 results in the extinction of all advanced life in the Galaxy anyway due to the Mass Relays exploding

or

B: The way in which the Mass Relays blow up in ME3 is somehow different from in Arrival, in which case we are without crucial information to let us know this.

Mind you, B is pretty clearly the correct choice, but it still constitutes a plot hole in the story.

Not a plot hole in my opinion. It is explained somewhat before you make the choice. The catalyst mentions that regardless of what you choose the relays expend and release more energy than they can recover from. This would create quite a different destruction than impacting an asteroid into one and disrupting and releasing the power contained within in an uncontrolled fashion. Think of it as the difference between exploding a brick of C4 in the middle of a room or exploding a shaped charge made from the same brick. One is uncontrolled and radiating force in all directions, the other directs the force in a very specific way to achieve exactly what you want. It is entirely probable that a mass relay exploding in a controlled fashion can create a specific result such as wiping out all the reapers and only reapers(assuming they are uniquely vulnerable to a specific type of radiation that no one else is) while blowing one up in an uncontrolled fashion would create a blast wave that wipes out everything.

I agree with you to the extent that what you described is clearly what is happening, but I don't believe Star Child ever tells you that, he just says that regardless the Mass Relays will be destroyed. It's clear from the story that the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is not the same as the destruction of the Mass Relay in Arrival, but what's not clear is why that is the case.

Seeing the Normandy all wrecked in pieces on the ground indicates a very violent impact... somehow Joker walks out? :-/

I remember him talking in Purgatory about some light over the clothes action would break bones, but coming in at orbital velocity (slowing down due to friction with atmosphere) is nothing :)

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

Three biggest plot holes that I saw:

1) Normandy is in an entirely different solar system. This is a plot hole because...

There is no explanation why Joker and the Normandy were leaving the system. There is no logical reason why the Normandy would leave the battle, and yet it does.

2) Crew members who were on Earth with you, and who you said goodbye to (particularly EDI) are seen departing the crashed Normandy on the new planet. This is a plot hole because...

There is no explanation how they were picked up and taken to the Normandy, nor why they were taken. In one case, I saw Garrus in the cut scene... and Garrus was technically running toward the beam to get up to the Citadel with me.

3) The destruction of the Mass Relay's. This is a plot hole because...

It is determined in a DLC adventure that destroying a Mass Relay can destroy most life in that particular solar system. Shepherd knows this from first hand experience, and would know that they were potentially dooming most of the beings they were fighting to save... including every being in the Sol system. Which is most of, if not all of, the fleets of the other species.

One minor plot hole:

1m) In the "Destroy" ending, a body wearing N7 armour is seen in a pile of concrete rubble. For a moment, it takes a breath. This is a plot hole because...

It is implied that this is Shepherd. Assuming that this is correct (as far as I know, there are only two named N7 soldiers in the Mass Effect universe - Shepherd and Anderson. When Legion is found in ME2 with a piece of N7 armour attached to itself, it is immediately believed to be Shepherds, and it is.) there is no explanation why the Citadel is made up of cement and rebar, or if Shepherd is back on Earth, how Shepherd got back to earth.

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

I'll give you my favorite.

Liara joins my Shepard in the final charge. Boom. Guy comes over the radio, says that everyone died. I cry a little cause I got Liara killed.

I go on with the ending. Shiny lights.

Joker is... flying somewhere in FTL (note - that is not a Relay Jump, it is FTL drive). Why? I don't know. A shockwave from the Exploding relay hits the Normandy and... something happens?

And then the Normandy crashes on a planet. What planet? How did the Normandy get from the Sol system to wherever that was? Why was Joker flying there?

And then Liara, who died in London, steps out of the Normandy.

So Liara not only comes back from the dead, she teleports to the Normandy while it's in FTL flight.

Note: I didn't mind the ending overall. The choices/starchild stuff was fine with me. It was this scene that made me go "WTF?!" How did Liara come back from the dead and why is she on the Normandy?

Ken Sapp:

Elamdri:

usmarine4160:
What happened to the Quarians on Rannoch? Asari on Thessia? Krogan on Tuchanka? Salarians on Sur'Kesh (or wherever the hell they're from)?

Those aren't really plot holes. Those are just unresolved questions.

