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.
You don't seem to get it. The Normandy is not some super-ship. It is outright stated in the first game that its main innovations are a big drive core and the stealth abilities. It is not primarily a combat vessel. It did not single-handedly defeat a reaper - the alliance fleet destroyed the reaper. It makes perfect sense that it would lose a fight against a cruiser - the fact that the only Collector cruiser is unable to defeat it in a pitched battle at the end of ME2 really puts a damper on the Collectors' supposed ability to threaten alliance space. You cannot talk your way around this. Now, whether or not this is a plothole or simply questionable writing depends largely on what BioWare intended - I've admitted as much in previous posts.
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.
Because my problem is not with the Normandy crashing after the fight, or with the similarity in performance between the upgraded and un-upgraded normandy. My problem is with the premise of the game being built around the fact that the Collectors are supposedly some massive threat, when upon closer inspection it's apparent that they're a complete ****ing nonissue. They could never advance past the undefended fringe colonies because they simply did not have the force to do so. They could never have completed their reaper. I don't give two ****s that the Normandy crashes after the fight. You, again, are missing my point.
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.
The **** does this have to do with any of the problems I have with the game?
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.
You could go on doing what, arguing against points I never made? I made a very concise list of the main problems I have with ME2's plot. They're all fairly large problems - so large, in fact, that the plot ceases to make much sense at all when you take them into consideration. You, however, refuse to discuss any of my actual problems in favor of just saying "I don't agree" over and over again ad nauseam.
I might be a fanboi as some may put it, but I'm not oblivious.
Why do you keep bringing this up? I don't care how much you like the game. I never attacked you for liking the game. Everyone else here is simply discussing the plot. Why can't you do the same?
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
Interesting - "meandering mess that doesn't really go anywhere" sums up ME2 fairly well. You're given a foe who upon even a cursory inspection are not really a threat, and are told, in a moment of very questionable strategic sense, to go gather a bunch of teammates to charge through a relay into completely unknown conditions to deal with this non-threat. The entire plot is a throwaway excuse to hold together a bunch of otherwise separate character missions - that would be fine, perhaps, if it weren't done so ham-handedly. The character missions themselves are quite fun. It's a pity they're not brought together in any coherent, sensible manner.
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.
You see, here's the thing - the point I think you're trying to make (I'm not sure, because your posting isn't exactly eloquent) is something which has already been discussed and resolved a few posts earlier. Many of the points I'm bringing up could either be seen as plot holes or simply questionable story directions, depending on what you think BioWare intended. Do you think BioWare intended the Collectors to be a non-threat? If so, then sure, these aren't plot-holes - rather, it simply makes it seem as if every character in the Mass Effect universe is braindead (possible exception for TIM, who would then just be exploiting the fact that everyone else is braindead). So be it, that would be a coherent plot, albeit a really stupid one. However, I don't give BioWare that much credit. If BioWare really did intend for the Collectors to be some huge threat to Alliance space (which I contend they did, based on the dialogue), then they are most certainly plot holes - it's a pretty gaping plot hole if your Big Bad who wants to attack Earth doesn't have a force capable of penetrating even lightly-defended space.
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.
By now, I'm not attempting to convince you of anything - you've long ago showed that you have no interest in changing your position. I'm simply trying to get you to discuss what exactly you feel is wrong with my appraisal of the plot and its inconsistencies. This is something everyone else in the forum seems capable of doing. You should try it.
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.
The **** does "honesty" have to do with it? Everything I've said has been based directly upon game content.
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).
...So, what? Is this supposed to gain you some sort of legitimacy, because you don't come here to actually discuss the game?
Edited by Oblarg, 06 February 2012 - 07:07 PM.