Biggest plot holes in games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

In Crysis 2.

bug_of_war:
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.

Can I join in? I really like polite, thoughtful arguments because they bring up things I haven't thought of or forgot about and help everyone figue things out, but every time ME3 comes up you have lots of mindless fanboys, lots of mindless raeg, and almost no real discussion. I should probably hide most of this so people can scroll past the off-topic bits tho...

Devoneaux:
On the mars mission, why did Cerberus bring land based vehicles? And if they brought them, where was the ship they brought them on? Wouldn't it have shown up on the SR2's scanners like every other Cerberus vessel does?

Why would they have land vehicles on a heavily colonized planet, vehicles that drive you from one place to another. Hmm thats a tricky one, perhaps they drove there?

Devoneaux:
Who is Vega and how does he know Shepard?

Vegas was eiher assigned to Shepard somehow or worked with him during his detention, the dialogue made that quite clear.

Devoneaux:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing?

Because of artistic intent, making the intro/demo to a game more exciting than using stairs is a fair enough reason.

Devoneaux:
So Legion and all his buddies have been on Rhannoc for 290 years. Why during that amount of time didn't they just pack up their shit and leave when the Quarians came? what is so valuable about a planet to a bunch of machines that they would be willing to risk everything just to keep it?

Not a plot hole at all just an unresolved question, its an interesting question sure but its not a plot hole.

Devoneaux:
I can do this all day!

Actually try listing some plot holes then, the game has enough of them but these are not plot holes.

SNIP

Did you also notice how starchild's chaos/order (technological singularity) contradicted the Rannoch story arc.

They spent 2 games convincing us the geth are misunderstood and can co-exist with organics...just to say...ermm no disregard everything you have learnt and experienced... they will kill you because starchild said so in 10 lines of dialogue.

This is what happens when you change the entire point of the reapers at the end. It would be like when Luke gets to the Emperor in Return of the jedi. Then the emperor says 'The dark side has to keep the light side in balance or the universe will implode...No you can't argue this is now fact.'

bug_of_war:

Snip

I wasn't aware off the Dark energy theory at the time either. But the chaos/order explanation still felt contrived because it didn't fit with everything else that happened in the story

The starchild explanation directly contradicts the geth rannoch story arc. 2 games convincing us the geth can co-exist peacefully with organics, just for starchild to say 'ermmm no we were right the first time'

I think people wanting a 'new ending' were confused at what happened..They wanted an explanation of what the writer's meant. Thing is there were so many plot holes and contrivances in the ending and the run up to the end, the audience could not distinguish what was supposed to be open ended and what was just poor writing. There are times to leave things open ended and this wasn't it anyway . The funny thing is they got an explanation for an ending that doesn't make sense in the first place.
Here's a brilliant vid analysing what went wrong if you have not already seen it (it's doesn't go into detail about specific plot elements but still the best vid I have seen)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

Some things are never explained. Some things seem to go against common sense. Why don't they turn off the New You things in Borderlands? I dunno. Reasons.

Those are not plot holes. Plot holes are logical impossibilities. Like a character being somewhere when they're supposedly currently being elsewhere, or a gun working when it was out of ammo 4 sentences ago.

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:
So Legion and all his buddies have been on Rhannoc for 290 years. Why during that amount of time didn't they just pack up their shit and leave when the Quarians came? what is so valuable about a planet to a bunch of machines that they would be willing to risk everything just to keep it?

Not a plot hole at all just an unresolved question, its an interesting question sure but its not a plot hole.

Well, the Quarians have never tried to return to the planet before. Or attempted to communicate with the Geth in a way that did not involve trying to kill or enslave them. Meanwhile the rest of the Council races exiled the creators from the Citadel just for making the Geth, and have a clear exterminate on sight policy for rogue AIs. Because literally everyone who's brought up the subject before Shepard, on both sides of the argument, started from the assumption that any organic discovering an AI would attempt to destroy it and vice versa if possible. The implication is that, given the levels of paranoia on both sides, nobody's really attempted any sort of negotiations over the course of these three hundred years.
Legion told you that most Geth didn't live on Rhannoc anyway, and those who did were just acting as caretakers of the world, upkeeping it for the expected return of the Quarians. But the Quarians attempted genocide when Geth sentience was first discovered and those feelings have only intensified over the centuries of wandering for most people. And when the Quarians finally did come home, it was as an invasion force looking to shoot first, keep shooting until the threat was gone, and think about living space after the Geth were eliminated; at that point any reaction other than fighting back would be suicide.

The Geth were extremely, violently isolationist because it was the only way to survive. They stayed hidden beyond the Veil to minimize contact with Council races because every contact they did have was bloody. Then some of them split off to follow Sovereign, Shepard comes along to stop them, and the remaining Geth become curious enough to send Legion to effectively make first contact with humanity. Until that happened, there was no chance for negotiation and even Shepard can only keep the races from exterminating each other if you do everything perfectly. The tragedy of the whole thing is that those three hundred years of suffering and the probable extinction of one race was the result of nothing but a lack of understanding; neither side wanted to fight but both felt they needed to defend themselves and there was no communication between them until Tali met Legion.

IronMit:
I think people wanting a 'new ending' were confused at what happened..They wanted an explanation of what the writer's meant. Thing is there were so many plot holes and contrivances in the ending and the run up to the end, the audience could not distinguish what was supposed to be open ended and what was just poor writing. There are times to leave things open ended and this wasn't it anyway . The funny thing is they got an explanation for an ending that doesn't make sense in the first place.

Personally I thought that the ending was perfectly clear (except in the actual results of your color selection and the whole question of where the hell the Normandy went and why, but the extended cut makes those clearer), but everything they said contradicted the story before. People always seem to say that those who complain about the ending don't understand it, or hated that it wasn't an unambiguously happy end, or are just raeging that the story was over, but most of the complaints are actually legitimate reasons given by mature people who understood everything - more than the writer of the end seemed to.
The Reapers were given a great deal of characterization in the first two games which was then completely flipped for no reason in one badly written dialogue. The themes of the story were suddenly gutted: the previous games had been about a hero's choices shaping a galaxy, fixing the mistakes of the past (Rachni, Genophage, Geth/Quarian war, etc.), unifying disparate races toward a common goal and finding common ground between alien races, proving that there's no meaningful difference between synthetic and organic life (EDI/Joker, Shepard as a cyborg, the Geth/Quarian unification), and a dozen other recurring themes... then those are all thrown out and replaced with 'synthetics and organics can never coexist' and 'order must be preserved at all cost because chaos is bad or something'. It's like if somebody skimmed over about 10% of a summary of the previous games and then wrote a bad fanfic of it.
I don't want a happy ending. I don't want the story to go on forever. I don't require that every loose thread be unambiguously tied off. What I want is an ending that fits the story, both matching lore and fitting themes. And while I'm not crazy enough to have demanded a change from the publishers or expected a DLC to 'fix' it, the official ending is not one which works for the story which was told. Which is why I generally leave it out of any discussion of the Mass Effect storyline, because it is clearly incongruent with the Mass Effect storyline.

