Biggest plot holes in games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Noelveiga:

M-E-D The Poet:

Noelveiga:

Nope, that is exactly what a plot hole is NOT. By that token, all of Batman's relationship with the Joker is a plot hole. Again, a character choosing to do or not do something is not a plot hole unless this is based on information he shouldn't have or otherwise made impossible by the rules of the fiction. That's not even inconsistent characterization, even, that's just nerdy nitpicking, actively refusing to engage in suspension of disbelief and pointing out elements that are genre or media conventions as "plot holes".

Other things falling in that category: it's not a plot hole that Mario gets to fall to his death multiple times despite not being established to be immortal, it's not a plot hole that Link can take items from people's houses without being seen as a thief, it's not a plot hole that Nathan Drake and other game heroes get shot all the time, but if shot in a cutscene they die or are critically injured, it's not a plot hole that Final Fantasy characters can punch a tank to death and it's certainly not a plot hole that characters in games are shown in gameplay to be powerful enough to do something that they don't do, whether they complain about it or not.

What all of those are is bad College Humor sketches.

No I literally mean that you walk in a room with A tricked out Assault rifle after having shot 2000 guys on your way into that room and you get a cutscene you get hit once in the cutscene and then after the cutscene you only have a pistol for example (this happens a lot in farcry 3 for example)

Or do you not see how there is a massive hole in the situation where I walk in a room with a assault rifle, stay in that room and don't change anything and walk out the room with a pistol ?

Hm, that's not quite what you described the first time, but never mind.

No, it's still not a plot hole. First off, it has nothing to do with the plot, it's related to a gameplay mechanic (i.e. your weapon management mechanic), so already it couldn't possibly be a plot hole. Second, because it's a gameplay thing, it's part of the nitpicky refusal to suspend disbelief I was talking about earlier. The devs didn't code for every weapon combo in the cutscene, so you're stuck with whatever they could design for. Some games put resources on that little nod to consistency, some don't, but that doesn't mean the ones that don't are telling their story in a worse way or that the logic of the plot is damaged because the GUN is not part of the PLOT. See my point?

I mean, if you're not willing to suspend disbelief for that stuff, how you do make it through your average platformer or brawler? How did all of those turkeys get lodged in walls and garbage bins in Castlevania or Streets of Rage? That's the same stupid train of thought you see in Cracked articles pointing out how nobody locks their cars, struggles to find a parking spot or goes to the bathroom in movies.

no you're dead wrong, it is a plot hole when that weapon would have solved the situation easily.

I think you yourself should have another look at plotholes, what I'm pointing out is a typical contradiction in setting/within the rules of the world.

bug_of_war:

I still however feel that the story was pretty tight in terms of the Reapers not being considered a threat. As far as I am aware, other than the Rachnai, little to no other organics knew of Soverign's patrolling around the galaxy, and even if they did, it is likely that they would not be listened to as the majority of the sentient organics were engaged in a war and would likely dismiss the idea of a giant un manned ship with the ability to indoctrinate species to bend to their will. As far as the Asari, Turian and Salarians are aware, the Rachnai are just a savage race of spiders threatening their existence.

Just to clarify...
The advantages I listed (eg. the massive tactical advantage the reapers lost) actually has nothing to do with how aware people were of the truth behind the rachni or the reapers, or considering them a threat;

2000 year delay allowing everyone to advance
reverse engineered sovereign weapons (thianx cannons)
control of relays
control of citadel
no surprise attack via centre of relay network (even though they still somehow managed to make ME3 a kind of surprise attack anyway)
3 new powerful races to contend with -humans, krogan, possibly geth
The Quarians also have the biggest baddass fleet which they only made about 1800 years after the rachni war,('cos that's when the geth chased them off their planet)

It seems the galaxy has almost tripled in strength, and the reapers have lost their surprise citadel relay attack (the one the prothean VI on Ilos highlighted and said was their undoing)

The reapers wanted to attack 2000 years ago (or maybe much earlier) because it was a good balance between the civilisations being advanced enough to be worth culling and not too difficult to fight even with their surprise citadel tactic.
They have lost so many advantages in so many area's even if 99.9999% of the galaxy weren't preparing. The only point in my list that involves preparing is the mass production of thianx cannons.

This is where we can interpret in different ways. I think we are 2x/3x more powerful (+ citadel tactic stopped- the prothean legacy that makes us the first cycle that has a chance is a cool thought) means we had a chance to fight the reapers (if shepard unites the galaxy) Other's think the crucible is still necessary

I think in the codex it tells you the translator is built into omnitool type devices. When a new species is found they are integrated into the translation devices. They go into in mass effect 1 when they talk about the extranet and the hanar speak by some sort of illuminious lights that the translator changes into audio dialogue but you see them flash anyway .

M-E-D The Poet:

Noelveiga:

Hm, that's not quite what you described the first time, but never mind.

No, it's still not a plot hole. First off, it has nothing to do with the plot, it's related to a gameplay mechanic (i.e. your weapon management mechanic), so already it couldn't possibly be a plot hole. Second, because it's a gameplay thing, it's part of the nitpicky refusal to suspend disbelief I was talking about earlier. The devs didn't code for every weapon combo in the cutscene, so you're stuck with whatever they could design for. Some games put resources on that little nod to consistency, some don't, but that doesn't mean the ones that don't are telling their story in a worse way or that the logic of the plot is damaged because the GUN is not part of the PLOT. See my point?

I mean, if you're not willing to suspend disbelief for that stuff, how you do make it through your average platformer or brawler? How did all of those turkeys get lodged in walls and garbage bins in Castlevania or Streets of Rage? That's the same stupid train of thought you see in Cracked articles pointing out how nobody locks their cars, struggles to find a parking spot or goes to the bathroom in movies.

no you're dead wrong, it is a plot hole when that weapon would have solved the situation easily.

I think you yourself should have another look at plotholes, what I'm pointing out is a typical contradiction in setting/within the rules of the world.

Plot holes. Two words. And no, it's not a contradiction in the plot, it's a game mechanic and a technical limitation. Other things in Far Cry 3 that are not plot holes for the same reason:

- The main character can endlessly re-set his dislocated thumb with no long term problems at all.
- Doing this will also heal the main character from burns, bullet wounds and fall damage.
- Bullet holes, burns, fall damage and dislocated thumbs will also be healed by injecting himself with mushed green plants. And I mean green. Literally any plant with green leaves will cure any of these things if pulped and injected straight into the bloodstream.
- No other human in Far Cry 3 can do this. Bosses die of single knife wounds repeatedly and all enemies will die from any of these things no matter how much they wiggle their broken thumbs.

All of those things are how videogames work. Add to that list that the main character will also drop any weapons he's carrying when entering a cutscene and make do with a handgun or knife he didn't seem to be carrying before and you see how the mechanics of the game are unrelated to the plot of the game.

A plot hole is a mistake in information management a writer makes. Here's something a bunch of people don't get, plot holes aren't mistakes in plotting where the author engineered an event that couldn't have happened. It's the other way around, plot holes are mostly errors in setting up data. Plot holes aren't fixed by changing the event, they're fixed by setting up earlier why the event is possible. You know how at the end of Captain America...

That's not what you're talking about, you're talking about an instance where the mechanics of a video game do not account for the state of the world when they fire off a canned cutscene. Well duh. That's a technical limitation of what they can code for and thus an area where you're expected to suspend disbelief, as you do with all the other mechanics in the game. It's not a plot hole at all.

TizzytheTormentor:

Neronium:

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

Pretty much that. That ending seriously was just bad. "It's your destiny" Fawkes says, but you when I'm thinking with my head that the day can be saved and I'd be able to live sounds like a good prospect. But no the developers decided to make so that you couldn't until Broken Steel.

Indeed, the "whoever goes in there dies due to radiation poisoning" line made everyone who had Cheron/RL-something/Fawkes to do it, yet they didn't for asinine reasons and even when they agree in Broken Steel, they act pissed about it, why are they pissed?

Guys, forget about all that.

There is only one plot hole in Fallout 3: the entire game.

The capital wasteland can not sustain life, there are no plants except at Oasis, what the fuck is at the bottom of the food chain?! What do they feed the Brahmin?! Why is there NO FUCKING FAMINE?! Burke hires you to blow up Megaton from in Megaton, in front of everyone. Why are the Super Mutants retarded orcs and ogres?! Why does Vault-Tec even have anything to do with FEV?! The list just fucking goes on and on and on, the ending is hardly even the worst of it.

Mikeyfell:
snip

Except you're wrong, that wasn't the first time they spoke (which is pretty obvious by the familiarity with which they speak) James has been guarding Shepard for the past six months while Shepard was in lock down. Also is it really hard to believe that in the six months between ME2 and ME3 that Anderson was promoted once or twice seeing as how he was one of the highest decorated officers in the whole alliance and a close friend with Admiral Hackett and Councilor Udina.

wintercoat:

DeimosMasque:

ecoho:
snip

snip

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.

I also think it has to do with the fact that Shepard is a part of the army and Kaiden the Marines so because Shepard is in charge of the Normandy and Kaidan is "stationed" on the Normandy then Shepard is in charge of him.

Akratus:
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.

That was just for the starting of the invasion where they were taking out infrastructure and the Alliance military. If you listen to the dialogue they talk about how the Reapers are in fact taking people to be "harvested" they just have no qualms with killing lots of people if that's necessary.

Assassin's creed 2 ending, why the hell did Ezio not kill Rodrigo? I know they wanted to keep his death in line with history but seriously they could have just made him drop the staff and escape instead of having Ezio STANDING over him and just decide not to kill the sob

The "Russian can invade all of Europe at the same time"-move in the CoD series comes to mind. Particularly entertaining since the ruskies were just beaten back from American soil shortly before this attack.

But that one's probably been bashed to death.

There's the ME3 space magic ending, but if im gonna avoid subjects that's been talked to death I shouldnt touch that with a 100 foot pole.

Oh hell I dono, there are so many plot holes in the gaming industry to pick from.

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?

I've heard people complaining about that section, but I was more baffled by

The only solution to the glaringly improbable story of Far Cry 3 is that he is somehow deranged, drugged up, or biased in some way that explains how he gets out of so many numerous fatal situations during cutscenes.

Joseph Harrison:

Mikeyfell:
snip

Except you're wrong, that wasn't the first time they spoke (which is pretty obvious by the familiarity with which they speak) James has been guarding Shepard for the past six months while Shepard was in lock down. Also is it really hard to believe that in the six months between ME2 and ME3 that Anderson was promoted once or twice seeing as how he was one of the highest decorated officers in the whole alliance and a close friend with Admiral Hackett and Councilor Udina.

So you're arguing that that was stated in dialog isn't a plot hole because of something that was never stated in dialog... Seems legit.
You know James also said Cerberus was working with the Collectors during the events of Mass Effect 2. So I wouldn't cut James any slack

But I still have a problem with the Anderson thing. see in about 50% of games (Probably more) Anderson left the Alliance and there never was a "Councilor Udina"
I was under the impression that the Mass Effect games were supposed to adapt to the choices you made and not just retcon them to suit their lazy dipshit writers. So I'm going to continue to count that as a plot hole right along with if you picked Udina at the end of ME 1 (And killed the council) there are still aliens in the council even though Udina says very pointedly "Forge a new council composed of a single voice, humanity." So I'm pretty content to write Mass Effect 3 off as a plot hole ridden non-cannon mess

wintercoat:

DeimosMasque:

snip

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.

I also think it has to do with the fact that Shepard is a part of the army and Kaiden the Marines so because Shepard is in charge of the Normandy and Kaidan is "stationed" on the Normandy then Shepard is in charge of him.

A Major in the Marines is lower rank than a Commander in the navy.
I thought that was a plot hole as well, but it turns out not.

Mikeyfell:

Joseph Harrison:

Mikeyfell:
snip

snip

So you're arguing that that was stated in dialog isn't a plot hole because of something that was never stated in dialog... Seems legit.
You know James also said Cerberus was working with the Collectors during the events of Mass Effect 2. So I wouldn't cut James any slack

Except it states in game that it has been half a year since ME2 and it states in game that James Vega was guarding you as well as in a comic that was released. So that is how James knew Shepard before the start of ME3 that isn't a plot hole it is about as explicitly stated as possible without breaking the show don't tell rule.

I'm not sure if what James said about Cerberus was a plot hole but that did piss me off.
ME1 Cerberus is bad
ME2 Actually no Cerberus is really cool and good and are just misunderstood
ME3 Scratch that Cerberus is bad again

Make up your damn minds Bioware

Mikeyfell:

But I still have a problem with the Anderson thing. see in about 50% of games (Probably more) Anderson left the Alliance and there never was a "Councilor Udina"
I was under the impression that the Mass Effect games were supposed to adapt to the choices you made and not just retcon them to suit their lazy dipshit writers. So I'm going to continue to count that as a plot hole right along with if you picked Udina at the end of ME 1 (And killed the council) there are still aliens in the council even though Udina says very pointedly "Forge a new council composed of a single voice, humanity." So I'm pretty content to write Mass Effect 3 off as a plot hole ridden non-cannon mess

Except in ME3 Anderson says that he resigned as Councilor and let Udina have the job because, as shown in ME2, he hated being a Councilor. Also I'm pretty sure that the original plan was to make a new council where Humans were the leaders of the council and the other councilors were just puppets that would do what humans say. Of course its been 3 years since ME1 so you can assume that humanity has lost a lot of political clot seeing as the prevalent anti-human sentiment in ME2.

Exius Xavarus:

The Duke does regain his senses just before the fact, though. He wasn't in his right mind at the start, but what bothered me was the way he actually came to after you popped out from hiding. Dazed and disoriented, yes, but he was well aware you were there and who you were. Also, I'm having a hard time understanding what this "Jesus-expy" is. x_x

Jesus-expy : Prophesied messiah arrived to save the world from X (in this case, Dragon).

More or less, when he first hurls you into the dungeons for eternity without a trial, its a very private matter. Once you get back out, he'd have to move against you much more publicly and probably arouse the ire of his already fairly fractured people. Even then, he does seem to be exiling you with the expedition plan before the Greatwall gets attacked, and even that mission could be considered a suicide run (or he realizes then that you are desperately needed as the biggest defense against the Dragon just got dropped like nothing).

Seth Carter:

Exius Xavarus:

The Duke does regain his senses just before the fact, though. He wasn't in his right mind at the start, but what bothered me was the way he actually came to after you popped out from hiding. Dazed and disoriented, yes, but he was well aware you were there and who you were. Also, I'm having a hard time understanding what this "Jesus-expy" is. x_x

Jesus-expy : Prophesied messiah arrived to save the world from X (in this case, Dragon).

More or less, when he first hurls you into the dungeons for eternity without a trial, its a very private matter. Once you get back out, he'd have to move against you much more publicly and probably arouse the ire of his already fairly fractured people. Even then, he does seem to be exiling you with the expedition plan before the Greatwall gets attacked, and even that mission could be considered a suicide run (or he realizes then that you are desperately needed as the biggest defense against the Dragon just got dropped like nothing).

That would make more sense to me if the exact same thing didn't happen even if you ignored Aelinore or let the Duke continue on. =p

Joseph Harrison:

Except it states in game that it has been half a year since ME2 and it states in game that James Vega was guarding you as well as in a comic that was released. So that is how James knew Shepard before the start of ME3 that isn't a plot hole it is about as explicitly stated as possible without breaking the show don't tell rule.

Are you farmiliar with the "Hierarchy of Cannon"?
Everything that is relevant to the top tier (The source material, the games in Mass Effect's case) Have to hold up under the scrutiny of that tier alone. Any extended universe material can draw from (Or rely entirely on) the audience's understanding of higher tiers but not the other way around. So if Bioware decided to incorporate lower tier extended universe into top tier cannon they have to make sure that people who have only experienced the source material can pick up what's going on. (And if that means an exposition dump, then it shall be so.)

I'm not sure if what James said about Cerberus was a plot hole but that did piss me off.
ME1 Cerberus is bad
ME2 Actually no Cerberus is really cool and good and are just misunderstood
ME3 Scratch that Cerberus is bad again

Make up your damn minds Bioware

That's kind of taking presentation as fact.

ME1 The Alliance says Cerberus is bad, You have no reason to think otherwise
ME2 Cerberus says Cerberus isn't as bad as the Alliance says they are, You get to make up your own mind.
ME3 Bioware says Cerberus is bad and that they've always been bad and fuck Mass Effect 2

Facts are more like
ME1 The Alliance tells you to shoot up Cerberus facilities, then grounds your ship even though you're trying to save the universe.
ME2 Cerberus brings you back to life, gives you a ship and a crew and helps you save humans that the Alliance won't lift a finger to protect. They're not giving you much of a choice and they have ulterior motives but they're not hiding it from you.
ME3 They're attacking you, killing and experimenting on human refugees, orchestrating a government coup, and generally trying to stop you from saving the universe. And according to James they were helping the Collectors abduct the humans they brought Shepard back to stop.

You see how the first two are morally grey.
and see how the third one is completely morally black and stupid too.
The one thing that Cerberus, the Alliance and Shepard agree on is that Cerberus is out to help humanity.
So Killing and experimenting on humans, Stopping Shepard from saving Earth, and helping the Collectors abduct humans are all against The Illusive Man's MO.
(And if you want to use the "TIM is indoctrinated defense" He wasn't indoctrinated during Mass Effect 2 when he was supposed to be helping the Collectors abduct humans.)

So they might have been bad guys the whole time, but all the stuff they do in ME3 is directly against everything, The only thing they stand for.

Except in ME3 Anderson says that he resigned as Councilor and let Udina have the job because, as shown in ME2, he hated being a Councilor. Also I'm pretty sure that the original plan was to make a new council where Humans were the leaders of the council and the other councilors were just puppets that would do what humans say. Of course its been 3 years since ME1 so you can assume that humanity has lost a lot of political clot seeing as the prevalent anti-human sentiment in ME2.

In the same ME2 scene when he said he hated being a councilor he also said that... oh just listen

http://youtu.be/DbNNlOiPbPk?t=5m24s

"As much as I complain I have an important job to do here."

That doesn't sound like something somebody who's willing to throw in the towel on humanity would say.

My biggest complaint is that the total script for ME 3 was about one fifth the length it should have been.
If I (For example) Picked Anderson, Killed the Council, Gave Cerberus the Collector base and Rewrote the Heretics.
My playthrough of Mass Effect 3 should have nothing in common with a game that picked Udina, saved the Council and destroyed the Heretics and the Collector base.
The way it stands now Mass Effect 3 is a hastily thrown together cash in to capitalize on all the emotional investment that was devoted to the first two games.

