Biggest plot holes in games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Maybe it's not necessarily a plot hole, but I am led to believe that the romances in Dragon's Dogma take place apart from the main game.

EHKOS:
snip

Perhaps, but I think that the experiments were not made aware to the government since they were a private company.
Also to be nit-picky the terminals and Pip-boy are made by Robco and not Vault-Tec! >.<
I like the Fallout lore and while 3 was a good reboot it made many plot holes and took the lore and screwed it all up.

wolf thing:
halo 4, how did chief and cortana know who the didact was? this with the bad plot and writting in the game is what made its story total shite, it makes no sense, chief was in crystaisis for years and we had never met a forerunner before and it doesnt help that no one in the story asks any question of anykind about the forerunners. just a terrible story.

I did question this at first, on my second play through I noticed how they knew his name.

When The Didact comes out of his Cryptum, all of The Covenenant reverently say "Didact" while bowing down.

I'm not making excuses for poor story telling here, but reading the books gives much more insight into the Didact's motives.

Devoneaux:
Why is Shepard's quarters in the central command area? Why is the central command area located on a high rise building in the first place? Where is this elevator? When is it ever alluded to?

Shepard is there because she's on lock down pending a court marshal before the admiralty board.

As to why is it in a high rise building? Why not? I suspect that entire building is the Alliance Central Command. Common Sci-Fi Future Earth logic is that all building end up being skyscrapers or arcologies so it doesn't surprise me for the Military to have a huge 100 story complex rather than a spread out fenced off area.

And a question back When is what eluded to?

As for the kid? Hate to tell you but you're simply not correct here.

If I am, I am. It's not a huge concern to me either way. I'm just trying to help clarify.

It's a completely different building. Shepard up to meeting this kid is on the roof of the building he started on, in fact he never actually leaves the building he started on until the explosion sends him tumbling down the side.

I'll take your word for that because its been a while since I played the opening while sober. I seem to recall a bunch of jumping to other buildings, especially when you first fight the husks which is where you fire meet the kid, but I may be mistaken.

(With no injuries, naturally)

Action series logic, no problems for me there. Though it should be noted that Shepard's uniform is a bit blood covered by the ending of the Earth sequence.

You can say it's possible that he somehow ended up on the side of the building closer to the kid, but then I can say it's equally possible that he ended up on the exact opposite side of the kid. Stories don't stand on "What could have happened" they stand on "What did and did not happen" A story does not stand on conjecture to cover up unanswered questions, inconsistencies ect.

Your right, but stories don't stand to nitpicks and do require a certain level of "go with it" before it could be considered bad. Example: Dark Knight Rises: Batman shows up on the same ice at the same time as Commisioner Gordan and company are being forced to walk it. How'd he know they were there, how'd he get on the ice unseen in 300lbs of body armor with breaking it?

Just go with it, it doesn't destroy the flow it only pushes forward the narrative.

Or to go back to the kid in the vents. The story goes "he ended up in the building where the kid was hiding" You can't say "Well I think he ended up on another building, because the story shows us that's not true.

EDIT: Oh and I wanted to say no matter how we leave this, I truly enjoyed talking about this with you. As a regular on the BSN It's hard to talk about anything in Mass Effect 3 without a half dozen points going "Space Magic" or "Artistic Integrity" or "rEApers did it" or "Yaw Dawg" any other stupid meme that have taken over polite and interesting discussions there.

DeimosMasque:

Devoneaux:
Why is Shepard's quarters in the central command area? Why is the central command area located on a high rise building in the first place? Where is this elevator? When is it ever alluded to?

Shepard is there because she's on lock down pending a court marshal before the admiralty board.

As to why is it in a high rise building? Why not? I suspect that entire building is the Alliance Central Command. Common Sci-Fi Future Earth logic is that all building end up being skyscrapers or arcologies so it doesn't surprise me for the Military to have a huge 100 story complex rather than a spread out fenced off area.

And a question back When is what eluded to?

As for the kid? Hate to tell you but you're simply not correct here.

If I am, I am. It's not a huge concern to me either way. I'm just trying to help clarify.

It's a completely different building. Shepard up to meeting this kid is on the roof of the building he started on, in fact he never actually leaves the building he started on until the explosion sends him tumbling down the side.