Devoneaux:

On the mars mission, why did Cerberus bring land based vehicles? And if they brought them, where was the ship they brought them on? Wouldn't it have shown up on the SR2's scanners like every other Cerberus vessel does?

The only possible explanation is that the ship that brought the tanks was a Normandy model (with a redesigned garage level to fit all that) and it doesn't show up on the radars.

In Uncharted 3 there is this scene where Drake and his friends are looking at this wall to find the entrance to some tomb or something when one of the villains literally comes out of nowhere, shoots one of your allies with a mind control dart, turns him against you, and then promptly disappears back into nowhere.
no, I'm not joking, this actually happened
nobody heard him at all? nobody saw where he went?
I was actually pretty pissed at this one, it just made absolutely no sense at all!
what the actual fuck.

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.

Well...its pretty much implied throughout the game that a lot of rape and sexual assault is happening in the Gallows. If you walk around the gallows and click on people a few times or overhear them they'll hint at it repeatedly. The reason that crazy Templar was making mages Trainquil was so he could use them without complaining. Alain, one of the mages from Starkhaven, if he is captured he will tell you that he has been forced to do things under threat of being made Trainquil

It's not done well at all. Every other mage uses blood magic, and
I have a theory it was all in an attempt to make people want to play a templar in DA3....

Devoneaux:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing?

Because the doors are blocked and the interior of the building is chaos. Thats pretty damn clear. Not to mention you don't know what is stable and what isn't....remember the Reaper tore through that building.
...a lot og your questions are answered if you go look up the wiki or...pay attention to the game

Everyone has drummed the recent terrible Bioware games to death already, so I'll just agree with Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2. God dammit Bioware, what happened to you.

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:
On the mars mission, why did Cerberus bring land based vehicles? And if they brought them, where was the ship they brought them on? Wouldn't it have shown up on the SR2's scanners like every other Cerberus vessel does?

Why would they have land vehicles on a heavily colonized planet, vehicles that drive you from one place to another. Hmm thats a tricky one, perhaps they drove there?

You misunderstand the question entirely. Why did Cerburus bring LAND BASED vehicles with them and how? Cerburus makes use of shuttles and ships that can drop them off wherever they want. Why didn't they just use shuttles to drop off strike teams? How did they even get those trucks there on mars?

Devoneaux:
Who is Vega and how does he know Shepard?

Vegas was eiher assigned to Shepard somehow or worked with him during his detention, the dialogue made that quite clear.

No it didn't, I don't think you know what clarity is. He could have just been some guy giving Shepard a message for all we know, the narrative never takes the time to explain how Vega knows Shepard.

Devoneaux:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing?

Because of artistic intent, making the intro/demo to a game more exciting than using stairs is a fair enough reason.

No it's not. Now it's your turn to go look up the definition of a plot hole. A plot hole is when characters make a decision that is less easy, less simple and/or less logical than another givin decision but it is never explained why they do this as opposed to the easier thing.

Devoneaux:
So Legion and all his buddies have been on Rhannoc for 290 years. Why during that amount of time didn't they just pack up their shit and leave when the Quarians came? what is so valuable about a planet to a bunch of machines that they would be willing to risk everything just to keep it?

Not a plot hole at all just an unresolved question, its an interesting question sure but its not a plot hole.

Please see my last response. See there would be no plot here if the geth did to obvious thing. So it's either a plot hole or a MASSIVE contrivance. Your pick.

Devoneaux:
I can do this all day!

Actually try listing some plot holes then, the game has enough of them but these are not plot holes.

Leonardo Chaves:

Devoneaux:

On the mars mission, why did Cerberus bring land based vehicles? And if they brought them, where was the ship they brought them on? Wouldn't it have shown up on the SR2's scanners like every other Cerberus vessel does?

The only possible explanation is that the ship that brought the tanks was a Normandy model (with a redesigned garage level to fit all that) and it doesn't show up on the radars.

Well if that's the case, why didn't they use those stealth ships to attack the STG base later?

Suncatcher:

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.

The fact that something like this is even in issue is proof that nobody writing Mass Effect 3 had any respect for, or clue about what the first two games were doing.

A player controlled narrative where your choices decide the fate of the galaxy!
But in practice only 2 choices you made had any remote baring on the course of the finally. Minor ones at that that ultimately only effected numbers on a chart.
Did you save Mellon's data (Not did you stop Mordin from shooting him, no. Just did you save his data)
and what did you do with the Geth Heretics (And questionably at that, I've managed to get peace with them destroyed and rewritten)

But here's the biggest choice you made in the first game are you going to pick the sleaze ball politician to be the most powerful human in history, or are you going to pick the honorable military Capetian.
So we wait 5 years to see the consequences of our choice come to fruition and Bioware, all by themselves, decided it wasn't important enough to follow up on.

Yes, that's low. But not a plot hole.
The thing that does make it a plot hole is a line Councilor Anderson says in Mass Effect 2

"As much as I complain I have an important job to do here."
That's not something you say before you quit.
And running away from obligation doesn't suit Anderson's character. Bioware expects us to take for granted that when the going gets tough Anderson just throws in the towel and completely checks out? I don't buy it.
Furthermore Anderson didn't like Udina. (It's just speculation but) It seems to me that Anderson would try his damnedest to appoint anybody else as his successor.

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).

There's a problem with that view point.
But it relies heavily on the understanding that Mass Effect 2 was a game. Not a movie, not a book, not a campfire story, but a game. And that player choice was a core mechanic of that game.

Throughout Mass Effect 2 you were allowed to decide whether you agreed with Cerberus or not.
If as you think is, was, and forever will be "evil" that effectively makes anyone who played Renegade in ME2 canonically incorrect. Basically rewriting the Renegade personality into the "Stupid Shepard"

(Even though the Renegade personality was revised in ME3 into the much nicer, much less racist Shepard with more political foresight and weird empathy for some kid she doesn't even know, but that's a story for another time)

Even though everything they're doing in ME3 disagrees with their MO (Which is to help humanity)
Setting up a fake refugee camp so they can experiment on the very humans they're trying to protect is off...
Attacking Alliance bases for... reasons?
They must be indoctrinated... but they aren't because they were investing all their resources into trying to figure out how indoctrination works so they could use it against the Reapers. And if the Reapers were controlling their brains why would they let them do that? So one of those things is a plot hole

And when you can't even tell which part is plot and which part is hole that speaks wonders for how bad the writing is.

Bioware should stop making games, They had a good run from Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect 2. They were really good when they stayed in their comfort zone. Nobody did the Hero's Journey better. But then they decided they had enough of the Hero's Journey and everything went to hell. Dragon Age 2 was a complete Narrative mess and ME 3 was a complete shitstorm.

Their last 2 games are proof that they're incapable of incorporating any level of player choice into a narrative more complicated than "Go there. Kill thing. Save day."
The second they try to add family drama or political intrigue everything goes strait down the drain

darlarosa:

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.

Well...its pretty much implied throughout the game that a lot of rape and sexual assault is happening in the Gallows. If you walk around the gallows and click on people a few times or overhear them they'll hint at it repeatedly. The reason that crazy Templar was making mages Trainquil was so he could use them without complaining. Alain, one of the mages from Starkhaven, if he is captured he will tell you that he has been forced to do things under threat of being made Trainquil

It's not done well at all. Every other mage uses blood magic, and
I have a theory it was all in an attempt to make people want to play a templar in DA3....

Devoneaux:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing?

Because the doors are blocked and the interior of the building is chaos. Thats pretty damn clear. Not to mention you don't know what is stable and what isn't....remember the Reaper tore through that building.
...a lot og your questions are answered if you go look up the wiki or...pay attention to the game

Actually if you look closely, the desk breaks apart as it hits the wall, so there goes that. And that's exactly my point, we don't know if the door works because nobody in the room even bothers to check, they just look at the blown out window and go "Yep this is the best way to go about this." without even thinking things through. So yeah, maybe you'd like to try paying attention.

Edit: Also, are you suggesting to me that Shepard and Anderson( trained military proffessionals) can't...hop over a desk when we see them hoping over chest high walls within the next few minutes? As Shepard once said to a reporter: I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions!

The whole Dark Souls story. I adore the game, but after more than a 100 hours I still have no clue what I'm doing,achieving and striving for.

Mikeyfell:
The second they try to add family drama or political intrigue everything goes strait down the drain

I would say that the dwarf lord origin story in...Origins was done relatively well, but for the most part you're correct.

alphamalet:

Protocol95:

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.

That is inaccurate. The game attempts to say "Some mages are good, some are bad and the same goes with templars". Not every mage in the game tries to kill you or someone else or just genreally be a jerk. For example Feynriel is an unfortunate apostate who will only do something bad if you indulged in some really horrible Video Game Cruelty Potential. For the templars there are a quite a few templars who are unabigiously evil. Take Ser Alrik, the templar who wanted to make all mages tranquil, which is considered by many of them a fate worse than death.

I agree to a certain extent, but I still believe that in light of DA:O, the templars vs mages plot felt very contrived. Think about it. In the tower mage origin story of DA:O, a mage uses blood magic and everyone freaks out! It was a big deal that didn't happen often! Even the fiance of the mage that uses blood magic abandons her trust of him and willingly submits to punishment for even associating with him. When you come back to the tower after it has fallen in DA:O, you run into mages that say they want nothing to do with blood magic or the rebellion that is taking place. DA:O did a good job of making you feel sympathetic to both the templars and mages while successfully making the delineation that negative actions were performed by a few bad apples on both sides.

Hop on over to Dragon Age II, and in the game's final act, every templar is order to kill every mage, which prompts every mage to turn into a blood mage. It felt so damn contrived and didn't match the tone of the original game at all. Not only that, blood magic was used at a far greater frequency in Dragon Age II. And for what reason? Didn't people fear it just as much? The writing in DA II was an absolute mess.

I know you guys are trying to drop this argument, but I feel the need to chip in. I'm apologizing in advance in case this was already mentioned since I only read the first page so far, but I'll forget if I keep reading.

The reason there are more blood mages is because the veil in Kirkwall is much thinner. The city was built by the Tevinters (a land more or less made up of Mages that don't submit to the Chantry) and they purposely built Kirkwall in such a way to weaken the veil inside the city walls. The handful of hidden notes across the game point this out, so it's something you will have to actively look for as opposed to just being outright told. With the extremely thin veil in Kirkwall, demons can communicate with the Mages and tempt them into becoming Blood Mages.

Then there's the more overzealous Templars that turn Mages into Tranquil for minor offenses or suspicions, which in turn causes the Mages to run away or turn to Blood Magic and resist, which then makes the Tempars even more strict. So you have an environment almost literally filled with demons trying to seduce Mages that are being backed into a corner by some of the most zealous Templars the Chantry has at their disposal.

Honestly I love the story line. The individual characters, not so much, but the overarching story fascinates me. On one hand, the Templars are just trying to keep the people safe because Mages can be dangerous, but they're also shooting themselves in the foot with every offensive push. The Mages just want to be free and live a normal life, but they can't because of the power they posses, as well as the potential for demonic possession, and it breeds fear and prejudice among the civilians, leaving them as second-class citizens and social pariahs. You want to help Templars because they both keep the public safe from the Mages and the Mages safe from the public, but at the same time you want to help the Mages live a free life, because they are people too. That is why the game forces you to have a Mage no matter what (Warrior/Rogue Hawk has Bethany, while Mage Hawk has Carver).

wakeup:

hermes200:
In Heavy Rain, they never explain Ethan's blackouts, which is a pretty big deal because they are the reason he is the main suspect. What is more, they contain information about victims Ethan wouldn't have even met...

they came out in a video and explained that one but it had a supernatural like explanation so the scenes that explained that were cut out of the game. shame really

You dont need a supernatural explanation. He was in a car accident and had a concussion which causes blackouts. Simple.

EDIT: I dont remember him miraculously learning new information via blackouts but they do cause memory loss, maby he forgot how he learned said information. It's a stretch I know but it makes some sort of sense.

Denamic:
Some things are never explained. Some things seem to go against common sense. Why don't they turn off the New You things in Borderlands? I dunno. Reasons.

Those are not plot holes. Plot holes are logical impossibilities. Like a character being somewhere when they're supposedly currently being elsewhere, or a gun working when it was out of ammo 4 sentences ago.

