@felker_s wrote:
I don't see why would you start on this topic five years after Andromeda, nor do I understand why others try so hard to defend a really obvious issue.
What issue? The issue OP tries to make up or the issue that there are plot holes in the original trilogy?
Because one has nothing to do with the other.
What OP asks from Bioware is to think about a game they had no idea if they would ever make, 10 years before they made it.
That is just ridicules.
Bioware had enough on their plate thinking the trilogy though. What they did there in terms of decisions, influencing the other games is amazing by itself, to say they had to think even further ahead would simply make any creative process impossible to handle.
No, I am talking about the ridiculous excuses y'all are trying to make about Shepard's knowledge of the Initiative and the arks.
It is a plot hole resulting from the decision to put the Initiative's ark kickoff into Shepard's timeline. It happens, move on.
They could not have set it after the trilogy and set it before would have make it a prequel, also a no go.
Setting it in this timeline was the only thing Bioware really could do.
It is like it is, move on. 🤡
@holger1405
... This is exactly what I'm saying, I completely agree with you on the real-world parts. I just find it unnecessary to try and explain it in the in-game world - because there won't be a logical explanation for something that did not exist.
Plot inconsistencies are bound to happen in every type of entertainment, and fans just need to accept that at times. But saying that "Shepard probably didn't care (about one of the greatest undertaking in history...)" is just silly. There is no in-game explanation, since this stems from the real world.
And I agree with you on the plot holes and that plot inconsistencies are bound to happen, especially with a sequel.
But I think it is not bad to see in game explanations/arguments as well, can open up new perspectives.