The stuff they did throw together wasn't even good- retconns and plot holes aside.

TheJesus89:
Assassin's Creed 3

Why doesn't Desmond just go through Haytham'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 Haytham's memories. Not to mention direct access to Templar secrets and what not.

They actually explain this, Its something to do with the animus, when a person conceives their child their memory's can no longer be lived, only their child's memory can be lived up until they have a child, like in AC2 when Desmond bleeding effect causes him to relive Altair's memory but when he conceives his child the camera stays with maria instead of following Altair. So not actually a plot hole but i can understand how it can be seen as one.

Exius Xavarus:

Seth Carter:

Exius Xavarus:

The Duke does regain his senses just before the fact, though. He wasn't in his right mind at the start, but what bothered me was the way he actually came to after you popped out from hiding. Dazed and disoriented, yes, but he was well aware you were there and who you were. Also, I'm having a hard time understanding what this "Jesus-expy" is. x_x

Jesus-expy : Prophesied messiah arrived to save the world from X (in this case, Dragon).

More or less, when he first hurls you into the dungeons for eternity without a trial, its a very private matter. Once you get back out, he'd have to move against you much more publicly and probably arouse the ire of his already fairly fractured people. Even then, he does seem to be exiling you with the expedition plan before the Greatwall gets attacked, and even that mission could be considered a suicide run (or he realizes then that you are desperately needed as the biggest defense against the Dragon just got dropped like nothing).

That would make more sense to me if the exact same thing didn't happen even if you ignored Aelinore or let the Duke continue on. =p

Well yeah, that's part of the "Options kill a cohesive story" issue in gaming. It pretty much bludgeons you over the head to go talk to Aelinore, and the maid is always hanging in the lobby you have to walk through with the quest marker blinking. So they obviously had that intent but chose to leave it optional and somewhat break the narrative. (Although I still ended up with Madeleine even in the playthrough I did the Aelinore stuff).

Iron Criterion:

Devoneaux:

TheVampwizimp:

Ok, at this point I will have to take your word on the desk shattering. Still, I can assume that Anderson checked that escape route while Shepard was momentarily dazed after the explosion and decided it was blocked or otherwise unsuitable for use. Maybe the stairs were on fire. Point is, there are explanations, you don't have to immediately jump to the conclusion that it is an irredeemable mistake.

Okay I know there is more but this one in particular caught my attention.

Part of the job of a writer is to explain not just what the hero(s) are doing, but why. If the audience has to make assumptions on behalf of the story to cover a plot hole then the story is sloppy. What is particularly irritating about this is that the fix is incredibly simple. All we needed was one scene where Anderson goes "Damn, the door's jammed. We'll have to find another way." But because this is Mac Walters we're talking about, attention to details like this is beyond him.

No you're wrong. Exposition IS bad writing. A good writer will make it obviously what the protagonist is doing, and why through their actions; they shouldn't need to rely on throwaway dialogue.

And while that's a fair point, you still need to address why characters don't do the simplest, most logical thing first and foremost if they go for a more roundabout method. Now that I think of it, they could have just shown a scene of Anderson helping Shepard up and then going to the door, trying to pry it open and then failing before nodding toward the blown out window.

Aarowbeatsdragon:

TheJesus89:
Assassin's Creed 3

Why doesn't Desmond just go through Haytham'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 Haytham's memories. Not to mention direct access to Templar secrets and what not.

They actually explain this, Its something to do with the animus, when a person conceives their child their memory's can no longer be lived, only their child's memory can be lived up until they have a child, like in AC2 when Desmond bleeding effect causes him to relive Altair's memory but when he conceives his child the camera stays with maria instead of following Altair. So not actually a plot hole but i can understand how it can be seen as one.

Where do they say that? Thinking back I have no memory of that ever being said. Although I guess that makes sense if memories are being held in genetics, then once the child is conceived his father's memories would be cut off at that point. I'm just curious as to where they pointed that out.

Regardless, Desmond can look at Haytham's memories and find out where Charles Lee is, but Connor can't. Keep in mind, Desmond is just observing this, he can't actually control Connor (in the context of the story at least, gameplay takes some liberties with that). Connor can't relive his father's memories like Desmond can, and so he can't find Charles Lee that way.

As for everyone arguing about the Didact, his motivation was flimsy at best and only really works if you just consider him as a racist. The game however doesn't really explain him at all. If you look it up on Wikipedia or read the books he makes sense, but the game doesn't make that clear at all. I don't think they ever explain what the Mantel of Responsibility is within the game itself. He does have his reasons for doing everything he does, the game just doesn't make them clear. Which is still bad story telling and doesn't exempt the game from anything, I just thought that was worth mentioning.

One thing that no one mentioned that really bothered me with Halo 4 though:

Edit: My 117th post! Ironic considering the subject.

IronMit:

Just to clarify...
The advantages I listed (eg. the massive tactical advantage the reapers lost) actually has nothing to do with how aware people were of the truth behind the rachni or the reapers, or considering them a threat;

2000 year delay allowing everyone to advance
reverse engineered sovereign weapons (thianx cannons)
control of relays
control of citadel
no surprise attack via centre of relay network (even though they still somehow managed to make ME3 a kind of surprise attack anyway)
3 new powerful races to contend with -humans, krogan, possibly geth
The Quarians also have the biggest baddass fleet which they only made about 1800 years after the rachni war,('cos that's when the geth chased them off their planet)

It seems the galaxy has almost tripled in strength, and the reapers have lost their surprise citadel relay attack (the one the prothean VI on Ilos highlighted and said was their undoing)

The reapers wanted to attack 2000 years ago (or maybe much earlier) because it was a good balance between the civilisations being advanced enough to be worth culling and not too difficult to fight even with their surprise citadel tactic.
They have lost so many advantages in so many area's even if 99.9999% of the galaxy weren't preparing. The only point in my list that involves preparing is the mass production of thianx cannons.

This is where we can interpret in different ways. I think we are 2x/3x more powerful (+ citadel tactic stopped- the prothean legacy that makes us the first cycle that has a chance is a cool thought) means we had a chance to fight the reapers (if shepard unites the galaxy) Other's think the crucible is still necessary

I think in the codex it tells you the translator is built into omnitool type devices. When a new species is found they are integrated into the translation devices. They go into in mass effect 1 when they talk about the extranet and the hanar speak by some sort of illuminious lights that the translator changes into audio dialogue but you see them flash anyway .

Okay, I see what you're saying. I guess in the end Bioware kind of shot themselves in the foot when it came to even just starting the first game seeing as how the backstory seems to counteract most things that happened in all 3 games (The first being the least effected obviously). I still like the series though, even with the original endings, 'plot holes' etc.

bug_of_war:

Okay, I see what you're saying. I guess in the end Bioware kind of shot themselves in the foot when it came to even just starting the first game seeing as how the backstory seems to counteract most things that happened in all 3 games (The first being the least effected obviously). I still like the series though, even with the original endings, 'plot holes' etc.

It was billed as a planned trilogy but it either wasn't or it was changed.
The first one was 'least effected' because the backstory doesn't counteract anything

Everything raps up nicely in ME1. The prothean history& the reaper rumours. The little clues in the history and revelations of the rachni wars, rachni queen, the conduit, sovereign was using the rachni but failed then used saren and the geth when the prothean beacon was found. When the VI at Ilos explains everything to you, you think back to all the clues (lore, history, mini-revelations) and it all fits together. Play it a second time and you see all the clues and things you missed. ME1 is really good.

In ME2 they decided to tell you more about what the reaper's were - They made up the collectors and used cerberus to achieve this goal. It was kind of a giant filler to set up ME3. The arrival dlc was more relevant then the main campaign.
However there was all this forshadowing of dark energy also - Tali's recruitment mission. The sun on her planet is ageing prematurely at the edge of the galaxy. Apparently dark energy will destroy the galaxy and the reapers infuse advanced civilisations in the hope of solving this crisis. Humanity being their best chance this cycle. Hence why the collectors were collecting humans in a risky way, because making the human reaper was the highest priority.

The ex lead writer (ME1, ME2)said this was the original reason for the reapers...but then said 'it was one of many idea's on the table'. Pretty random..I mean making up the collectors and illusive man in ME2 is a means to an end but making up the primary motive and reason for everything on the 3rd act is bound to cause problems...and it did lol

So basically the order chaos theory used at the end of ME3 was pretty contrived.. considering the word chaos was used once by sovereign in ME1 and in a different context and i don't think it was ever mentioned again until ME3. There were 2 or 3 cut and paste forshadowing of this order-chaos theory in ME3. remember when the reaper on rannoch started talking...was pretty out of place...it looked like they added it pretty late into development.

Sorry I keep replying when you think the convo is done lol. I was really confused when ME3 finished and was trying to make it make sense to me and when it didn't... I tried to take into account every single possibility to figure out what happened and thought I would share. This is my interpretation based on the information I talked about above.

Basically when ME3 was going to be made...they wanted to market it to new players...hence a one game story arc to rap it up was taken(this is why all those crucial stuff from ME1 and the lore was never mentioned- would confused new players). They thought a 'take back earth' situation would be most appealing. Everything was twisted to reach this goal..earth is the centre of attention throughout, the citadel randomly ended up over earth etc etc.

Silent Hill 3. They need heather to birth god but they keep trying to kill her. I know they need her tu feel pain and suffering and if she dies valtiels resurrects her but in that case she could just chill the hell out.

imahobbit4062:

deadman91:
snip

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.

And like that, my own army grows...

IronMit:

It was billed as a planned trilogy but it either wasn't or it was changed.
The first one was 'least effected' because the backstory doesn't counteract anything

Everything raps up nicely in ME1. The prothean history& the reaper rumours. The little clues in the history and revelations of the rachni wars, rachni queen, the conduit, sovereign was using the rachni but failed then used saren and the geth when the prothean beacon was found. When the VI at Ilos explains everything to you, you think back to all the clues (lore, history, mini-revelations) and it all fits together. Play it a second time and you see all the clues and things you missed. ME1 is really good.

In ME2 they decided to tell you more about what the reaper's were - They made up the collectors and used cerberus to achieve this goal. It was kind of a giant filler to set up ME3. The arrival dlc was more relevant then the main campaign.
However there was all this forshadowing of dark energy also - Tali's recruitment mission. The sun on her planet is ageing prematurely at the edge of the galaxy. Apparently dark energy will destroy the galaxy and the reapers infuse advanced civilisations in the hope of solving this crisis. Humanity being their best chance this cycle. Hence why the collectors were collecting humans in a risky way, because making the human reaper was the highest priority.

The ex lead writer (ME1, ME2)said this was the original reason for the reapers...but then said 'it was one of many idea's on the table'. Pretty random..I mean making up the collectors and illusive man in ME2 is a means to an end but making up the primary motive and reason for everything on the 3rd act is bound to cause problems...and it did lol

So basically the order chaos theory used at the end of ME3 was pretty contrived.. considering the word chaos was used once by sovereign in ME1 and in a different context and i don't think it was ever mentioned again until ME3. There were 2 or 3 cut and paste forshadowing of this order-chaos theory in ME3. remember when the reaper on rannoch started talking...was pretty out of place...it looked like they added it pretty late into development.

Sorry I keep replying when you think the convo is done lol. I was really confused when ME3 finished and was trying to make it make sense to me and when it didn't... I tried to take into account every single possibility to figure out what happened and thought I would share. This is my interpretation based on the information I talked about above.

Basically when ME3 was going to be made...they wanted to market it to new players...hence a one game story arc to rap it up was taken(this is why all those crucial stuff from ME1 and the lore was never mentioned- would confused new players). They thought a 'take back earth' situation would be most appealing. Everything was twisted to reach this goal..earth is the centre of attention throughout, the citadel randomly ended up over earth etc etc.