Or like characters taking a more dangerous longer path for no explained reason when there's a nice safe path readily available.

Mass Effect 3

The Crucible is a device that connects with the Citadel and uses the mass relays to spread its energy. This device has been used for countless of cycles, including cycles when there was no way to link it to the Citadel because the Reapers shut down the entire relay network at the start of a cycle, as mentioned by Vigil. We are the exception because the protheans sabotaged the Citadel's relay control. It is unknown why the civilizations of the galaxy would begin construction of this device if they had no way of deploying it. I know the Citadel was only added to the design later on, but there were at least several cvilizations who could never transport the crucible to the Citadel.

Suncatcher:

Well, the Quarians have never tried to return to the planet before. Or attempted to communicate with the Geth in a way that did not involve trying to kill or enslave them. Meanwhile the rest of the Council races exiled the creators from the Citadel just for making the Geth, and have a clear exterminate on sight policy for rogue AIs. Because literally everyone who's brought up the subject before Shepard, on both sides of the argument, started from the assumption that any organic discovering an AI would attempt to destroy it and vice versa if possible. The implication is that, given the levels of paranoia on both sides, nobody's really attempted any sort of negotiations over the course of these three hundred years.

I was with you up until here, but then you wrote...

Legion told you that most Geth didn't live on Rhannoc anyway, and those who did were just acting as caretakers of the world, upkeeping it for the expected return of the Quarians.

If the quarians were expected to return, then shouldn't there have been some kind of plan in place in the event that quarians come with guns blazing? Was this possibility not even considered by the geth? Furthermore, if most geth aren't on Rhannoc, then how is siding with the quarians somehow the end of the geth people as the story implies? Was Legion just lying to cover up his highly impossible Dyson Sphere thing?

there was no chance for negotiation

How do you know that? You're just assuming it wouldn't have worked. And even if it wouldn't; the fact that they never even try to reach out with an olive branch before siding with the reapers is completely dumb.

neither side wanted to fight but both felt they needed to defend themselves and there was no communication between them until Tali met Legion.

pretty sure the quarians definitely wanted to fight if only to get their planet back, which is the crux of my argument; all the quarians wanted was the damn rock in space. If the geth were all gun ho about just giving it to them then why didn't they just do that? Why didn't they even TRY getting a message to the quarians saying they surrender and will freely give rhannoc to them? The answer: The story needed them to fight even though it makes no real sense for them to do so. This is really just a classic example of characters forming around the plot rather than the other way around, and has become increasingly common with Bioware games.

Personally I thought that the ending was perfectly clear

And I disagree with you, but that's a whole other can of worms.

sibrenfetter:
The whole Dark Souls story. I adore the game, but after more than a 100 hours I still have no clue what I'm doing,achieving and striving for.

That isnt really a plot hole. (edited to reduce cheekyness) Basically by talking to frampt or kaathe you get the general gist of what the point of what you are doing. This is spoilerific for anyone who has not beaten the games, so...be warned!

Frampt's version:

Kaathe's version:

Borderlands 2 seems rife with them.

Boozak:

You dont need a supernatural explanation. He was in a car accident and had a concussion which causes blackouts. Simple.

EDIT: I dont remember him miraculously learning new information via blackouts but they do cause memory loss, maby he forgot how he learned said information. It's a stretch I know but it makes some sort of sense.

That works, aside from the fact that early-on in the story he wakes up from a blackout with an origami figure in his hand. Never gets explained... ever.

OT: I never understood the ending of LoZ: Ocarina of Time. You go forward in time 7 years, stop Ganondorf, and then go back 7 years - and everything is fine and dandy... WHAT!? 0.0

pspman45:
In Uncharted 3 there is this scene where Drake and his friends are looking at this wall to find the entrance to some tomb or something when one of the villains literally comes out of nowhere, shoots one of your allies with a mind control dart, turns him against you, and then promptly disappears back into nowhere.
no, I'm not joking, this actually happened
nobody heard him at all? nobody saw where he went?
I was actually pretty pissed at this one, it just made absolutely no sense at all!
what the actual fuck.

Also, the bit where he gets killed and inexplicably comes back later.

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.

From what I remember, the reason Fontaine sent Jack to the surface was to keep him out of Ryan's reach. After all, Ryan knew the child existed, and that with his genetic key the child would be dangerous if used by Fontaine.

I could be wrong though.

Dr. McD:
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?!

You make a pretty valid point there. Seems illogical that anything could survive and grow.

Dr. McD:
Burke hires you to blow up Megaton from in Megaton, in front of everyone.

Not really a plot hole. Realistically you would assume the Mr Burke simply speaks quietly to the player so that no-one overhears, but of course what actually happens is the game pauses and he speaks at a normal volume level.

Dr. McD:
Why are the Super Mutants retarded orcs and ogres?!

I assume you are talking about how they're different from the the West Coast supermutants? Simple, they were formed from an altered form of the FEV virus. The game explains this.

Dr. McD:
Why does Vault-Tec even have anything to do with FEV?!

Maybe the military gave it to them to use in their vault experiments, or maybe the corporation stole it after finding out about it somehow. Just use your imagination. I mean, is it really that hard to believe that Vault Tec somehow got their hands on an altered FEV virus?

Suncatcher:
Can I join in?

You totally can. Because your post is mega long, I'm gonna try and pick out parts that have not been talked about as much due to it being a pain in the ass to scroll through so much to edit.

Suncatcher:
Then of course the ending of ME3 threw everything away and made them the mindless pawns of a retarded glowing infant, but I choose to believe that didn't happen since it contradicts all of the lore and the major themes of the story until then.

While I agree with you that initially the Reapers did feel as they WERE the epitome of the universe, I always saw them as being more robotic and faar too logical to have been AI technology with the depth of EDI or Legion. This is due to a number of things. First off, Soverign and all the other Reaper's refusal to explain to Shepard where they came from tells me that they are restricted by their programming to believe that all organic life is too fragile and stupid (for lack of a better word) to understand their story. Secondly, the very precise cycle and ability to change tactics on the fly show me that they have some form of pre programming and are quite clearly unburdened by any emotions, they simply observe and then act. Thirdly, Soverigns assault on the Citadel had a very distinct split in terms of what's going on. For example, you saw this as the Reaper's ego outweighing his ability to determine risk assesment (very poorly paraphrased, but I believe that is something along the lines of what you said), however I saw this as a machine who was running out of time to perform a task that it HAD to complete because it was time to do so. Seeing as how there is evidence to back up both sides, I think it's clear that there are some examples suggesting the Reapers are more or less following basic programming.

Suncatcher:
Harbinger, on the other hand, seems silly on the surface but gets dangerously genre savvy when you look closer. His first action when he takes command is not to brag, or make a show of force, or even to move forward with the invasion. His first action is to find the man who killed his predecessor, and apply enough power to qualify as overkill on any other target to the ship he's on. Then (if you read the comics, or just look closely enough at Liara's story between the first and second games) he does not just count you as dead after your ship was disintegrated around you. He dedicates all the resources at his immediate disposal to confirming the kill, and it's only the combined efforts of Liara, Aria, and Cerberus that manage to recover your body before the Collectors do.

This is also an example of where both sides show seemingly intelligent individual thinking by a machine that has no programming boundries/a machine with very strict boundries. Harbinger saw that Soverign had fallen due to a certain creature, his programming would demand the cycle continue but his observations of the events in ME1 gave him all the information needed to defeat this problem, use overkill tactics, then confirm the enemies dead body and continue on with galactic purging as planned. Again, plenty of evidence to shoot this down, and plenty to back it up.

Suncatcher:
What doesn't really make sense is using Earth for the ending, or trying to rally the galaxy to take back your planet specifically instead of generally beating back Reaper forces, but nothing in the ending and little in the core plot makes sense.

Respectfully, I would like to disagree. It's been established that Harbinger seems to be the one whom is pulling the strings in the battle, so to then have the catalyst moved to Earth to be watched under his supervision makes sense when Shepard had done the unimaginable and truly rallied the majority of the galaxy. While the initial 'lets rally the galaxy to save Earth' definately doesn't make sense, as there are the same amount of Reaper's on other planets (That is until the ending), so I agree with you there. There is a spectacular line in the mission where you go to the Asari homeworld and fight with the comandos. During the battle, when you convince the commanding officer to hold the line she yells out "Let the galaxy know that the war was won on *insert Asari homeworld name here*". This shows how each species feels as though the attack is very personal, and that because Shepard, the guy who has been kicking ass before they realised there really was an ass that needed kicking, told them that their planet may hold the key to the destruction of the Reapers, it is clear that that just bolstered their belief that something about them made them more important than other species. I feel that it shows that during an intense moment of impossible odds, people can become closed minded and believe that the problem is only effecting them and no one else. Then, when Shepard reveals the key to winning, and that it's on Earth, everyone whom pledged their alliance (after being saved from the impossible odds) are fully prepared to go to this one planet.

Suncatcher:

you can see EA's bloody handprints all over that part, after the lead writer of the first two games was replaced

Now, this is where I REALLY disagree. While EA does make some bad decisions, I feel that it is not their fault when it comes to Mass Effect's story. First off, to all those who claimed EA rushed Bioware, they didn't, they actually extended Mass Effect 3's release date so as that the game could be polished. Secondly, there have been reports that the lead writer chose to quit/was let go, and because of legal documents we will probably not know which is fact or fiction. But to blame EA for the ending and the direction of the story when they never actually touched the games script, AND when it was revealed that Casey Hudson wrote the ending, it really shows that EA had nothing to do with the game other than paying to make it. Thirdly, claiming that the introduction of multiplayer effected the single player story in any way other than the EMS rating percentage is wrong. The story was completed before the multi player was even added to the development of the game.

Please don't blame EA for this one. Sure the FD DLC is kinda a dick move, but companies like Capcom and Nintendo are SOO much worse when compared to EA. Please don't let Mass Effect 3 stop you from playing future Bioware games, as while I can't predict the future, I think Bioware really listens to their fans and will try to aim to please. And with all the negativity thrown at EA last year, the likely hood of them rushing bioware (DA2, not a bad game, not a great game) or doing anything to try and pressure other devs is so low that you're more likely to see Nintendo release a game THEY (Key word being they as in Nintendo themselves, not other companies) developed with current gen quality graphics.

IronMit:

bug_of_war:

Snip

I wasn't aware off the Dark energy theory at the time either. But the chaos/order explanation still felt contrived because it didn't fit with everything else that happened in the story

The starchild explanation directly contradicts the geth rannoch story arc. 2 games convincing us the geth can co-exist peacefully with organics, just for starchild to say 'ermmm no we were right the first time'

I think people wanting a 'new ending' were confused at what happened..They wanted an explanation of what the writer's meant. Thing is there were so many plot holes and contrivances in the ending and the run up to the end, the audience could not distinguish what was supposed to be open ended and what was just poor writing. There are times to leave things open ended and this wasn't it anyway . The funny thing is they got an explanation for an ending that doesn't make sense in the first place.
Here's a brilliant vid analysing what went wrong if you have not already seen it (it's doesn't go into detail about specific plot elements but still the best vid I have seen)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

Yeah, the star child is totally contrived, but I don't see that as an immediete bad thing. Anyways. Yeah, there wer plot holes in the games, but almost everything has some degree of plot holes. It seems as though Mass Effect had such a large universe that the devs kinda forgot about some things or glazed over some others in favour of where they wanted to go. That vid you linked is long as hell and I've seen it before and kinda had moments of agreeing and disagreeing. Yes, the ending can totally be confusing, and I didn't figure this out until like a month ago, but I think this is what they were trying to do.

Firstly, I believe that Bioware saw leaving the ending open gave players the ability to imagine there own version of what the universe will be like with the decisions they made. Granted, most people felt this was wrong as I have found most Bioware fans seem to want to know absolutely everything there is to know to the point of it kind of being annoying (example being who made the Reapers, I really didn't care because I felt it detracted from the main point of ME3).

Now, onto what I think they were trying to do with the 3 endings. The 3 endings represent both human psychology and the summary of the trilogy. The first game represents fear and destruction. We learn that there is a powereful and seemingly unstoppable enemy that plans to wipe out all races. We understand and no little of this enemy, so we fear them, and through that fear groes hate and the need to destroy this thing before it gets us. First ending of ME3 is Destroy, the fear of the Reapers causes you to sacrifice ALL other AI's in order to save yourself. The second game represents coming to terms with reality and begining to understand the things (in this case, the Reapers) workings. We know they are not immortal or invulnerable, and we understand that they are machines, which means they must have to follow some restraints of synthetic lifeforms. Thus, we begin to try and control the Reapers (The Illusive Man, but Shepard can/can't depending on what you pick). The second ending is control, understanding that the enemy has limitations and can be defeated, the player makes the decision to take over their minds and guide them in a knew direction. The third game is all about unifying the galaxy to confront a threat that not only effects everyone, but we understand a majority of what they can do. The third ending is synthesis, the unification of synthetic and organic life.

Now, how does this fit into human psychology? let me use the Vampire as an example. Initially, we feared Vampires as the were immortal creatures in the dark whom seemingly had complete and utter control over everything. We feared the, we hated them, and we sought their destruction. After a while we began to understand the basics of Vampires, they drank blood, burned in the sun, didn't have reflections, and steaks to the hearts killed them. We began to gain control over the once feared creatures and could use their disadvantage to our advantage. Now days, Twilight, Underworld, True Blood etc all show that we know soo much about Vampires that some people begin to actually want to be Vampires.

I could be reading into the came far too deeply, but Bioware are known for making subtle references and forming complex ideas and leaving them up to the player to figure out/decide what's what.

Ergh, double posted

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:
On the mars mission, why did Cerberus bring land based vehicles? And if they brought them, where was the ship they brought them on? Wouldn't it have shown up on the SR2's scanners like every other Cerberus vessel does?

Why would they have land vehicles on a heavily colonized planet, vehicles that drive you from one place to another. Hmm thats a tricky one, perhaps they drove there?

You misunderstand the question entirely. Why did Cerburus bring LAND BASED vehicles with them and how? Cerburus makes use of shuttles and ships that can drop them off wherever they want. Why didn't they just use shuttles to drop off strike teams? How did they even get those trucks there on mars?

You misunderstood the very simple answer entirely, let me elaborate. Mars is heavily colonized and covered with bases, outposts and colonies. Cerberus almost certainly had access to facilities on Mars, so the land based vehicles where there because they got in them in at one base and then drove to the Prothean archaeology base.

Devoneaux:
Who is Vega and how does he know Shepard?

J Tyran:
Vegas was eiher assigned to Shepard somehow or worked with him during his detention, the dialogue made that quite clear.

No it didn't, I don't think you know what clarity is. He could have just been some guy giving Shepard a message for all we know, the narrative never takes the time to explain how Vega knows Shepard.

I will give ground on this, it might be clear to some but others..... well Ok I can see how some might have missed the very few lines where Shepard and Vega discussed that they had been acquainted during Shepard's detention. Considering in the scheme of the plot at that point Vega wasn't really much of a character, he was just a dude at the base Shepard was being held at his story wasn't that important. Possibly they could have discussed it later in the game and made the connection clearer but they didn't.

The Comics and Anime etc that explain Vegas story obviously do not count. The summary of those is that Vega knew Anderson and was flagged for N7 training, he was then hanging around with Anderson "between duties" possibly to be mentored by him and eventually Shepard. As these stories are not part of the game they don't count, its an increasing problem with story heavy games where lots of the plot ends up in other media.

Devoneaux:
So reapers attack earth and Shepard and Anderson start climbing around on the rooftops. Why? Why didn't they just take the stairs, how is this in any way faster or safer than the sensible thing

J Tyran:
Because of artistic intent, making the intro/demo to a game more exciting than using stairs is a fair enough reason.

No it's not. Now it's your turn to go look up the definition of a plot hole. A plot hole is when characters make a decision that is less easy, less simple and/or less logical than another givin decision but it is never explained why they do this as opposed to the easier thing.

Artistic intent is a perfectly valid reason, Mass Effect 3 is an action based game and in action biased games, films and stories the people in them often do stuff that might not be the safest or easiest way of doing things just to try and ramp up the excitement.

That scene was the first few minutes of the player being in control, it was also the demo. Which is more cinematic? Walking up some stairs where you wouldn't see much or running around outside on the rooftops with the giant alien robots in full view seeing them fight kilometer long human warships and blowing everything to bits? It was done for artistic reasons, i.e. seeing the Reapers do their thing and it was done to make the intro/demo/tutorial more exciting.

Devoneaux:
So Legion and all his buddies have been on Rhannoc for 290 years. Why during that amount of time didn't they just pack up their shit and leave when the Quarians came? what is so valuable about a planet to a bunch of machines that they would be willing to risk everything just to keep it?

J Tyran:
Not a plot hole at all just an unresolved question, its an interesting question sure but its not a plot hole.

Please see my last response. See there would be no plot here if the geth did to obvious thing. So it's either a plot hole or a MASSIVE contrivance. Your pick.

It was made obvious that for some reason the Geth occupied most of the former Quarian star systems, bases and space stations across their former territory in every game in the trilogy. That wasn't something that came out of the blue, they just never answered why. Probably for same reason they messed up so much of the rest of the story.

I am not arguing this anymore, unraveling your busted quoting was painful. You wanna carry on nitpicking non issues with a game that has plenty of issues carry on knock yourself out.

Mikeyfell:
A player controlled narrative where your choices decide the fate of the galaxy!
But in practice only 2 choices you made had any remote baring on the course of the finally. Minor ones at that that ultimately only effected numbers on a chart.
Did you save Mellon's data (Not did you stop Mordin from shooting him, no. Just did you save his data)
and what did you do with the Geth Heretics (And questionably at that, I've managed to get peace with them destroyed and rewritten)

See, that's just not true. The ending itself is dependent on two factors: your color choice and how much grinding you did in multiplayer. Events up until that moment are influenced by hundreds of factors from the previous games; right off the top of my head there's treatment of Conrad Verner, conversations with Tali and Legion, saving or abandoning the original Council, protecting Kirrahe on Virmire, dealing with Wrex's tantrum at the cloning facility, sparing the Rachni queen, how many of the Asari Matriarch's writings you gathered while chasing Saren...
Granted, many of these things have outcomes that seem roughly equivalent on the face, since it's just not feasible to make an entirely different game for every possible combination of factors: you get husk'd rachni as enemies whether or not you spared the queen because that's a big part of the game design that they can't work around in every single encounter, and so the mission looks awfully similar whether you're revisiting the queen you let loose earlier or meeting the clone of her that the Reapers whipped up. But when you look at the actual results? A genuine queen that you free twice and introduce to the Council races becomes a valuable part of the war effort, and is well on her way to reestablishing her once-extinct race in the galaxy but on peaceful terms. The clone, if allowed to live, just fucks shit up and murders people.

"As much as I complain I have an important job to do here."
That's not something you say before you quit.
And running away from obligation doesn't suit Anderson's character.

No. It's something that you say before you get down to your important business and get shit done, rather than something you say before you sit on your ass trading empty pleasantries with politicals and watch the world burn around you. He didn't quit being a Councilor because it was hard, or because he hated it, he quit so he could actually do his damn job as an Admiral.

Throughout Mass Effect 2 you were allowed to decide whether you agreed with Cerberus or not.
If as you think is, was, and forever will be "evil" that effectively makes anyone who played Renegade in ME2 canonically incorrect. Basically rewriting the Renegade personality into the "Stupid Shepard"

Not stupid. Cynical. Pragmatic. Willing to accept collateral damage as long as the greater good is served. And willing to work with people who are clearly evil because he can't accomplish what he needs alone and the proper authorities are ignoring the problem. In short, how Renegade Shepard always has been. A good man can work with an evil one without being an idiot so long as their goals align, but it doesn't make the evil man good.

everything they're doing in ME3 disagrees with their MO (Which is to help humanity)
Setting up a fake refugee camp so they can experiment on the very humans they're trying to protect is off...
Attacking Alliance bases for... reasons?
They must be indoctrinated... but they aren't because they were investing all their resources into trying to figure out how indoctrination works so they could use it against the Reapers. And if the Reapers were controlling their brains why would they let them do that? So one of those things is a plot hole

When the Reapers want an intelligent, creative minion instead of a mindless pawn they can't just take direct control of his brain. Sovereign never puppetted Saren until he was already dead. Until then he made subtler changes, whispering and tweaking until Saren was just as brilliant as he always was, but unable to conceive of the Reapers being unsuccessful and totally convinced that by serving the Reapers he was saving his race, allowing the Turians to live as slaves instead of being wiped out. And all along, Saren was doing his own research into Indoctrination and convincing himself that he was safe, himself, in control. It would be the same with TIM; Harbinger wouldn't just yell 'kill all humans' when he could whisper about gaining the power to make humanity the rulers of the galaxy, as long as he was willing to take a few acceptable losses along the way. It's not much of a stretch, Cerberus was already killing humans by the dozens if not hundreds in their experiments you interrupted in the first game, because they believed that the gains from those experiments would save millions or give them power over aliens.

bug_of_war:
While I agree with you that initially the Reapers did feel as they WERE the epitome of the universe, I always saw them as being more robotic and faar too logical to have been AI technology with the depth of EDI or Legion. This is due to a number of things. First off, Soverign and all the other Reaper's refusal to explain to Shepard where they came from tells me that they are restricted by their programming to believe that all organic life is too fragile and stupid (for lack of a better word) to understand their story. Secondly, the very precise cycle and ability to change tactics on the fly show me that they have some form of pre programming and are quite clearly unburdened by any emotions, they simply observe and then act. Thirdly, Soverigns assault on the Citadel had a very distinct split in terms of what's going on. For example, you saw this as the Reaper's ego outweighing his ability to determine risk assesment (very poorly paraphrased, but I believe that is something along the lines of what you said), however I saw this as a machine who was running out of time to perform a task that it HAD to complete because it was time to do so. Seeing as how there is evidence to back up both sides, I think it's clear that there are some examples suggesting the Reapers are more or less following basic programming.

If we assume that the Reapers are just VIs, acting on their programming instead of their own drive, we have to assume that Sovereign was programmed not only toward bluster and condescension in conversation, but also to deliberately lie about their origins ('we have no beginning or ending' is a long way from 'we were built to kill you a few million years ago'). Sovereign alone, in the single conversation you have with him and the one battle we see, displays more personality than any other machine in the series which isn't established to have true AI, emotions and all. And it makes little sense to program him to act that way, with his attention-grabbing tactics and hammy, provocative dialogue, since his duty was to stay hidden among the younger races and stand watch for millenia at a time rather than to intimidate or subjugate. Then we look at the final battle of the first game at the Citadel, and I can't see any way to classify that other than an emotional response or monumentally shitty programming. He had won the war. There was not enough firepower in the entire system to get through his shields and most of the fleet standing against him was shredded. His only possible loss conditions when he entered that fight were if the Citadel's arms had closed before he got inside (because the thing's pretty much indestructible) or if the entirety of the galaxy had united against him, and neither of those had happened or had any real chance of happening. He wasn't desperately reacting in order to take control immediately, because it didn't matter if you had command of the Citadel for a few minutes once he was on the tower. He could have wiped out the remaining ships before engaging you, he could have irradiated you from the outside, whatever, but instead he chose to reanimate his primary servant for a second round of personal scale combat with you because if you killed his Champion, no matter who was in control at the end of the day, a human had beaten him. And that was something he could not accept or allow. And when he lost round two, the death of his avatar was enough of a distraction to lower his shields and allow a simple frigate the killing blow.
Basically, either Sovereign had emotions which affected his choices more than calm logic, his programmer wanted to simulate pride, anger, deception, and overconfidence for no good reason, or his code was so stupid as to force him to risk everything in order to avoid a ten minute delay in a 50,000 year cycle.

Suncatcher:
What doesn't really make sense is using Earth for the ending, or trying to rally the galaxy to take back your planet specifically instead of generally beating back Reaper forces, but nothing in the ending and little in the core plot makes sense.

Respectfully, I would like to disagree. It's been established that Harbinger seems to be the one whom is pulling the strings in the battle, so to then have the catalyst moved to Earth to be watched under his supervision makes sense when Shepard had done the unimaginable and truly rallied the majority of the galaxy. While the initial 'lets rally the galaxy to save Earth' definately doesn't make sense, as there are the same amount of Reaper's on other planets (That is until the ending), so I agree with you there. There is a spectacular line in the mission where you go to the Asari homeworld and fight with the comandos. During the battle, when you convince the commanding officer to hold the line she yells out "Let the galaxy know that the war was won on *insert Asari homeworld name here*". This shows how each species feels as though the attack is very personal, and that because Shepard, the guy who has been kicking ass before they realised there really was an ass that needed kicking, told them that their planet may hold the key to the destruction of the Reapers, it is clear that that just bolstered their belief that something about them made them more important than other species. I feel that it shows that during an intense moment of impossible odds, people can become closed minded and believe that the problem is only effecting them and no one else. Then, when Shepard reveals the key to winning, and that it's on Earth, everyone whom pledged their alliance (after being saved from the impossible odds) are fully prepared to go to this one planet.

Valid point.

Suncatcher:

you can see EA's bloody handprints all over that part, after the lead writer of the first two games was replaced

Now, this is where I REALLY disagree...

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have gone quite so far there. And for the record, I didn't think they rushed things, have no problem with day 1 DLC, and definitely never joined any of those stupid petitions trying to force them to change the game.
But EA is a company infamous for, among other things, executive meddling. And the ending, with all its breaks in canon and themes, looks to me like nothing but one guy at the top of a command structure taking control away from the team who had been writing the rest of the series, including 90% of the third game. And then I look at the credits, and the former lead writer, who made so many magnificent games for Bioware before they were assimilated and who built up the universe of Mass Effect from scratch, is conspicuously absent. Given that evidence, is there a more likely theory than that the publisher caused (directly or due to dissatisfaction with other company policies) a change in staff which resulted in the game being released with a small but vital portion being written by an idiot? I hadn't heard anything about Casey Hudson being behind the ending (if you could cite that I'd appreciate it), but even if true there are many cases of writers making a wonderful product under an imperfect director and many more of said directors breaking certain parts of the story when they take control away from the writers or when a particularly talented lead is no longer there to restrain them. Heck, something like that being written by the director is a red flag in the first place; there are good reasons that writers and directors are different roles in producing a game.

On the multiplayer front, I actually have to commend them though. Sure its influence on galactic readyness is annoying, but they managed to make the first plotless online shootfest that I actually enjoyed playing.

And to contribute to the ongoing Vega debate: not everyone needs to be your childhood friend or a comrade of a hundred battles to join your squad. He was, in fact, just some dude (well, high rank marine with anti-Collector experience) who was in the same base at the time. He knew (of) Shepard because Shepard is the most famous human alive at that point. He ended up on the ship because he was alongside Ash/Kaiden when they went to the Normandy, and he stays on your ship because you can't exactly swing by to drop him off back on Earth to join the fight there because it's covered with Reapers and you'd lose the Normandy, Shepard, and the galaxy's one chance if you got caught there. There really isn't any problem with Vega's introduction except for the fact that it results in Vega being near Shepard and I really kinda hate that guy.

[/quote]OT: I never understood the ending of LoZ: Ocarina of Time. You go forward in time 7 years, stop Ganondorf, and then go back 7 years - and everything is fine and dandy... WHAT!? 0.0[/quote]

Yeah, I never got that either. I sort of assumed it resets everything to the good ol' days but now there's no Ganondorf. Link retains his memories so he goes to see Zelda or something? I dunno...

But it really did just look like "Hey, you defeated Ganondorf! Now go back in time and stop him again!"

Time travel, what can you do...?

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

Why would they have land vehicles on a heavily colonized planet, vehicles that drive you from one place to another. Hmm thats a tricky one, perhaps they drove there?

You misunderstand the question entirely. Why did Cerburus bring LAND BASED vehicles with them and how? Cerburus makes use of shuttles and ships that can drop them off wherever they want. Why didn't they just use shuttles to drop off strike teams? How did they even get those trucks there on mars?

You misunderstood the very simple answer entirely, let me elaborate. Mars is heavily colonized and covered with bases, outposts and colonies. Cerberus almost certainly had access to facilities on Mars, so the land based vehicles where there because they got in them in at one base and then drove to the Prothean archaeology base.

Devoneaux:
Who is Vega and how does he know Shepard?

J Tyran:
Vegas was eiher assigned to Shepard somehow or worked with him during his detention, the dialogue made that quite clear.

No it didn't, I don't think you know what clarity is. He could have just been some guy giving Shepard a message for all we know, the narrative never takes the time to explain how Vega knows Shepard.

I will give ground on this, it might be clear to some but others..... well Ok I can see how some might have missed the very few lines where Shepard and Vega discussed that they had been acquainted during Shepard's detention. Considering in the scheme of the plot at that point Vega wasn't really much of a character, he was just a dude at the base Shepard was being held at his story wasn't that important. Possibly they could have discussed it later in the game and made the connection clearer but they didn't.

The Comics and Anime etc that explain Vegas story obviously do not count. The summary of those is that Vega knew Anderson and was flagged for N7 training, he was then hanging around with Anderson "between duties" possibly to be mentored by him and eventually Shepard. As these stories are not part of the game they don't count, its an increasing problem with story heavy games where lots of the plot ends up in other media.

I'll concede to the second point, but the first is just pure conjecture on your part, you're just imagining up what happened to fill in an unanswered question. It still doesn't account for why they even needed ground based vehicles in the first place when airborne shuttles are far more useful in every way.

Edit: as for your third point, I never said they HAD to use the stairs, just have a scene where Anderson goes to the door tries to open it and it jams or breaks. That simple. It just needed to be explained or shown why the simplest solution wasn't taken first. I never said you had to pick between awesome set pieces and making sense. Had the writing staff been competent they could have accomplished both.

Edit Edit: come to think of it, having Shepard running through the interior as it shakes and lights flicker and doors explode with fire, people shouting and panicking as cielings and floors collapse and people die would have probably been way more intense and personal. Sure the dreadnought exploding was neat, but it was far from what i'd call dramatic. Watching officers struggle to survive the invasion maybe a few of them break down and huddle in corners, crying to themselves as husks crawl in through holes blasted into the building close in around them. THAT would have been awesome.

Devoneaux:
you're just imagining up what happened to fill in an unanswered question. It still doesn't account for why they even needed ground based vehicles in the first place when airborne shuttles are far more useful in every way.

it was an answer to a question you cooked up, you decided they had to have been dropped off by a starship or they had no way of being on Mars before the attack on the base. Sure my answer was conjecture but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that because they had land vehicles that they obviously drove there. If they did have a spaceship you would think "oh they flew there" so the same applies to the land vehicles. The attack was in the planning for a while with Dr Eva being planted as an insider, so being prepared for the attack and waiting nearby within driving distance is no great leap either.

Your question was conjecture but my answer was based on observation.

Devoneaux:
Edit: as for your third point, I never said they HAD to use the stairs, just have a scene where Anderson goes to the door tries to open it and it jams or breaks. That simple. It just needed to be explained or shown why the simplest solution wasn't taken first. I never said you had to pick between awesome set pieces and making sense. Had the writing staff been competent they could have accomplished both.

Edit Edit: come to think of it, having Shepard running through the interior as it shakes and lights flicker and doors explode with fire, people shouting and panicking as cielings and floors collapse and people die would have probably been way more intense and personal. Sure the dreadnought exploding was neat, but it was far from what i'd call dramatic. Watching officers struggle to survive the invasion maybe a few of them break down and huddle in corners, crying to themselves as husks crawl in through holes blasted into the building close in around them. THAT would have been awesome.

So what you really meant to say was "I didn't like the intro sequence and think it should have been different instead of saying "they didn't use the stairs, what a terrible plot hole!"

Btw I went back and checked, the door was actually destroyed not just blocked or jammed. The entire back wall is tangled metal and rubble.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here