A plot hole is an inconsistency with the established plot of the story. An example of a plot hole in ME3 is that in the end, we know that the Mass Relays are destroyed, but we learn in Arrival in ME2 that destroying a Mass Relay will annihilate an entire system. So there is a plot hole in the ending of Mass Effect 3 because either:

A: The ending of Mass Effect 3 results in the extinction of all advanced life in the Galaxy anyway due to the Mass Relays exploding

or

B: The way in which the Mass Relays blow up in ME3 is somehow different from in Arrival, in which case we are without crucial information to let us know this.

Mind you, B is pretty clearly the correct choice, but it still constitutes a plot hole in the story.

Not a plot hole in my opinion. It is explained somewhat before you make the choice. The catalyst mentions that regardless of what you choose the relays expend and release more energy than they can recover from. This would create quite a different destruction than impacting an asteroid into one and disrupting and releasing the power contained within in an uncontrolled fashion. Think of it as the difference between exploding a brick of C4 in the middle of a room or exploding a shaped charge made from the same brick. One is uncontrolled and radiating force in all directions, the other directs the force in a very specific way to achieve exactly what you want. It is entirely probable that a mass relay exploding in a controlled fashion can create a specific result such as wiping out all the reapers and only reapers(assuming they are uniquely vulnerable to a specific type of radiation that no one else is) while blowing one up in an uncontrolled fashion would create a blast wave that wipes out everything.

How about your supposedly dead squad mates from Earth who are seen getting off the crashed Normandy completely unscathed? That seems like a pretty gaping plot hole to me.

Elamdri:
A plot hole is an inconsistency with the established plot of the story. An example of a plot hole in ME3 is that in the end, we know that the Mass Relays are destroyed, but we learn in Arrival in ME2 that destroying a Mass Relay will annihilate an entire system.

Smashing an asteroid into an active relay will cause it to explode like a supernova.

However, in the end of ME3, the Relays don't so much explode as they do just sort of break apart. I think the "super nova energy" is being released to transmit the signal across space.

Basically, rather than exploding in fire and destruction, they transmit all of their energy to fulfill your choice and then crumble when no longer powered.

That part didn't bother me.

The super teleporting, self-resurrecting Liara (or Garrus for some people) bothered me much more.

The fact that it's possible in the game to peacefully end a bloody war between an organic 'creator' race, and the synthetics that they had created. You can make peace, save millions of lives, get both sides to work together and prove to the entire Galaxy that so long as people don't just assume that organics and synthetics have to be enemies, peaceful co-existence really can be achieved.

Then at the end a super-advanced artificial intelligence chooses to ignore all of that evidence and just tell you flat out 'Nope. Organics and Synthetics will always make war, so I save Organics by putting them all in a blender and pumping the smoothie that remains into a machine. That's just the way things have to be so deal with it mother-fucker.'

...and at no point are you allowed to use your own perfectly valid evidence to show him just how wrong he is.

Screamarie:

Why isn't Shepard talking to the catalyst more? Because you would think if the fate of the galaxy was in your hands you'd have some questions.

For this one...Shepard was practically bleeding out right there on the spot. Any longer and s/he probably would have died right there.

Oh, and don't forget the Super Secret 4th Ending:

http://badspot.us/img/Mass-Effect-3-Secret-4th-Ending.html

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

You destroyed a Mass Relay at the end of Arrival and that destroyed an entire star system.
At the end of Mass Effect 3 you destroy all the Mass Relays
That would destroy all the star systems with a Mass Relay in them. All the major races' home-worlds are in systems with Mass Relays in them.

That's a pretty gaping plot hole.

I'm sure there are other ones too.

rhizhim:
**snip**

To the Tali picture - yes, it sucks, but I assumed that was the inside of a Live-Ship. You know, where they have entire eco-systems so they can grow food? The picture is vague enough for it.

To the Yo Dawg picture - the Reaper plan makes perfect sense - in Bizzaro AI Logic. Remember, the Catalyst says that the civilizations are preserved. Harbinger in ME2 says it too - "We are your salvation."

See, the Reapers/Catalyst think that being melted down and turned into a Reaper is a form of immortality. They think it's a GOOD thing - a happy thing, that organics should be thrilled about. They're giving organics a gift - immortality.

So of course this is a good solution. It's just sad that the organics don't understand how awesome being a Reaper is.

Ahem.

