You were the one who brought up plot holes. You didn't convince me of any from your viewpoint.
Good for you. If you're not willing to discuss why you find them unconvincing, then you're essentially ruling out any possibility of reasoned discussion.
You see, the fact that you disagree with me means nothing. Other people in this thread disagree with me, too. The fundamental difference is that their responses are well-reasoned and geared towards promoting a discussion. You, on the other hand, seem interested in little more than the ideological equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "you're wrong!"
No, it just seems you didn't pay heed to what I posted before. In fact some of it you actually blatantly ignored. Put a frigate today against a cruiser of WWI...I'd might actually wager the Frigate may win...however...that aside, even with that, you completely missed the point. Further, just with the frigate/cruiser problem, even if you ignored the real reason and point of it...you never answered why a frigate that survived a reaper and even took down a reaper should be shot down by a Collector cruiser which according to you is far weaker than the aforementioned Reaper...nor did you answer why something two times as big, powerful, and sleek than something that withstood a reaper and took it down later would have a problem with your Collector theory if the collector is indeed much weaker than that aforementioned Reaper.
Beyond ignoring this little point, you make it more blatant that it's more you complaining about things you don't like when you ignore the other side of the equation. If you have problems with an unupgraded Normandy surviving and crashing...why DON'T YOU have a problem with a fully upgraded Normandy with the latest tech (enough to cut through the Collector ship as easily as it cut through the original Normandy even) also crashing and having problems. It's a two sided coin of which you only point out one side. It implies that you aren't actually trying to find plotholes, but more that you are concerned with things you didn't like and would have written differently if you were in charge...and which doubtless would have some other youngster who didn't like your version go ranting on a forum about how it's a complete loophole.
I explained (in one post though, so not multiple...I don't plan on going round and round in circles like you have, I assume you can read, though you might wonder since I just reposted some unanswered points that you ignored) already the real reason why the Normandy is not destroyed and also has problems and crashes into the Collector base.
I could go on, with various reasons why you haven't convinced me. However it's irrelavant if you actually have so many "plotholes" as you infer. Your list isn't that long, and if you had so many, than you could go listing them on and on and on.
I might be a fanboi as some may put it, but I'm not oblivious. As far as a game goes, I'd rather have a fun enjoyable one with a fast moving story and defined goals (even if minor steps with each character recruitment and then loyalty missions) then a meandering mess that really doesn't go anywhere, plotholes and all. I won't deny plotholes, but I want you to at least be honest whether you actually have plotholes (which for what it appears you do not) or you simply didn't like how the game was written.
It doesn't bother me if you didn't like how it was written. That's an opinion, and that's pretty solid. I'm don't even think that opinion can be changed at this point. It' sjust as solid as me loving ME2. If you simply dislike how it's written, then that's actually a far stronger argument than what you've posted thus far.
If you are going to blame some of it on plotholes and multitudes of them, than at least be honest about them and start listing. I have what I would call, questionable items that lie unanswered...which some may call plotholes...and even I could list more than you have...and probably more clear cut as to what many would call plotholes (in the like of what my example would be above...not that...but in a similar vein). I'm not disagreeing about plotholes in ME2 (that's the THIRD TIME I've said that thus far...but you don't seem to actually read what I post so not certain if it will catch this time), I'm saying your attempt to convince me that what you listed as plotholes are actually plotholes doesn't ring true...AND that your real gripe is simply...as I just stated...that you don't like how it's written and would have preferred events to occur differently.
Hopefully you can back up your original claim, hence start listing all your plotholes...otherwise you sound more like a disgruntled player of ME2 who is playing armchair general of what they'd have done different. No problem with that, but at least be honest with yourself and us.
PS: One last thing, I actually read this thread more for news on ME3...love to hear more about it rather then some person's gripes about ME2. It's actually far easier to browse these forums for information than Bio's...theirs moves rather quickly, and this place seems to get the news all consolidated in a more accessible nature (one thread) that seems to be more comprehensive with it's total web coverage (find things here that I occasionally don't at Bio's).
Edited by greylord, 06 February 2012 - 06:11 PM.