I'll take your word for that because its been a while since I played the opening while sober. I seem to recall a bunch of jumping to other buildings, especially when you first fight the husks which is where you fire meet the kid, but I may be mistaken.

(With no injuries, naturally)

Action series logic, no problems for me there. Though it should be noted that Shepard's uniform is a bit blood covered by the ending of the Earth sequence.

You can say it's possible that he somehow ended up on the side of the building closer to the kid, but then I can say it's equally possible that he ended up on the exact opposite side of the kid. Stories don't stand on "What could have happened" they stand on "What did and did not happen" A story does not stand on conjecture to cover up unanswered questions, inconsistencies ect.

Your right, but stories don't stand to nitpicks and do require a certain level of "go with it" before it could be considered bad. Example: Dark Knight Rises: Batman shows up on the same ice at the same time as Commisioner Gordan and company are being forced to walk it. How'd he know they were there, how'd he get on the ice unseen in 300lbs of body armor with breaking it?

Just go with it, it doesn't destroy the flow it only pushes forward the narrative.

Or to go back to the kid in the vents. The story goes "he ended up in the building where the kid was hiding" You can't say "Well I think he ended up on another building, because the story shows us that's not true.

EDIT: Oh and I wanted to say no matter how we leave this, I truly enjoyed talking about this with you. As a regular on the BSN It's hard to talk about anything in Mass Effect 3 without a half dozen points going "Space Magic" or "Artistic Integrity" or "rEApers did it" or "Yaw Dawg" any other stupid meme that have taken over polite and interesting discussions there.

Now I could be wrong here but now that I think of it, isn't Alliance central command located on Arcturus Station? And not Earth? Meh whatever...to be perfectly honest, my problems are less with the complaints I made and more that the fixes are so simple and obvious that had anyone paid attention they could have been fixed. And credit where it's due, after the mars mission things do mostly start to level out. But regardless I have been also enjoying the conversation; despite it's failings, ME3 does serve as a good jumping off point for discussing story telling as a whole (which is a topic I really enjoy.) As for the BSN? I recommend showing them the Smudboy videos. Or is that like garlic to vampires for them?

Prototype: The game where we kill innocents for fun, kill a few more for health, allowing us to fight the bad guys who may be threatening to harm innocents.

Devoneaux:
I recommend showing them the Smudboy videos. Or is that like garlic to vampires for them?

Lets put it this way. Smudboy was banned from BSN for being a right bastard to anyone who disagreed with anything he said.

DeimosMasque:

Devoneaux:
I recommend showing them the Smudboy videos. Or is that like garlic to vampires for them?

Lets put it this way. Smudboy was banned from BSN for being a right bastard to anyone who disagreed with anything he said.

Wow that sounds like it must have been an unpleasant series of events. So I get the feeling that BSN is comprised almost entirely of haters or biased fanboys.

Devoneaux:

DeimosMasque:

Devoneaux:
I recommend showing them the Smudboy videos. Or is that like garlic to vampires for them?

Lets put it this way. Smudboy was banned from BSN for being a right bastard to anyone who disagreed with anything he said.

Wow that sounds like it must have been an unpleasant series of events. So I get the feeling that BSN is comprised almost entirely of haters or biased fanboys.

Eh I prefer Archenegia, I don't hate Smudboy and he makes good points but alot of his complaints seem to stem from problem with the plot as opposed to the Kinaesthetics (ie the feel, the primary focus of an interactive median). However his videos do provide me, a young writer, a list of dos and don'ts.

The end of Half-life 2. The Vortigaunts show up and Deus ex machina Gordon and Alyx by teleporting them away from the explosion. Ok lets assume they have this power. Why do I spend all my time traveling from one place to the next when I have a enslaved race of aliens who worship me as their savior, available to transport me anywhere in the world?

invadergir:
The end of Half-life 2. The Vortigaunts show up and Deus ex machina Gordon and Alyx by teleporting them away from the explosion. Ok lets assume they have this power. Why do I spend all my time traveling from one place to the next when I have a enslaved race of aliens who worship me as their savior, available to transport me anywhere in the world?

That... is a good question. Especially since Alyx almost gets killed because of on foot travel and she has some really important info on her memory stick.