So yeah, that's why the Catalyst (and Harbinger) are so annoyed with Shepard. As far as they're considered, being melted into Reapers is awesome, and we should stop trying to kill the Reapers and get onboard with it. And if we won't, well, we can suck it.

Bara_no_Hime:

Smashing an asteroid into an active relay will cause it to explode like a supernova.

However, in the end of ME3, the Relays don't so much explode as they do just sort of break apart. I think the "super nova energy" is being released to transmit the signal across space.

Basically, rather than exploding in fire and destruction, they transmit all of their energy to fulfill your choice and then crumble when no longer powered.

That would make sense if the resulting explosion wasnt then visible from outside the galaxy. and then it implies that Joker, aside from being completely out of character, is running from the energy beam for no reason.

Edit: That would also imply he was in a Mass relay jump and not FTL.

The Starchild is one massive plot hole. He was in the Citadel the whole time? Bullshit! It completely disregards the whole ME1 plot! Why didn't the stupid star brat activate the Citadel relay and summon the reapers himself? Why did they need Sovereign? There is also no foreshadowing whatsoever. How does he know about the child who died in Vancouver? His Reaper "solution" makes no fucking sense.

Stupid space magic. How does it work? Why does he need Shepard anyway? How does jumping in the beam fuse all organic and synthetic DNA (wait, synthetics have DNA?)? Why is controlling the Reapers suddenly possible when TIM just killed himself because he realized it wasn't? The Synthetics will always rebel against their creators? Bullshit! Ever heard of Geth? They only wanted to live. The only Synthetics that want to kill Organics are the fucking Reapers!

Destruction of a Relay would basically destroy the whole star system. Relay explosions don't start in the Local cluster but in the Viper Nebula which is the ONLY one we know that doesn't actually have a Mass Relay (not anymore). The combined galaxy fleet is now stranded in the local cluster and they will all die. Normandy scene... 'nuff said.
Etc. I could go on all night.

usmarine4160:
Seeing the Normandy all wrecked in pieces on the ground indicates a very violent impact... somehow Joker walks out? :-/

I remember him talking in Purgatory about some light over the clothes action would break bones, but coming in at orbital velocity (slowing down due to friction with atmosphere) is nothing :)

I ignore Joker's Vrolik Syndrome. I mean, he cracks his fucking knuckles when you enter Rannoch's system. In ME2, at the end he's firing a rifle with no trouble, even though the recoil should be shattering pretty much every bone from his fingers to his collarbone.

itchcrotch:
No really, I'm asking. Going back and experiencing the ending again is just not something I want to do (I mean, as much as I hated the ending of ME3 like everyone else, I did marvel at the opportunity to uninstall origin now that I didn't have any intention of ever touching again the one game that needs it)
So somebody tell me, what are these "plot holes" people have been talking about?

1) Last saw Liara fighting on the ground next to me. In cutscene, she's on the Normandy.
2) Last saw the Normandy fighting the Reapers, along with every other ship. In the cutscene, Normandy's in FTL. Keep in mind, nobody knew what the Crucible was going to do, and Joker had absolutely zero idea the Mass Relays would explode. Shepard did not communicate with Joker or vice versa before making the choice.
3) There wasn't an explanation given for why the Godchild took the child's form. Yes, the child haunted Shepard, but it was never explained how the information was transferred.
4) Mass Relay explosions kill star systems. Every Mass Relay in the galaxy exploded. Every star system that has one (including Sol) is destroyed.
5) If Sol was destroyed from the Mass Relay explosion, that means the Victory Fleet was destroyed as well. Shepard just set into motion the largest massacre in Council history. If you brought the Quarians with you, you destroyed about 90% of them.
6) The Godchild refuses to acknowledge the existence of any treaty you form between the Quarians and Geth. The explicit purpose of the Reapers is to harvest advanced life in the galaxy so that they could continue living in the form of Reapers so as to prevent inevitable wars between synthetics and organics. You just patched up a several-hundred-year-old war between a synthetic race and its organic creators to fight the machines meant to prevent the wars from happening. Keep in mind that the Reapers cull species as long as they've achieved space flight, not on whether or not synthetic species exist. The Protheans - as far as I know - didn't create a single synthetic organism. They were culled anyways.
7) Culling every 50,000 years is stupid and inefficient for their designed purpose. An easier thing to do would be to set a Reaper next to key Relays. As soon as a species starts discovering relays, cull them while they can't possibly fight back.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked