Mass Effect 3

[Oblarg]

I'm really not interested in actual, reasoned discussion.

 

There, paraphrased that for you. Why, exactly, are you still posting?

[greylord]

I'm really not interested in actual, reasoned discussion.

 

There, paraphrased that for you. Why, exactly, are you still posting?

 

Why don't you say what you said you would?

 

You were the one who brought up plot holes. You didn't convince me of any from your viewpoint. All you brought up were things you either didn't like or would have done differently, and then you explained how.

 

I simply wasn't convinced. I'm awaiting your LOOONG list of supposed plotholes that you vaunted...or was that small bunch of dislikes everything you had?

 

I don't need to convince you of anything...that was never my purpose nor my reason. I pointed out why I didn't believe you. You still haven't stated why I should believe you.

 

Why don't you actualy post what you stated you had...because if that's all the problems with plotholes that you had with ME2, your list is actually shorter then a majority of those that I've seen!

 

Hence, I'm REALLY not convinced in that case of anything with your supposed plothole problems you brought up. I'm posting because I'm actually hoping you may have told the truth...rather than shooting out stuff because you do dislike bio and ME and are simply spouting that opinion rather than anything cohesive.

[Oblarg]

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!"

Edited February 6, 2012 by Oblarg

[greylord]

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 February 7, 2012 by greylord

[Malcador]

See, this is why we need a Versus forum. Maybe we can bet on the contestants.

[Oblarg]

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 February 7, 2012 by Oblarg

[Gorth]

Sheesh guys, all that hostility over a video game?

 

It's not like we are discussing articles of faith or something

 

Anyway, thread way past the 500 post mark, time for a fresh start here