Now for my contribution. During the events of Portal the run around in the Aperture Science facilities, we see them as average size with GLaDOS controlling the tests to an extent and the facilities themselves seem to be pretty normal too and at the end we see GLaDOS on the ground, outside of the Aperture Science facilities.

In Portal 2, we find her whole inside the now giant Aperture Science facilities where she has full super duper control over the geometry of the whole facility, rebuilding entire testing areas with both speed and resources never hinted about in the old Portal.

I gotta say, you have to love Valve's storytelling techniques, but the story itself might not be of Faberge quality.

The Headcrab Farmer:

invadergir:
The end of Half-life 2. The Vortigaunts show up and Deus ex machina Gordon and Alyx by teleporting them away from the explosion. Ok lets assume they have this power. Why do I spend all my time traveling from one place to the next when I have a enslaved race of aliens who worship me as their savior, available to transport me anywhere in the world?

That... is a good question. Especially since Alyx almost gets killed because of on foot travel and she has some really important info on her memory stick.

Now for my contribution. During the events of Portal the run around in the Aperture Science facilities, we see them as average size with GLaDOS controlling the tests to an extent and the facilities themselves seem to be pretty normal too and at the end we see GLaDOS on the ground, outside of the Aperture Science facilities.

In Portal 2, we find her whole inside the now giant Aperture Science facilities where she has full super duper control over the geometry of the whole facility, rebuilding entire testing areas with both speed and resources never hinted about in the old Portal.

I gotta say, you have to love Valve's storytelling techniques, but the story itself might not be of Faberge quality.

Its rather apparent that the man in black and the vorts are kinda working for cross purposes aside from the fact they both view Gordon Freeman as valuable. So maybe he is blocking their ability to do that.

Assassin's Creed 3

Why doesn't Desmond just go through Haythem's memories? Instead of spending 15 hours of going "WHERE IS CHARLES LEE" and not learning anything, you could have gained all the information needed by just going through Haythem's memories. Not to mention direct access to Templar secrets and what not.

EDIT: You know what? Another thing.

They always bring up how you "have" to go through the memories the animus dictates.
Why do Haythem's memories only consist of about one or two missions? Not to mention we skip the entirety of his training, unlike every other person. Except Altair I guess, but that is explained by Clay already unlocking some of Altair's memories.

EDIT: Nevermind again. Clay was an ancestor of Ezio, not Altair.

Plotholes abound, I guess.

DeimosMasque:

ecoho:

the reason kaiden folows shepard's comands when he clearly higher rank is because they are in different command structures. A comander in the navy is the equvilent of a major in any other service, just like a captain in the navy is the equivilent of a colonol.

That'd be nice but by the lore of the setting it isn't true. The Alliance only uses one command structure:

But it may have been what the writers were thinking when they put it all together

I always figured it was due to Shepard's Spectre seniority. Kaiden may be the higher rank in the Human military, but Shepard was a higher Spectre rank, and as Spectre rank trumps Alliance rank, Shepard was in command.

Rawne1980:
Dragon Age 2.

All the way through it you get drummed with "Mages are good .... Templars are bad".

Yet all the way through it the Templars are helpful and polite and the Mages are trying to eat my face.....

Kind of hard to follow a plot and take it seriously when it doesn't know what the fuck it's doing itself. In fact, the Templars don't turn "bad" until the very end and even then it's only 1 person .... who turns bad because of a corrupt sword .... made from metal Hawke found.

WHO WRITES THIS SHIT.

The problem is that you interpret each group as good or bad, the mages are an oppressed minority, which you would naturally feel sympathy for, while the Templars are an authoritarian military arm of a church, which you would naturally not like very much, however each group has it's good and bad, the mages are mostly down to earth people who don't want trouble, then there are the Blood Mages who take control of peoples' minds and consort with demons. Then you have the Templars, the majority of whom are zealous oppressors of those born differently, then there are the ones who feel sorry for the mages and try to help them escape the Circle.

And yeah Meredith did go all crazy, but then there's Orsino, who opposes the Templars, and while you're first thought may be "And rightfully so" but you might forget that half the mages you encounter are dangerous Blood Mages who try to kill you, Orsino also seems to forget this, and that the Circle does have a practical purpose, although it's been taken too far.

I think it is wonderfully well written, neither side is correct because they demand the extreme, the major failing of the game in my mind is that they exclude any grey area, both in the story and the character interactions, you're forced to either side totally with the mages or Templars, and you're teammates are the exact same, if you helped an elderly mage across the street Fenris would flip his shit, and it you even smiled at a Templar Anders would do the same.

Jimmy T. Malice:

endtherapture:

snippety snip

Seconded. Also the fact that they were more blood mages, raiders, Templar Grunts, thieves and bandits in Kirkwall than actual citizens made hardly any sense.

Skyrim has the same problem. There are only about 200 NPCs in the towns, and you'll kill more bandits than that in a few hours dungeon-crawling.

I've said before, Tamriel is a giant inside out prison, self contained areas of civility surrounded by freely roaming criminals and magical beasts.

Legion:
Fallout 3 original ending is the worst one that I have ever encountered.

It was so they could sell you $15 DLC that fixed that. It has forever tainted my opinion of Bethesda, as that's the worst kind of DLC. Worse than horse armor. I shouldn't have to pay an extra $15 to fix the mistake of the developer.

deadman91:
Now this is a bit out but the fact that no one ever seemed to call attention to it pissed me off. In Modern Warfare 2, why is it that the Russian terrorists, perpetrating an act of terror in Russia (a region that really has supplied enough illegal weapons to maintain several wars since the fall of communism and immediately after a civil war which would have left even more arms floating around) buy their guns from a guy in Brazil? Seriously, why the fuck would you need to buy your guns from Brazil? I know it's just a deus ex machina so we'd have a level in the favellas, but it grated me nonetheless.

As I said, what really pissed me off was the fact no one else seemed to give it the same thought. Everyone else was too busy griping about nukes in space, or were unable to comprehend why that general bloke betrays you.

More so than that, in MW3 how does Russia have enough military forces to invade America, which has the most superior military in the world, while simultaneously invading every capital city in Europe, after American Special Forces decimated their Navy, and still send an army after Soap, Yuri, and Captain Price?

LarenzoAOG:

deadman91:
Now this is a bit out but the fact that no one ever seemed to call attention to it pissed me off. In Modern Warfare 2, why is it that the Russian terrorists, perpetrating an act of terror in Russia (a region that really has supplied enough illegal weapons to maintain several wars since the fall of communism and immediately after a civil war which would have left even more arms floating around) buy their guns from a guy in Brazil? Seriously, why the fuck would you need to buy your guns from Brazil? I know it's just a deus ex machina so we'd have a level in the favellas, but it grated me nonetheless.

As I said, what really pissed me off was the fact no one else seemed to give it the same thought. Everyone else was too busy griping about nukes in space, or were unable to comprehend why that general bloke betrays you.

More so than that, in MW3 how does Russia have enough military forces to invade America, which has the most superior military in the world, while simultaneously invading every capital city in Europe, after American Special Forces decimated their Navy, and still send an army after Soap, Yuri, and Captain Price?

Now I've had this discussion before, and the conclusion that I came to is that a lot of people seriously underestimate Russia's ability to mobilize and field large armies. Hell, if you look at it historically for most of the Cold War Russia could field more divisions (who were better trained and drilled than are often given credit for - they learned their lessons the hard way in WW2) than the entire of NATO. Really the thing that kept them in check was the American superiority in nuclear weapons rather than American superiority in conventional weapons (and the fact that Russia always believed the US'd be willing to sacrifice Western Europe if it came to a nuclear exchange). Given that in the MW alt-universe Russia is coming out of a civil war (that seemed to include much of Eastern Europe and the Caucusus) and likely already had a lot of men mobilized - not to mention don't need a navy to invade overland - and it's not an inconceivable notion. I think that's why they're so often still used as an enemy in video games, Russia can still be a viable, realistic threat.

deadman91:

LarenzoAOG:

deadman91:
Now this is a bit out but the fact that no one ever seemed to call attention to it pissed me off. In Modern Warfare 2, why is it that the Russian terrorists, perpetrating an act of terror in Russia (a region that really has supplied enough illegal weapons to maintain several wars since the fall of communism and immediately after a civil war which would have left even more arms floating around) buy their guns from a guy in Brazil? Seriously, why the fuck would you need to buy your guns from Brazil? I know it's just a deus ex machina so we'd have a level in the favellas, but it grated me nonetheless.