Don't worry about continuing to reply, it's good to have a civil conversation with someone about ME3 who has an opposite view and more perspective, half the time I have people calling me an idiot, or false, or a filthy casual, or they just shout at me, hahaha. I see what you're saying about ME1, and I probably should play it again so as that I can pay more attention to detail. I understand that most people were expecting the 'Dark Energy' plot in ME3 due to the hints in the second game, but I really didn't know ANYTHING about the whole Dark Energy thing until I started reading people talking about it. Maybe it's cause I really didn't like Tali, maybe because it was too subtle for me, whatever the reason, I honestly never had the whole 'Dark Energy killing the universe' going through my mind. My assumption when playing Mass Effect 2 was that the Reapers were focusing on humans because it was a human who screwed the pooch for their plans. The Human Reaper at the end of the game just meant to me that Reapers used other species to create Reapers, and initially I did not realise that it was only the core and that it would eventually be covered in squid armour once built.

I also didn't mind the direction they took with ME2 being more filler gap before ME3 as it had served a few purposes for the players. It gave us new and more interesting squad members (Kaiden, Ashley and Tali in my opinion were somewhat dull in the first game) such as Jack, Mordin, my main man Grunt, Legion, and to a certain extent Miranda. I liked the begining as it was the perfect way to make the enemy of the game look threatening. I justified the Reapers using the Collectors to attack human colonies as they (the Reapers) wanted humans out of the way due to a human halting their plans. I also enjoyed the more streamlined levels and areas were, as in ME1 I would find myself getting lost or bored in areas such as the Citadel and Feros (if Feros is where you fight the Thorian).

So yeah, I was one of the players (along with a lot of my mates) who had the Dark Energy foreshadowing blow straight over my head. So when Mass Effect 3 came around I just assumed that the Dark Energy plot (after reading about it pre release ME3) was a red herring and was ready to kick some Reaper...um, metalic backs? anyway... Mass Effect 3 focusing more on Earth made sense to me due to my inability to understand that Tali's mission hinted at a different story for the Reapers, and I reasoned their focusing on Earth was due to a human ruining their plans twice, so this was payback for being awesome at stopping ancient synthetic/organic space ships. I understood that some people were angry because they wanted to explore other planets, and Earth seemed dull to them, but I felt that really drove home the fact that just because we killed 1 Reaper, a bunch of mutated Protheans, and a baby Reaper, Humanity and the rest of the space races were hopelessly outmatched.

While I still love the series, I can see how Bioware kinda screwed the pooch when it came to Mass Effect 3 as they had built up so much hype and expanded on the universe with novels and comics. But I just got really annoyed when people started demanding a new ending and picking apart thngs, especially when some people started pointing fingers at ME2 even though weeks prior to ME3 they liked the game.

Marik Bentusi:
BioShock: Just why did Fontaine pull of his elaborate scheme with the protagonist instead of bunkering him somewhere close? It just adds a crapton of unnecessary complications not only in theory, but also practically as it turns out his creation really does backfire on him.
I'd usually just handwave it, but add to that Fontaine's already laughable Saturday Morning Mustache-Twirling Doctor Evilstein Villain Out For World Domination spiel and the fact the whole farce was really just written to allow for the character freedom plot twist, I can't help but be disgusted at the terrible writing beneath and think of the plot hole as an irredeemably deep one.

Seconded. I loved Bioshock right up until the point of the "Reveal". Then the great villain disappears and is replaced by this prat, whose plot and character come straight from a Saturday morning cartoon.

alphamalet:
In Persona 3

It's been a while for me, but doesn't that have something to do with

You know what, I'll just chalk it up to "JRPG plot device X."

OT: In the Sly Cooper series, Carmelita's voice changes every game, but everyone else's stays the same.

Why is this? Is there some sort of vocal disorder that may be the cause? Why does she have a different accent in Sly 2? (Personally, I prefer that one over the others.)

So many questions.

Also,

Joseph Harrison:

Mikeyfell:
snip

Except you're wrong, that wasn't the first time they spoke (which is pretty obvious by the familiarity with which they speak) James has been guarding Shepard for the past six months while Shepard was in lock down. Also is it really hard to believe that in the six months between ME2 and ME3 that Anderson was promoted once or twice seeing as how he was one of the highest decorated officers in the whole alliance and a close friend with Admiral Hackett and Councilor Udina.

Where in ME3 is it explicitly mentioned that James was keeping watch on Commander Shepard?

wintercoat:

DeimosMasque:

snip

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.

I also think it has to do with the fact that Shepard is a part of the army and Kaiden the Marines so because Shepard is in charge of the Normandy and Kaidan is "stationed" on the Normandy then Shepard is in charge of him.

The alliance has one and precisely one command structure. There is no "Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines", There's just "The Alliance Military" And that's it. And it is within this one command structure that Kaiden outranks Shepard.

Akratus:
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.

That was just for the starting of the invasion where they were taking out infrastructure and the Alliance military. If you listen to the dialogue they talk about how the Reapers are in fact taking people to be "harvested" they just have no qualms with killing lots of people if that's necessary.

If that's the case, why are they shooting at buildings that pose no immediate threat? Why don't they just seeker swarm the whole planet? Remember, Collector technology is reaper technology, there's no reason the reapers couldn't have had a hive of superior reaper swarms big enough to engulf entire planets, especially when they have all the time in the universe to actually build them.

My biggest one at the moment would be in Halo 4, why did the forerunners kill every single reasonable member of their race but decide to keep the most maniacally murderous shithead of their number alive and untouched by the halo array?
Thats like if humanity irradicated itself but left Hitler in cryostasis to act as an ambassador for anyone that comes across our legacy in the future.
Also Gears 3, apparently Prescott had known about the deus ex machinaomatic for years before the events of gears 3, so what the fuck guys really?

EDIT: Bloody hell there is a lot of ME3 stuff, here I need to check this out for myself.

fallout
get absolutely brutalised by a death claw just drink some water you'll be fine

wolf thing:

The Elephant of Lies:

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.

It could be that the Chief read the terminals in Halo 3, which, are supposed (never read them myself) to tell stories of the Didact and Librarian, and I'm sure there was something in the books about it, but I could be wrong.

i never read the terminals because they were an optional extra which were hidden for the player, you never hide story content from the player ever. so i discount it and i should also not have to read a below average book to enjoy the story in the game.

Regardless of whether or not you count the terminals as part of the story or not, they were, it still counts as an explanation, perhaps a poorly delivered one, but one none the less; and while I agree you shouldn't have to read a book to understand the story to game, you don't, it gives insight and better back story, but it is not required to understand what's going on. I do wish they would have included his motives as something in the campaign though. I have read several Halo books, and enjoyed them, but if you rely on the book to explain motives for the villain in the game, that's just getting lazy imo, and I have been caught up in other books, I would rather read, so I still have no idea why the Didact did anything in Halo 4.

Another quick note on hiding story from the player, they still aren't required to understand "The big orange vampire looking dude is trying to destroy all of the humans" plenty of games have hidden collectibles that give insight to the universe, given they usually don't contain a huge plot point for the next game, but still.

I don't know if it's a plot hole or a side effect of the terrible writing which, among other things, resulted in a two dimensional caricature of a villain, but Lazarevic in Uncharted 2 really should have used his helicopters to search the area where Flynn thought Shambhala was located instead of wasting them on Nate. Somehow, I don't think the big glowing gobs of resin would have been all that difficult to see from the air.

But then the adventure couldn't have happened of all these insensible impossible things didn't happen! No, it couldn't have. Now where did I put that shoehorn polish...

In dishonored why does killing weepers raise chaos? I can get that It would count as a kill but why does killing plague infected zombie people spread the plague?

In uncharted how did the diary end up in Francis drake coffin? Francis drake faked his death he actually died on that island thanks to those zombie things so how did his diary get in that coffin?

In shin megami tensei devil survivors how did the government ever managed to cover everything up. Hundreds of people were killed the entire sky turned red and a giant tower came from the sky and crashed right into a building you can't cover that all up by saying it was a mass hallucination caused by a gas leak there has to be evidence somewhere.

there are so many plotholes in touhou its impressive I play the game for the gameplay sure but I don't skip the story for the same reason why most people don't look away from a train crash.

The gap between all the Crysis games, although I don't know if it's more of a plot hole or the writers ignoring the previous cannon entirely.

The fact that you can become the leader/head/commander of every faction in every Elder Scrolls game despite having only been a member of said group for a few hours/in-game days.

What's that? You saved the Mage's Guild in Cyrodil from Mannimarco, King of Worms? Without using a single spell? You don't even know any magic? Well who cares! You killed our biggest threat so you MUST be qualified to LEAD our guild. Our guild of magic users, of which you are not one.

Please. At least give us an option to graciously turn the offer down and hand control over to someone who's actually worthy of the title.

ME3. Pretty much the whole core plot, though individual parts like Tuchanka were great. How would all those scientists and engineers not only build the crucible, but improve upon it with whatever weird tech you found and finish a design that didn't work when the Protheans did it, but fail to figure out what it was doing? They weren't just following somebody else's design blindly, they has to reverse engineer the failed project and then make their own design based on continuing that. For that matter, how did the Protheans even work on the Crucible? ME1 established that they were hit from the Citadel first, and barely had time to leave a warning behind before they were isolated and under total control of the Reapers. I won't even go into the ending (nature of the Reapers being flipped for no reason, idiot child plot, okayI'mshuttingupnow) because that's less of a plot hole and more of a gaping, festering abcess, but the central macguffin to the whole story of the third game just does not work.

And they didn't even need it; you proved in the first game that even Sovereign, the most powerful of the Reapers, can be killed but it takes a good distraction and the combined firepower of the combined pre-war Council fleet to do it. The Reapers relied on surprise and total control of the Relay network for every previous invasion; without Sovereign and the Citadel they're incredibly powerful, but nowhere near enough to make fighting them hopeless. They could totally have done the whole game as a conventional war, with Shepard's missions being to recruit more allies, develop/discover new technologies to lessen the power gap between the sides, hitting targets of opportunity, etc. instead of making the whole story about this shitty magic rock that's suddenly the only hope of the galaxy even though nobody has any idea what it does. The game could have been the story of one man uniting the galaxy against a common foe and beating impossible odds through sheer power of getting shit done. Instead they made it about the entire galaxy heroically running and hiding while the big damn hero does some irrelevant (but heroic) stuff on the side and then the magic Crucible that can't possibly exist anyway ends everything without your input.

Don't get me wrong, outside a few tiny annoyances (thermal clips, [space] to do everything, most sidequests are just fetching something, shoehorning in gay options with people you've never heard of and barely interact with to try to make up for removing them from the first two games for no good reason, just dropping all the Dark Energy foreshadowing, Vega, etc) everything that didn't touch the core plot was beautiful. They clearly had a lot of brilliant writers on this, and they made one of the best games I've seen in a long while... for 90% of it. And then the Crucible gets mentioned or I think about the ending and it all turns to shit. Honestly it would be easier if the whole game was just crap so I could pretend it didn't happen and keep playing the first two, but ME3 was so much fun and it's so obvious that they were doing it right until somebody came along with too much power and too little sense and screwed everything over.

canadamus_prime:
One that's been bugging me since the end of Mass Effect 2 (haven't played 3, so maybe someone who has can sort this out for me), but it's established in the first game that the Citadel is the only (known) way for the Reapers to get into our Galaxy from Dark Space and yet at the end of Mass Effect 2 it's implied that a huge invasion is on it's way and that was the whole plot of Mass Effect 3 was it not? My question is how the hell did they get here? We shut down their only known way in in the first game.

The Citadel was a shortcut, a way to go straight from their lair beyond the galactic rim to the core of civilization, cet all the communication lines and throw people into a panic, and then kill or experiment at their leisure like they did to the Protheans. In ME1 Shepard cut off their plan A and killed the one they left behind to keep a watch on things and open the door for them.
Two years of slow, non-relay based travel later the Reapers got to the nearest mass relay with their normal drives (about twice as fast as the best ships currently being built, but not as good as a Relay) and prepared for a conventional invasion, but Shepard got there in the Arrival DLC and destroyed the relay with hours to spare. This forced them to take several months getting from there to the next nearest relay the slow way, which the Council could use to finally act on Shepard's advice... but instead chose to arrest him for killing the Batarians in the system with the relay.
They arrive at the next relay at the start of ME3, and can suddenly get anywhere on the network almost instanlty, but since they didn't take the Citadel first and everyone was warned (even if the biggest governments ignored it) the Reapers had to actually fight, giving you enough time for the events of the third game.

Devoneaux:
Also let's deal with the fact that as a Major (on par with generals), Kaiden has authority over Shepard who is only a Commander, so why isn't Kaiden giving the orders?

Kaiden's rank is 'Major'. Shepard's rank is 'Motherfucking Spectre'. Spectre outranks everyone in council space except Councilor (and until they revoke your status you don't even need to take orders from them) and other Spectres, and has full diplomatic privilige toward all foreign governments. Shepard technically has the authority to order around anyone from a raw recruit to a Fleet Admiral to a corporate private security guard if they're under the rule of the Council, and only common sense, politness, or the contrary nature of those around you prevents this. And most of those who specifically deny you things end poorly (the old admin on Noveria, for example) because a Spectre in a hurry can literally cut them down without legal repurcussions and a Spectre with morals is now very interested in any illicit dealings they've had.
Everybody calls Shepard 'Commander' either out of habit (he was an Alliance Commander before he became a Spectre), or technical accuracy (he's the one in command, the commanding officer, regardless of rank). Except Tali, who calls him Captain because that's the highest non-Admiral authority to a Quarian. And Ash, who calls him Skipper (which is technically an acceptable term for the owner/operator of any ship, but rarely used in military context).

Devoneaux:
(With no injuries, naturally)

After the end of ME2, Shepard is a high end cyborg. Your bones are reinforced, your skin is armored, your muscles are up-powered, everything. To the point where if you headbutt a krogan, you come away clean and he staggers. It would take a lot more than falling off a building to hurt you. It might take more than the building falling on you to kill you. The downside is of course that if your implants were removed you would die faster than a naked Quarian in a Batarian latrine, but it does make you very good at taking suicide missions and coming back unharmed.

Mikeyfell:
Mass Effect 3.
Not any particular part of it just the whole game.
You know like "How did Councilor Anderson become Admiral Anderson in the blink of an eye?"
Okay I'll stop beating that dead horse.

Anderson retired his post as Councilor between 2 and 3, partly because he was as tired as you of the "ah yes, 'Reapers'" and partly because he always hated paperwork and politics and wanted a military position. Udina was his best option for a successor on the Council because all the others were worse, and say what you will about the asshole but he's good at politics. I was actually a bit more surprised by the jump from Captain Anderson to Admiral Anderson, but I guess the Alliance can't exactly drop the first human Councillor down to command of a single frigate without it being the talk of the galaxy for months.

Joseph Harrison:
I'm not sure if what James said about Cerberus was a plot hole but that did piss me off.
ME1 Cerberus is bad
ME2 Actually no Cerberus is really cool and good and are just misunderstood
ME3 Scratch that Cerberus is bad again

Make up your damn minds Bioware

Not a plot hole. Cerberus was always evil, and the continued to be evil (blatantly) through ME2 (they try to hide it from Shepard while he's working with them, but it's still pretty obvious in a lot of side missions, loyalty missions, and DLC). However, they rebuilt Shepard, gave him a ship, and destroyed the Collectors while being evil, making them a distasteful but valuable ally in the short term while the Council was ignoring everything and the Alliance was refusing to do anything to help, because all of their evil was motivated at the time by extremism and the good of the human race regardless of consequences to the rest of the galaxy. Then, after Shepard stole the Normandy 2, flipped TIM the bird, and recruited away about a third of their best (and least evil on an individual basis) agents, Cerberus decided to go full monster. TIM got himself indoctrinated, they abandoned the covert system where they have three projects and a few dozen agents at a time to prevent info leaks and just hired a merc army, they started rewiring and augmenting their soldiers into little more than partially organic robots to increase combat efficiency and prevent more personnel losses to little things like 'morals' or 'logic', and started fighting you directly.
The one thing that I really do hate about Cerberus's involvement in the second game is that you can't even bring up their activites from the first game except for the Rachni. Admiral Hacket, Toombs and your unit on Akuze... all of it is never even brought up.

Like I said, 90% of the game is beautiful and there are few if any real problems that don't touch on the Crucible or the ending if you pay attention to the background and think about things.

Would it be cheap to say the ending of ME3?
I didn't notice any plotholes in Fallout 3, dat game was amazing.
Maybe I should mention the ending of Far Cry 3 when you choose a certain option and a certain event follows which kinda contradicts the fact that you can continue to play?

Way too many responses in this thread are arguing over inconsequential details. Too many problems pointed out are not actually plot holes. ME3 especially is getting so much flak for some details it introduces to the franchise that seem not to be adequately explained. Here's the thing:

An inadequate amount of exposition does not fit the definition of a "plot hole." It does not even fit the definition of "bad writing."

A plot hole, as has been earlier established in this thread, is an occurrence of events in the plot that cannot have logically happened based on the information we have been given. It is no more and no less than this. So, Shepard and Vega being buddies at the beginning of ME3 is not a plot hole as nothing before or after establishing this directly contradicts it.

So many of the complainers are total hypocrites as well. I see many people aiming their criticism at ME3 for not dumping exposition on us to explain every little detail and cover all possible character actions and motivations. They point this out as bad writing because "the job of a writer is to explain what his characters do and why they do it."

Bullshit. This is meant to make you sound like a cultured consumer of quality fiction and highly aware of the way writing "is supposed to work," and are thus qualified to criticize what "doesn't work." The problem here is that these same people, if they really are aware of the conventions and techniques of writing, would realize that most novels and films that people consider "good" do not waste time on laying out all possible plot avenues and all possible character motivations just to make the reader/viewer more comfortable.

A great deal of great writing comes in the form of ambiguous events and characters. Whether you love or hate Ernest Hemingway, he is a highly respected and extremely talented writer. His stories are never exposited on, ever. The motivations for his characters are a mystery, until you think about the story, analyze its structure and consider the author's intentions.

It is not the resposibility of an auther of any work of fiction to make sure everyone experiencing it can grasp everything about it. Ambiguity and confusion can be intentional tools used by the very best of writers. Even when you are writing an adventure story, such as ME3, you don't have to flat out explain every detail that the viewer may come up with, nor do you have to dumb your prose down so far that everyone can understand it in the simplest terms. Allow your audience to prove to you that they are stupid, don't just assume it from the start and tailor your style to please the lowest denominator. ME3 gives you just enough information in the opening to explain what Vega is doing there and what his relationship with Shepard is. Obviously, since nearly everyone seems to have picked it up without any deep thought required. This is about the stupidest complaint of a "plot hole" I've ever heard.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked