[QUOTE="Vaasman"]It's like arguing with king stupid of stupidville. I want to talk about why the sidequests are all boring as f**k and you keep going off on a tangent about plotholes and themes, presumably because you can't really argue that they are not fun at all especially compared to 1 and 2. Context doesn't suddenly make the terrible sidequests meaningful or rewarding or entertaining. But if you really want to discuss plot holes, ME3 is brimming with them, mostly in the end, but plenty of very apparent ones sprinkled throughout the beginning and then some in the middle as well.texasgoldrush
And are you too stupid to figure out that side quests are only a small part of ME3 anyway unlike ME1 which is half the experience. Am I am exposing YOUR HYPOCRISY.....the entire sidequest system of ME1 is a PLOT HOLE, and you are DEFENDING this PLOT HOLE while attacking ME3 for them. And the simple fact is, even if ME3's side missions are lacking, they connect BETTER to the plot than ME1 did. Oh wait you do not want to talk about your hypocrisy...its you that are deflecting not me. Oh lets argue side missions from ME3 vs ME1.....Grissom Academy, Tuchanka's various missions including Bomb, the two Rannoch missions, the Ardat Yashshi Temple, The Cerebrus Scientists, and even some of the N7 missions are BETTER than ME1's boring side missions of drive Mako to building, enter same looking building, fight enemies, resolve situation. Notice how ME1's side quests are all the same? Take the planet scanning missions out and you will easily see that ME3's side missions ARE superior. There aren't really any plot holes until the end, and only because Catalyst doesn't explain things well enough.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiN8gL40d84&feature=relmfuhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlU1AtindEY
And those don't even cover all holes of the early story, like, why is out of a team of people willing to die unconditionally for you, including a love interest, not one of them came to Earth to be a character reference for you during an upcoming trial? Not even Chakwas? Not even Tali? Even though she may have been exiled from the fleet and stuck on the normandy? Were they all too busy to care that you may be in trouble?
Or, why does a war council that spends years with data on Reapers and access to all of Shepard's data, need Shepard to tell them what to do when they should know just as much as he does and be intelligent military minds? They already established in 1 and 2 that the alliance believed Shepard about Reapers, yet not one of them came up with backup plans or alternative weaponry or new and clever tactics outside of "throw ships at Reapers?" until they were already knocking on our door? So they decided at the very last moment possible that they should start thinking about that crucible thing they've been sitting on for 30 something years, and at least 2 years ago, probably determined the use of.
Or, why don't the Reapers also attack Tuchanka when they should know that the Krogan are one of the strongest ground forces available? So they attack the batarians in full force, and the Turians and Asari in full force, but they send a single Reaper to Tuchanka to stop the Krogan cure? Why not send 3 out of the thousands available, and completely ensure no one reaches the tower? Why not just break the tower? The Reaper just stands in front of it and guards it when he could easily knock it down with focused laser fire.
Or, how does Cerberus know exactly where you are on Thessia, and how come nobody in the Asari military tried to stop a civilian shuttle from entering orbit during evacuation? How is it in the tens of thousands of years of Asari existence not one person accidentally uncovered the huge beacon in the museum hidden in very plain sight? Nobody tripped and pushed a hidden button by a relic, ever? or was just really observant? Not one archaeologist scanned the relics at any point ever? This is the equivalent of hiding all the secrets of area 51 in the Lincoln memorial, and hoping nobody sees the secret switch by his leg that reveals them.
Or why don't the Reapers attack the citadel and stop all communication right away for good? For that matter, why does Cerberus attack the citadel? They couldn't beat c-sec and didn't really have the capability to hold it permanently against the combined forces of the galaxy by themselves. So at best all they are doing is killing a highly ineffectual council, and at worst they are only going to strengthen the resolve of the races to Shepard's cause where before they weren't entirely on board, while wasting tons of men and resources.
Why don't the reapers just guard relays shepard frequents if they want to stop him or the galaxy? You have to pass by a few of them every trip to and from the citadel. Apparently Reapers are so advanced, they can't even consider extremely basic military tactics like cutting supply lines, movement routes, and communications? Maybe leave a Reaper at each relay and it won't take centuries to beat everyone :?
Why doesn't the Normandy help attack the Reaper on Tuchanka, but then shows the clear capability to do so by beating down the Reaper on Rannoch?
Why the drastic change in the motivations of the Geth? In 2 they wanted to become a single entity like a Reaper, but in 3 Legion decides to give the Geth each a separate intelligence, and then doesn't really spend any time contemplating if he should look for a different plan or if that is what his people really want.
How does the citadel get to earth? So if cerberus failed to attack, and the Reapers didn't attack, and neither should be able to control it, and the citadel has been stationary for millions of years, why does it move and where does everyone on board go?
How did the Reapers clone the Rachni queen when I obliterated her and she said she was the last of her kind? Were the Reapers keeping backup Rachni around just in case? Even though the using Rachni already failed?
Why is kid the only visual representation of Shepard's loss available? I lost countless crew members and all I have of them is faint whispers, but this random civilian is all I can see in my head? Why is Shepard traumatized at all when the character is already established as an unwavering badass throughout the first two games? I lost people on Virmire and in the collector base and already died once, yet Shep pressed on, no psychological issues in tow. See some people die on Earth, instantly depressed and unable to cope.
Why is it I didn't play arrival but everyone seems to think I did? A batarian holds me at gunpoint for something I never really did or saw.
And then there's the ending.
|
|
Do you even know what hypocrisy means? I already acknowledged the plothole in ME1 and said that it is small and singular in comparison to the various large plot holes in ME3, including the same plothole where Reapers give you infinite time to do whatever you feel like, and it doesn't impact the final battle in any way to take as much extra time as you want. You would think doing all the sidequests means all the resistance is dead, or they acknowledge that you spent way too much time collecting junk with no tangible value, considering they already added that same plot device in the second game.
There is no ticking clock where there should be in either game. But where in ME1 it is small and forgivable because the rest of the story is solid and interesting, it is just one of many glaring flaws in the story of 3. I'm not defending the story for it's inclusion. Hell if you try to think too hard about it there are tons of plotholes in the entire series related to the flaws in pseudoscience. But with those they never really impacted the story and I wasn't bothered by them during the playthrough. ME3 has lots of points where you have to question character logic or plot devices because they don't really make sense and aren't really convincing.
The sidequests in ME3 suck. The character related quests are the only decent ones, and they only make up a small portion of sidequests. They don't make up for the fact that the vast majority are braindead fetchquests that don't improve the story or add any characterization and don't add to the game at all. N7 sidequests are only slightly better, but really each of them is just an excuse for an arena battle in the multiplayer maps. They are all just tedious and they don't improve anything but your EMS. The quests that are worthwhile, are just not numerous enough, they don't make the game feel as full or complete as they did in 1 and 2.
Especially 2.
But even 1 had the decency to give you cool places to go and things to see, and unique enemies to face. I loved landing on icy worlds and fighting pockets of geth, or landing on a blood red planet to find hidden artifacts or thresher maws. I loved landing on the moon to fight rogue AI. Places with unique story and skyboxes that weren't just a codex blurb, they were places you could land on and explore and see for yourself. That was FUN. I don't care that they didn't have to do with Saren or they were copy/paste, they expanded the universe and were each interesting and contributed to the game and the setting. Not to mention that a lot of them weren't land-on-planet sidequests, a lot of them were actually talking to people in the hubs or exploring space stations and adding worthwhile exposition into the game.
ME3's very best sidequests are all a linear romp through a well designed corridor, and they don't last long enough and aren't remarkable enough to excuse the dreadful plethora of other quests.
It's pretty apparent you have a tenuous grasp on concepts like game or story structure. Pretending ME3 is perfect until the ending isn't going to lead to either being better in upcoming Bioware games.
Of course, I can already imagine you saying how flawed and not fun ME3 is once Dragon Age 3 and ME4 come out even if they don't improve anything or make them worse. Because you're a zombie and you'll say whatever it takes to make Bioware look good, even downplaying their past successes.
Log in to comment