As I said, what really pissed me off was the fact no one else seemed to give it the same thought. Everyone else was too busy griping about nukes in space, or were unable to comprehend why that general bloke betrays you.

More so than that, in MW3 how does Russia have enough military forces to invade America, which has the most superior military in the world, while simultaneously invading every capital city in Europe, after American Special Forces decimated their Navy, and still send an army after Soap, Yuri, and Captain Price?

Now I've had this discussion before, and the conclusion that I came to is that a lot of people seriously underestimate Russia's ability to mobilize and field large armies. Hell, if you look at it historically for most of the Cold War Russia could field more divisions (who were better trained and drilled than are often given credit for - they learned their lessons the hard way in WW2) than the entire of NATO. Really the thing that kept them in check was the American superiority in nuclear weapons rather than American superiority in conventional weapons (and the fact that Russia always believed the US'd be willing to sacrifice Western Europe if it came to a nuclear exchange). Given that in the MW alt-universe Russia is coming out of a civil war (that seemed to include much of Eastern Europe and the Caucusus) and likely already had a lot of men mobilized - not to mention don't need a navy to invade overland - and it's not an inconceivable notion. I think that's why they're so often still used as an enemy in video games, Russia can still be a viable, realistic threat.

I tip my hat at your superior knowledge of Russian military strength.

Bad Jim:
Starcraft 2. Jim Raynor receives a prophesy from a protoss friend of his that Kerrigan, Queen of Blades and ruler of the Zerg, is vital to defeating the Xel'naga who will return to destroy everything.

Now you might think that her current form, in command of a million billion zerg, had a good chance of defending against the Xel'naga. But no, Jim decides to invade her homeworld and use a magic artifact on her, transforming her into her original form, a twenty something girl in command of roughly nothing. She's prettier, but looks aren't everything when there's a galactic apocalypse coming.

Well, to be fair

Some pretty nasty plot holes for the game was in the DS game "999".
But I won't even say because despise that, this game have a solid and enjoyable story to tell.
I really need to play the sequel..........but not a 3DS....

bloodrayne626:
Not so much a plot hole, but in FarCry3

what the hell happened to all the guards?

It just irked me a little. Not enough to be an "oh my god this game sucks because it missed a few details" moment (not like I have those, anyway), but still, what the hell?

LarenzoAOG:

deadman91:

LarenzoAOG:

More so than that, in MW3 how does Russia have enough military forces to invade America, which has the most superior military in the world, while simultaneously invading every capital city in Europe, after American Special Forces decimated their Navy, and still send an army after Soap, Yuri, and Captain Price?

Now I've had this discussion before, and the conclusion that I came to is that a lot of people seriously underestimate Russia's ability to mobilize and field large armies. Hell, if you look at it historically for most of the Cold War Russia could field more divisions (who were better trained and drilled than are often given credit for - they learned their lessons the hard way in WW2) than the entire of NATO. Really the thing that kept them in check was the American superiority in nuclear weapons rather than American superiority in conventional weapons (and the fact that Russia always believed the US'd be willing to sacrifice Western Europe if it came to a nuclear exchange). Given that in the MW alt-universe Russia is coming out of a civil war (that seemed to include much of Eastern Europe and the Caucusus) and likely already had a lot of men mobilized - not to mention don't need a navy to invade overland - and it's not an inconceivable notion. I think that's why they're so often still used as an enemy in video games, Russia can still be a viable, realistic threat.

I tip my hat at your superior knowledge of Russian military strength.

Nah, I've just conversed with a few oddly proud Russians and International Relations students who like to stir shit to have a working knowledge of "why the USSR should've won the Cold War."

deadman91:

LarenzoAOG:

deadman91:
Now I've had this discussion before, and the conclusion that I came to is that a lot of people seriously underestimate Russia's ability to mobilize and field large armies. Hell, if you look at it historically for most of the Cold War Russia could field more divisions (who were better trained and drilled than are often given credit for - they learned their lessons the hard way in WW2) than the entire of NATO. Really the thing that kept them in check was the American superiority in nuclear weapons rather than American superiority in conventional weapons (and the fact that Russia always believed the US'd be willing to sacrifice Western Europe if it came to a nuclear exchange). Given that in the MW alt-universe Russia is coming out of a civil war (that seemed to include much of Eastern Europe and the Caucusus) and likely already had a lot of men mobilized - not to mention don't need a navy to invade overland - and it's not an inconceivable notion. I think that's why they're so often still used as an enemy in video games, Russia can still be a viable, realistic threat.

I tip my hat at your superior knowledge of Russian military strength.

Nah, I've just conversed with a few oddly proud Russians and International Relations students who like to stir shit to have a working knowledge of "why the USSR should've won the Cold War."

That's more than I've got, so the tipping of the hat still stands.

deadman91:

LarenzoAOG:

deadman91:
Now this is a bit out but the fact that no one ever seemed to call attention to it pissed me off. In Modern Warfare 2, why is it that the Russian terrorists, perpetrating an act of terror in Russia (a region that really has supplied enough illegal weapons to maintain several wars since the fall of communism and immediately after a civil war which would have left even more arms floating around) buy their guns from a guy in Brazil? Seriously, why the fuck would you need to buy your guns from Brazil? I know it's just a deus ex machina so we'd have a level in the favellas, but it grated me nonetheless.

As I said, what really pissed me off was the fact no one else seemed to give it the same thought. Everyone else was too busy griping about nukes in space, or were unable to comprehend why that general bloke betrays you.

More so than that, in MW3 how does Russia have enough military forces to invade America, which has the most superior military in the world, while simultaneously invading every capital city in Europe, after American Special Forces decimated their Navy, and still send an army after Soap, Yuri, and Captain Price?

Now I've had this discussion before, and the conclusion that I came to is that a lot of people seriously underestimate Russia's ability to mobilize and field large armies. Hell, if you look at it historically for most of the Cold War Russia could field more divisions (who were better trained and drilled than are often given credit for - they learned their lessons the hard way in WW2) than the entire of NATO. Really the thing that kept them in check was the American superiority in nuclear weapons rather than American superiority in conventional weapons (and the fact that Russia always believed the US'd be willing to sacrifice Western Europe if it came to a nuclear exchange). Given that in the MW alt-universe Russia is coming out of a civil war (that seemed to include much of Eastern Europe and the Caucusus) and likely already had a lot of men mobilized - not to mention don't need a navy to invade overland - and it's not an inconceivable notion. I think that's why they're so often still used as an enemy in video games, Russia can still be a viable, realistic threat.

FUCKING THANK YOU

Seriously, I know people love to hate on anything CoD, but this is the problem that always enrages me because of fucking morons not knowing shit about Russia. For this service you have given to these forums, I am yours to command.

OT: Enslaved. I gave up playing because of how fucking moronic Trip is. She enslaves the big monkey man so she can keep him safe and reach her homestead. Once she discovers that her people are (well it appears to be) slaughtered by mechs she starts losing her shit and begins to run as far away from Monkey Man as possible. Who is her best chance at survival and who also dies if she gets too far away from.

RedDeadFred:
Borderlands 2. Why don't they just turn off the new you station? You die once, you're gone for good. Better yet, why wouldn't Jack put his DNA into it so he couldn't die (after all, he has a massive amount of money)?

This never really bothered me because I don't think you're supposed to take the story that seriously (even though I actually thought the story was very good) but it's still a pretty big plot hole. I guess you could just say it's simply a gameplay mechanic and isn't part of the actual story at all.

After one of the big characters deaths, I remember turning to my boyfriend (who I was playing coop with) and saying "Was he just too cheap to pay for the New-U Station?"

I actually quite like it as a hilariously massive plot hole. Throughout both Borderlands games it is completely ignored in the plot that not only you but also most of your enemies can resurrect at the New-U Stations. (How many times did you guys kill Bonehead?) One of the few times I have ever literally laughed out loud whilst playing a game was when I was emptying out some bandit nest for the umpteenth time and a marauder said "Oh god, not again!"

Bad Jim:
Starcraft 2. Jim Raynor receives a prophesy from a protoss friend of his that Kerrigan, Queen of Blades and ruler of the Zerg, is vital to defeating the Xel'naga who will return to destroy everything.

Now you might think that her current form, in command of a million billion zerg, had a good chance of defending against the Xel'naga. But no, Jim decides to invade her homeworld and use a magic artifact on her, transforming her into her original form, a twenty something girl in command of roughly nothing. She's prettier, but looks aren't everything when there's a galactic apocalypse coming.

The Xel'naga that returns in the prophecy is pretty much shown to be able to control the swarm. This would probably indicate that he could control Kerrigan as well as long as she was infested, just as the Overmind was able to in the first game, negating any ability she'd have to fight back. Given that we already know Heart of the Swarm involves the now mostly human Kerrigan retaking control over the Zerg to some extent, it's a pretty safe bet that Blizzard is going the route of now that she's free from the Zerg but can still control them, she won't be able to be controlled by the dark one. But we'll have to see when the next two games come out.

I don't really know if it's a plot hole as such or just a weak plot... Catherine.

Far Cry 3 in the way that we have this protagonist who has Zero survival instincts, abilities, never used a gun, and yet inside half an hour he's wrestling knives from pirates, head-shotting their mates and knows pretty much from the off how to handle any weapon he comes across with an impressive degree of skill. But he gets grossed out by skinning animals, so it's all okay. There's another one related to the main story-line which I won't spoil, but it's never made sense to me.

Korzack:
Far Cry 3 in the way that we have this protagonist who has Zero survival instincts, abilities, never used a gun, and yet inside half an hour he's wrestling knives from pirates, head-shotting their mates and knows pretty much from the off how to handle any weapon he comes across with an impressive degree of skill. But he gets grossed out by skinning animals, so it's all okay. There's another one related to the main story-line which I won't spoil, but it's never made sense to me.

I cant commnet on the survival instincts but Jason did know how to use a gun before the game started. In a hallicination its made clear hes been to a firing range and that he was talented with fire arms. The guy who gives him the tattoo also teaches him several of those skills. It really is one of those few games where the protagonist grows into a warrior instead of just being one by trade

Korzack:
Far Cry 3 in the way that we have this protagonist who has Zero survival instincts, abilities, never used a gun, and yet inside half an hour he's wrestling knives from pirates, head-shotting their mates and knows pretty much from the off how to handle any weapon he comes across with an impressive degree of skill. But he gets grossed out by skinning animals, so it's all okay. There's another one related to the main story-line which I won't spoil, but it's never made sense to me.

Jason was already proficient with firearms and had an amazing constitution (adrenaline junkie). His only real problem was getting past the mental trauma of taking other people's lives.
Plus gameplay. I'd imagine that the majority of people just picking the game up wouldn't want to have to play with shitty gunplay for the first couple of hours because realism.

bloodrayne626:
Not so much a plot hole, but in FarCry3

what the hell happened to all the guards?

It just irked me a little. Not enough to be an "oh my god this game sucks because it missed a few details" moment (not like I have those, anyway), but still, what the hell?

Yeah, I'd just always assumed that in every "boss fight", Jason is under so much trauma, stress, excitement, fear and is also hipped up on so many drugs that he starts hallucinating as a defence mechanism, drawing up a common theme of his past life (they usually take place in a club-ish area) and the ceremonial knife he was chasing for so long which symbolises his life on the island.

Regardless of whether or not my analysis of the symbolism is correct, Jason just goes into a killing frenzy.

Reapers in ME3. They collect people to make more reapers. But as soon as they land they say 'Fuck THAT!' and just stomp around and fire lasers at BUILDINGS. No nanotech, biotech weapons whatsoever. Destroying all civilization in the universe. By stepping on their buildings and firing lasers at them.

Not as big as the the catalyst's logic though, ofcourse.

A double whammy completely knocking the reaper's villain status and credibility out of the park.

Hunter85792:

Korzack:
Far Cry 3 in the way that we have this protagonist who has Zero survival instincts, abilities, never used a gun, and yet inside half an hour he's wrestling knives from pirates, head-shotting their mates and knows pretty much from the off how to handle any weapon he comes across with an impressive degree of skill. But he gets grossed out by skinning animals, so it's all okay. There's another one related to the main story-line which I won't spoil, but it's never made sense to me.

Jason was already proficient with firearms and had an amazing constitution (adrenaline junkie) his only real problem was getting past the mental trauma of taking other people's lives. Plus gameplay.

Aah, fair enough - I must've not come across that bit while playing through, so far. Maybe I'll stumble across it play-through no. 2.

Korzack:
Snipity snip

I know the firearm quote was during the


You hear Grant say that Jason's a natural with firearms or something.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked