Most Obvious Plot Holes (spoilers ahoy!)

Recommended Videos

CJ1145

Elite Member
Jan 6, 2009
4,051
0
41
Richard Hannay said:
Viptorian said:
4) Because the story of Harvey Dent the man is important to keep hope of a better Gotham alive. Batman 'doesn't exist' and is already considered a vigilante, so he's able to take the heat instead of ruining the legacy of the good Harvey Dent.
And they didn't blame Dent's crimes on the Joker because? ?

I can't think of a good reason; I think this is still a plot hole.
I can answer this one if it hasn't been yet. The Batman is scary because criminals think he kills. However, they've started to figure out that he doesn't actually kill anyone. Therefore, Batman being "responsible" for so many deaths puts that fear back in the criminal element.

notyouraveragejoe said:
I personally have to say (this is from film) the first Transformers film. Where did the police car (I think its Barricade) go? I mean seriously he's there one minute and then...he's gone. Disappeared. For the whole film. Argh!
Bumblebee killed him at the power plant, I think.
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
CmdrGoob said:
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.
Hahahahah "having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack". Yeah, because all americans have "made in the USA" and all CIA agents have "employee of the CIA" tattooed on them so people can identify them from their bodies. Wait no.
No, but I'm sure fingerprint and dental testing, coupled with the fact that the US and Russia are part of Interpol, would point to an American citizen.

Sure, it's not explicitly stated how the body is connected to Americans, but it's pretty hard to not identify a body, what with today's forensic tech and international police cooperation.

CmdrGoob said:
The idea that the Russians would ignore the notorious Russian terrorist who makes no attempt to hide his identity and who has had a history of any terrorism with no previous ties to the US and instead figure the US did it based on a body with no identification. And then decide to invade the US in retaliation. It's stupid, period.
Hahaha, yeah, it's pretty ridiculous for a government that fought against US-backed special forces before... and even launched ICBMs at the US before... yeah... it would be pretty hard for them to blame the US, much less launch an invasion, when there's evidence that the US backed a terrorist attack in Russia, like the CIA has a known history of... yeah... that sounds TOTALLY ridiculous...
 

Grey_Focks

New member
Jan 12, 2010
1,969
0
0
azncutthroat said:
wait wait wait. So your complaining about him pointing out the plot holes in a game that you just tried to defend, and now your saying "they don't matter!"...in a thread about plot holes. He's not saying the game sucked, he's saying the premise of Russia invading the US is just silly.

How about calming down? You used the word "fucking" as a needless adjective four times in a response post, which, I'm sorry to say, makes that an official fanboy post. Your badge will arrive in 4-8 business days.
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
Hurr Durr Derp said:
azncutthroat said:
Therumancer said:
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.

My problem with the scenario, and other similar ones, is that there is no way the USSR or any nation that could represent a plausible threat would be able to attack American Soil with any kind of speed. Things like "ACS modules" and "bypassing the American Early Warning system" miss one of the major reasons why the US is such a military power:

We pretty much own the oceans.

See, the US owns all these little islands all through both oceans, as well as maintaining a number of island nations like Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc... as Territories of the United States.

The thing is that we use these islands for logistics and security. The US having not only a large Navy, but the abillity to keep it constantly supplied and pretty much reach anywhere in the world is one of our major advantages. What's more we prevent other nations from using these same islands, and have made a good portion of the world dependant on the good will of the US when it comes to ocean travel. Allied nations and the UN heavily rely on the US infrastructure for their activities, and this is ALSO why an Embargo from the US is a big deal because we really can police shipping/trade if we choose to do so.... a short version, but that's the basic situation.

Simply put there are security protocols in place, and nobody is going to get a massive navy/military force to the US without it being noticed. Even if some systems were bypassed a bunch of Russians moving enough hardware to successfully give the US a headache from East to West, especially with a fictional "ultra megalomaniac" group in charge, just isn't going to happen.

The US's seperation from the rest of the world by the oceans, is one of the things that makes it so powerful, since the US can project it's power (and has been able to since World War II) but other nations cannot do so feasibly. This is also why those with an eye for such things are concerned about China's naval build up, which is theroized to reach the level of a viable threat to that infrastructure if it continues.

Also one of the things to consider is that Mexico largely acts as a buffer state (like it or not). We'd notice anything big enough to be a threat like this coming in from either ocean, and heading to any nation around here. The thing is though that anyone landing an army south of us is going to probably have to do it in South or Central America, and then get those troops through Mexico, and chances are that means they are going to be engaged there (by us, even if the Mexicans object). Basically they aren't getting onto US soil easily. Even if Canada somehow sold out, again we'd have plenty of warning before enough forces to launch a signifigant invasion could be brought there...

However getting the troops to the American continent isn't the only problem, you've also got to supply them, and that's where the US stranglehold on the oceans comes in. Chances are to launch a viable invasion FIRST someone is going to have to spend years and years fighting the US Navy and digging us out of all those islands, and there goes your "surprise attack".

All these massive military bases we have in places like Japan and Guam are there for a reason, and that's not counting the small little little island set ups we have.

Consider the Cuban Missle Crisis was basically because Russian ships were interdicted on their way to bringing missles into Cuba.... if anything it's gotten much harder since then.
Ugh, wall of completely irrelevant text.

You're overall problem is that you are taking a fucking video game too seriously. This is a video game, not a fucking documentary and not a fucking Pentagon war strategy simulation.

Unlike a documentary or war simulation, players need a certain amount of suspension of belief to play video games. We know that it's impossible for soldiers to heal over time if their not damaged, but we accept that's how it works in the game. We know that soldiers aren't deployed for the sole purpose of capturing an enemy's flag as many times as possible.

Likewise, we know that a Russian invasion of the US is improbable. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE FUN OF A VIDEO GAME. So stop taking a video game so fucking seriously.

Edit: While it's your right to criticize MW2's plot, it's also my right to criticize your opinion.
Why are you getting so bent out of shape when people point out plotholes in a thread about plotholes? Yeah it's quite possible to ignore the plot and enjoy the game despite its glaring flaws, but that's not the point of this thread, is it?
Originally, Johnnyallstar said there was a "plot hole", of which said "plot hole" is (Imo) a matter of his inadequate understanding of the plot (whether it's really a plot hole or not is subjective).

Now, Therumancer isn't pointing out a plot hole, but rather plausibility. There's a difference between a disconnect in plot, and a disconnect in reality, which Therumancer expounded on in a long post, as seen above.

And I'm getting bent out of shape by the apparent bashing of MW2 by people who seem to not fully understand what exactly went on (which is definitely a mistake on part of IW).
 

DE619

New member
May 17, 2010
32
0
0
I created an account just to post in this thread. In The Dark Knight the only two people the Joker said the "how I got my scars" story to never even knew each other in the film. So there wasn't a "Hey this wack job in clown makeup had a knife to my face and told me how he got his scars!" "OMG me too!" "He said (insert 1st story)." "Really? I got (insert 2nd story)." "Hmmm I wonder which one was true?" The only people that were there for both stories were the people watching the movies so this only proves that the Joker was just plain crazy like the comics.
 

CJ1145

Elite Member
Jan 6, 2009
4,051
0
41
azncutthroat said:
Hurr Durr Derp said:
azncutthroat said:
Therumancer said:
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.

My problem with the scenario, and other similar ones, is that there is no way the USSR or any nation that could represent a plausible threat would be able to attack American Soil with any kind of speed. Things like "ACS modules" and "bypassing the American Early Warning system" miss one of the major reasons why the US is such a military power:

We pretty much own the oceans.

See, the US owns all these little islands all through both oceans, as well as maintaining a number of island nations like Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc... as Territories of the United States.

The thing is that we use these islands for logistics and security. The US having not only a large Navy, but the abillity to keep it constantly supplied and pretty much reach anywhere in the world is one of our major advantages. What's more we prevent other nations from using these same islands, and have made a good portion of the world dependant on the good will of the US when it comes to ocean travel. Allied nations and the UN heavily rely on the US infrastructure for their activities, and this is ALSO why an Embargo from the US is a big deal because we really can police shipping/trade if we choose to do so.... a short version, but that's the basic situation.

Simply put there are security protocols in place, and nobody is going to get a massive navy/military force to the US without it being noticed. Even if some systems were bypassed a bunch of Russians moving enough hardware to successfully give the US a headache from East to West, especially with a fictional "ultra megalomaniac" group in charge, just isn't going to happen.

The US's seperation from the rest of the world by the oceans, is one of the things that makes it so powerful, since the US can project it's power (and has been able to since World War II) but other nations cannot do so feasibly. This is also why those with an eye for such things are concerned about China's naval build up, which is theroized to reach the level of a viable threat to that infrastructure if it continues.

Also one of the things to consider is that Mexico largely acts as a buffer state (like it or not). We'd notice anything big enough to be a threat like this coming in from either ocean, and heading to any nation around here. The thing is though that anyone landing an army south of us is going to probably have to do it in South or Central America, and then get those troops through Mexico, and chances are that means they are going to be engaged there (by us, even if the Mexicans object). Basically they aren't getting onto US soil easily. Even if Canada somehow sold out, again we'd have plenty of warning before enough forces to launch a signifigant invasion could be brought there...

However getting the troops to the American continent isn't the only problem, you've also got to supply them, and that's where the US stranglehold on the oceans comes in. Chances are to launch a viable invasion FIRST someone is going to have to spend years and years fighting the US Navy and digging us out of all those islands, and there goes your "surprise attack".

All these massive military bases we have in places like Japan and Guam are there for a reason, and that's not counting the small little little island set ups we have.

Consider the Cuban Missle Crisis was basically because Russian ships were interdicted on their way to bringing missles into Cuba.... if anything it's gotten much harder since then.
Ugh, wall of completely irrelevant text.

You're overall problem is that you are taking a fucking video game too seriously. This is a video game, not a fucking documentary and not a fucking Pentagon war strategy simulation.

Unlike a documentary or war simulation, players need a certain amount of suspension of belief to play video games. We know that it's impossible for soldiers to heal over time if their not damaged, but we accept that's how it works in the game. We know that soldiers aren't deployed for the sole purpose of capturing an enemy's flag as many times as possible.

Likewise, we know that a Russian invasion of the US is improbable. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE FUN OF A VIDEO GAME. So stop taking a video game so fucking seriously.

Edit: While it's your right to criticize MW2's plot, it's also my right to criticize your opinion.
Why are you getting so bent out of shape when people point out plotholes in a thread about plotholes? Yeah it's quite possible to ignore the plot and enjoy the game despite its glaring flaws, but that's not the point of this thread, is it?
Originally, Johnnyallstar said there was a "plot hole", of which said "plot hole" is (Imo) a matter of his inadequate understanding of the plot (whether it's really a plot hole or not is subjective).

Now, Therumancer isn't pointing out a plot hole, but rather plausibility. There's a difference between a disconnect in plot, and a disconnect in reality, which Therumancer expounded on in a long post, as seen above.

And I'm getting bent out of shape by the apparent bashing of MW2 by people who seem to not fully understand what exactly went on (which is definitely a mistake on part of IW).
Now hold on here. I think you're mixing up "suspension of disbelief" with "tossing logic out the third-story window." I can believe that with a proper excuse an ultranational, pyscho Russian government would invade the US. However, I can not, will not, shall not believe they did it because they found a single American citizen amongst a group of Russian terrorists founded by a man whose very ideals GUARANTEED the US would never support him. I also shall not believe that the UN, NATO, or any other alliance stepped in to say "cut this shit out" because the war really had no base.

It's one thing for a story to require you to not think too much. It's another thing when it displays itself as realistic, and then asks you to throw all resemblance to reality into the fire.
 

Spy Killer

New member
Feb 4, 2010
139
0
0
cieply said:
Two Angels said:
dthvirus said:
Legion said:
The original Fallout 3 ending:
Forcing the player to die or sacrifice lives even though there were two companions in the game that rendered this completely unnecessary thanks to their immunity to radiation.
That's a horrible ending, not a plot hole. Still a horrid, horrid ending though. Dammit, Bethesda.
Broken Steel invalidates your quibble.
What changes in broken steel?
If you have Broken Steel, you don't die at the end, but instead live on to do more yadda-yadda spoiler-spoiler.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Ugh, wall of completely irrelevant text.

You're overall problem is that you are taking a fucking video game too seriously. This is a video game, not a fucking documentary and not a fucking Pentagon war strategy simulation.

Unlike a documentary or war simulation, players need a certain amount of suspension of belief to play video games. We know that it's impossible for soldiers to heal over time if their not damaged, but we accept that's how it works in the game. We know that soldiers aren't deployed for the sole purpose of capturing an enemy's flag as many times as possible.

Likewise, we know that a Russian invasion of the US is improbable. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE FUN OF A VIDEO GAME. So stop taking a video game so fucking seriously.

Edit: While it's your right to criticize MW2's plot, it's also my right to criticize your opinion.

-


That was a bit long for this, I apologize for that part.

Otherwise as people have pointed out, I was mostly just pointing out that the whole premise of the game is a giant "plot hole". Mostly I responded because of the response someone else received to the way the Airport scene playing out and how "no, no, it really all made sense".

Games do require a degree of suspension of disbelief, but in a case like this where real world powers are involved, and they are going for a "Techno-Thriller" type atmosphere, the kind of things I pointed out become relevent. Overall "Modern Warfare 2" is simply badly written, even if it's fun to shoot stuff in. My point being that you could say the entire thing is a giant plot hole, rather than there being a plot hole within an otherwise solid and consistant storyline.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but those are my thoughts.

Think of it this way, many years ago one of Chuck Norris' big "B" movies was "Invasion USA". Like many action fliks of the genere it can be an entertaining way to do some intellectual slumming, put your brain into neutral and watch Chuck do his thing. The plot on the other hand doesn't stand up well at all. Same thing with Modern Warfare 2, the whole thing is just "huh?" when you think about it, so you can't really analyze the bits up to it. On the other hand (I've only played it a bit elsewhere) the spectacle of the thing can be fairly impressive.
 

IHateDaManSkirt

New member
Nov 21, 2009
167
0
0
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.
And in this game: all nuclear weapons have been disarmed, besides the one that Price uses as an EMP that would totally not eventually kill all the people in D.C unnaturally(I'm too cheap for a sarcasm mark.); the U.S. is too stupid to give other countries the security tape; killing Makarov's guards and capturing him(so he doesn't become a martyr) is impossible; no country would tell the U.S. about the invading force(They only captured the U.S. satellite device.); respected members of a American-British Task Force are labeled terrorists by an untrusted country and their home country believes it; the Russian people are retarded; and General whatshisname is also retarded.
My eyes magnify 10x on plot holes.
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
Grey_Focks said:
azncutthroat said:
wait wait wait. So your complaining about him pointing out the plot holes in a game that you just tried to defend, and now your saying "they don't matter!"...in a thread about plot holes. He's not saying the game sucked, he's saying the premise of Russia invading the US is just silly.

How about calming down? You used the word "fucking" as a needless adjective four times in a response post, which, I'm sorry to say, makes that an official fanboy post. Your badge will arrive in 4-8 business days.
Therumancer is not pointing out a plot hole, but a matter of plausibility. See how he's not talking about MW2, but rather real life geography, politics and history and then saying that what happened in MW2 shouldn't have been possible?

Ergo, I am not saying that a plot hole should be ignored, but the plausibility of the situation.

Also, I say "fucking" a lot, and not in just threads about MW2 . And no, I'm not a MW2 fanboy, although you may find this hard to believe.
 

F-I-D-O

I miss my avatar
Feb 18, 2010
1,095
0
0
I can name a few:
Look, the old abandoned collapsing house is actually haunted! And I have to fight my way out!
Look, the person who told me to kill hundreds of innocents is actually bad!
Look, the person who always questioned my orders has formed his own army to fight us!
And last but not least: The Nazis/aliens/malevolent deity is actually behind it all!
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
I gotta plot hole for ya.

Why is it that in MW2, in an airport that was jammed packed, not one person was facing the elevator. Why would they even make an elevator if it was only one way? Shouldn't it have been an escalator?
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
IHateDaManSkirt said:
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.
And in this game: all nuclear weapons have been disarmed, besides the one that Price uses as an EMP that would totally not eventually kill all the people in D.C unnaturally(I'm too cheap for a sarcasm mark.); the U.S. is too stupid to give other countries the security tape; killing Makarov's guards and capturing him(so he doesn't become a martyr) is impossible; no country would tell the U.S. about the invading force(They only captured the U.S. satellite device.); respected members of a American-British Task Force are labeled terrorists by an untrusted country and their home country believes it; the Russian people are retarded; and General whatshisname is also retarded.
My eyes magnify 10x on plot holes.
For modern warfare 2, it is kinda like yelling at a mentally challenged kid for not making sense. It is just to easy.
 

Yeager942

New member
Oct 31, 2008
1,097
0
0
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
I bug my CoD fanboy friends all the time as to why General whatshisname would betray the SAS guys. They'd say, "To tie loose ends!" Soooooo, he wants to tie loose ends after they pushed back the russians, stopped the terrorists, and made the world safe for democracy by stabbing his friends in the back....
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
CJ1145 said:
azncutthroat said:
Hurr Durr Derp said:
azncutthroat said:
Therumancer said:
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.

My problem with the scenario, and other similar ones, is that there is no way the USSR or any nation that could represent a plausible threat would be able to attack American Soil with any kind of speed. Things like "ACS modules" and "bypassing the American Early Warning system" miss one of the major reasons why the US is such a military power:

We pretty much own the oceans.

See, the US owns all these little islands all through both oceans, as well as maintaining a number of island nations like Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc... as Territories of the United States.

The thing is that we use these islands for logistics and security. The US having not only a large Navy, but the abillity to keep it constantly supplied and pretty much reach anywhere in the world is one of our major advantages. What's more we prevent other nations from using these same islands, and have made a good portion of the world dependant on the good will of the US when it comes to ocean travel. Allied nations and the UN heavily rely on the US infrastructure for their activities, and this is ALSO why an Embargo from the US is a big deal because we really can police shipping/trade if we choose to do so.... a short version, but that's the basic situation.

Simply put there are security protocols in place, and nobody is going to get a massive navy/military force to the US without it being noticed. Even if some systems were bypassed a bunch of Russians moving enough hardware to successfully give the US a headache from East to West, especially with a fictional "ultra megalomaniac" group in charge, just isn't going to happen.

The US's seperation from the rest of the world by the oceans, is one of the things that makes it so powerful, since the US can project it's power (and has been able to since World War II) but other nations cannot do so feasibly. This is also why those with an eye for such things are concerned about China's naval build up, which is theroized to reach the level of a viable threat to that infrastructure if it continues.

Also one of the things to consider is that Mexico largely acts as a buffer state (like it or not). We'd notice anything big enough to be a threat like this coming in from either ocean, and heading to any nation around here. The thing is though that anyone landing an army south of us is going to probably have to do it in South or Central America, and then get those troops through Mexico, and chances are that means they are going to be engaged there (by us, even if the Mexicans object). Basically they aren't getting onto US soil easily. Even if Canada somehow sold out, again we'd have plenty of warning before enough forces to launch a signifigant invasion could be brought there...

However getting the troops to the American continent isn't the only problem, you've also got to supply them, and that's where the US stranglehold on the oceans comes in. Chances are to launch a viable invasion FIRST someone is going to have to spend years and years fighting the US Navy and digging us out of all those islands, and there goes your "surprise attack".

All these massive military bases we have in places like Japan and Guam are there for a reason, and that's not counting the small little little island set ups we have.

Consider the Cuban Missle Crisis was basically because Russian ships were interdicted on their way to bringing missles into Cuba.... if anything it's gotten much harder since then.
Ugh, wall of completely irrelevant text.

You're overall problem is that you are taking a fucking video game too seriously. This is a video game, not a fucking documentary and not a fucking Pentagon war strategy simulation.

Unlike a documentary or war simulation, players need a certain amount of suspension of belief to play video games. We know that it's impossible for soldiers to heal over time if their not damaged, but we accept that's how it works in the game. We know that soldiers aren't deployed for the sole purpose of capturing an enemy's flag as many times as possible.

Likewise, we know that a Russian invasion of the US is improbable. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE FUN OF A VIDEO GAME. So stop taking a video game so fucking seriously.

Edit: While it's your right to criticize MW2's plot, it's also my right to criticize your opinion.
Why are you getting so bent out of shape when people point out plotholes in a thread about plotholes? Yeah it's quite possible to ignore the plot and enjoy the game despite its glaring flaws, but that's not the point of this thread, is it?
Originally, Johnnyallstar said there was a "plot hole", of which said "plot hole" is (Imo) a matter of his inadequate understanding of the plot (whether it's really a plot hole or not is subjective).

Now, Therumancer isn't pointing out a plot hole, but rather plausibility. There's a difference between a disconnect in plot, and a disconnect in reality, which Therumancer expounded on in a long post, as seen above.

And I'm getting bent out of shape by the apparent bashing of MW2 by people who seem to not fully understand what exactly went on (which is definitely a mistake on part of IW).
Now hold on here. I think you're mixing up "suspension of disbelief" with "tossing logic out the third-story window." I can believe that with a proper excuse an ultranational, pyscho Russian government would invade the US. However, I can not, will not, shall not believe they did it because they found a single American citizen amongst a group of Russian terrorists founded by a man whose very ideals GUARANTEED the US would never support him. I also shall not believe that the UN, NATO, or any other alliance stepped in to say "cut this shit out" because the war really had no base.

It's one thing for a story to require you to not think too much. It's another thing when it displays itself as realistic, and then asks you to throw all resemblance to reality into the fire.


azncutthroat said:
Hahaha, yeah, it's pretty ridiculous for a government that fought against US-backed special forces before... and even launched ICBMs at the US before... yeah... it would be pretty hard for them to blame the US, much less launch an invasion, when there's evidence that the US backed a terrorist attack in Russia, like the CIA has a known history of... yeah... that sounds TOTALLY ridiculous...
There's logic there... although not exactly linear like most games.

azncutthroat said:
However, I do agree that the inaction of NATO and other alliances the US is a definite plot hole.
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
Therumancer said:
Ugh, wall of completely irrelevant text.

You're overall problem is that you are taking a fucking video game too seriously. This is a video game, not a fucking documentary and not a fucking Pentagon war strategy simulation.

Unlike a documentary or war simulation, players need a certain amount of suspension of belief to play video games. We know that it's impossible for soldiers to heal over time if their not damaged, but we accept that's how it works in the game. We know that soldiers aren't deployed for the sole purpose of capturing an enemy's flag as many times as possible.

Likewise, we know that a Russian invasion of the US is improbable. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE FUN OF A VIDEO GAME. So stop taking a video game so fucking seriously.

Edit: While it's your right to criticize MW2's plot, it's also my right to criticize your opinion.

-


That was a bit long for this, I apologize for that part.

Otherwise as people have pointed out, I was mostly just pointing out that the whole premise of the game is a giant "plot hole". Mostly I responded because of the response someone else received to the way the Airport scene playing out and how "no, no, it really all made sense".

Games do require a degree of suspension of disbelief, but in a case like this where real world powers are involved, and they are going for a "Techno-Thriller" type atmosphere, the kind of things I pointed out become relevent. Overall "Modern Warfare 2" is simply badly written, even if it's fun to shoot stuff in. My point being that you could say the entire thing is a giant plot hole, rather than there being a plot hole within an otherwise solid and consistant storyline.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but those are my thoughts.
Actually, MW2's plot is badly written AND poorly presented. I do agree with the consensus that's its more in line with a Michael Bay movie.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
Citrus Insanity said:
Legion said:
The Seldom Seen Kid said:
Why is Batman taking the heat for Two-Face?
He is a decent person, and by exposing Two Face, they'd show that the one politician everyone believed to be incorruptible is not. Seriously? They explained it extremely clearly when the police Chief's sun asks him that exact question.
Answers in bold.
You're right about the others, but this one is still a plot hole, because it would have been just as easy to blame Two-Face's murders on the Joker without the side-effect of Batman getting hunted by the cops. It's a wonder why Commissioner Gordon didn't suggest that.
Because the Joker would have proof that he didn't commit those murders and that Harvey did. However if Batman takes the fall then the city could be horribly afraid of their greatest protector which the Joker would get plenty of Kicks out of. It also plays into Batman's favor because now if people think that Batman is willing to straight up murder you if he gets angry enough they are not going to resist his interrogations as much as Maroni did after Gordon "Died."

Citrus Insanity said:
Another silly thing in the Dark Knight is that instead of simply telling or signaling to the SWAT team that the "clowns are hostages" during that big building fight scene, he dangles them all over the edge of a building. He could have just walked up to one of the ones standing at the window and unmasked him, and the snipers would have seen it and everything would have been good.
He wasn't close enough to the hostages to take off their masks before the snipers took the shot. He also didn't have a police radio to warn the SWAT teams in that manner. It is also kind of hard to pull an armed cop aside in a hostage situation and explain something to them when they have no real reason to trust you. it was either stall the SWAT teams until they figured it out themselves or the hostages get shot on accident. Which would you have chosen?


It is amazing how deeply we can read into a comic book movie.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
azncutthroat said:
Hurr Durr Derp said:
azncutthroat said:
Therumancer said:
azncutthroat said:
Johnnyallstar said:
I want to point out the entire plot of CoD:MW2.

Oh, example? Well, the catalyst for the invasion of America is the terrorist attack in a Russian airport where there was one American corpse..... Okay.

To think that Russian security was so lax there that they didn't check the cameras to see who else was involved, or that American intelligencia wouldn't be out there doing a massive CYA job to prevent such an invasion from happening by their fault is lowbrow thinking at its utmost.

The entire plot for Modern Warfare 2 was one big facepalm after another.
Okay, really? People STILL DONT GET IT?

Makarov is a TERRORIST FOR HIRE. Using American weapons and having an American body makes it look like the CIA funded and supported the "No Russian" terrorist attack (which the CIA is actually quite famous for, such as when the CIA supplied arms to Jihadists in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and death squads in South American countries.). Also, the Russian government is run by the Ultranationalists, the antagonists of CoD4.

My problem with the scenario, and other similar ones, is that there is no way the USSR or any nation that could represent a plausible threat would be able to attack American Soil with any kind of speed. Things like "ACS modules" and "bypassing the American Early Warning system" miss one of the major reasons why the US is such a military power:

We pretty much own the oceans.

See, the US owns all these little islands all through both oceans, as well as maintaining a number of island nations like Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc... as Territories of the United States.

The thing is that we use these islands for logistics and security. The US having not only a large Navy, but the abillity to keep it constantly supplied and pretty much reach anywhere in the world is one of our major advantages. What's more we prevent other nations from using these same islands, and have made a good portion of the world dependant on the good will of the US when it comes to ocean travel. Allied nations and the UN heavily rely on the US infrastructure for their activities, and this is ALSO why an Embargo from the US is a big deal because we really can police shipping/trade if we choose to do so.... a short version, but that's the basic situation.

Simply put there are security protocols in place, and nobody is going to get a massive navy/military force to the US without it being noticed. Even if some systems were bypassed a bunch of Russians moving enough hardware to successfully give the US a headache from East to West, especially with a fictional "ultra megalomaniac" group in charge, just isn't going to happen.

The US's seperation from the rest of the world by the oceans, is one of the things that makes it so powerful, since the US can project it's power (and has been able to since World War II) but other nations cannot do so feasibly. This is also why those with an eye for such things are concerned about China's naval build up, which is theroized to reach the level of a viable threat to that infrastructure if it continues.

Also one of the things to consider is that Mexico largely acts as a buffer state (like it or not). We'd notice anything big enough to be a threat like this coming in from either ocean, and heading to any nation around here. The thing is though that anyone landing an army south of us is going to probably have to do it in South or Central America, and then get those troops through Mexico, and chances are that means they are going to be engaged there (by us, even if the Mexicans object). Basically they aren't getting onto US soil easily. Even if Canada somehow sold out, again we'd have plenty of warning before enough forces to launch a signifigant invasion could be brought there...

However getting the troops to the American continent isn't the only problem, you've also got to supply them, and that's where the US stranglehold on the oceans comes in. Chances are to launch a viable invasion FIRST someone is going to have to spend years and years fighting the US Navy and digging us out of all those islands, and there goes your "surprise attack".

All these massive military bases we have in places like Japan and Guam are there for a reason, and that's not counting the small little little island set ups we have.

Consider the Cuban Missle Crisis was basically because Russian ships were interdicted on their way to bringing missles into Cuba.... if anything it's gotten much harder since then.
Ugh, wall of completely irrelevant text.

You're overall problem is that you are taking a fucking video game too seriously. This is a video game, not a fucking documentary and not a fucking Pentagon war strategy simulation.

Unlike a documentary or war simulation, players need a certain amount of suspension of belief to play video games. We know that it's impossible for soldiers to heal over time if their not damaged, but we accept that's how it works in the game. We know that soldiers aren't deployed for the sole purpose of capturing an enemy's flag as many times as possible.

Likewise, we know that a Russian invasion of the US is improbable. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE FUN OF A VIDEO GAME. So stop taking a video game so fucking seriously.

Edit: While it's your right to criticize MW2's plot, it's also my right to criticize your opinion.
Why are you getting so bent out of shape when people point out plotholes in a thread about plotholes? Yeah it's quite possible to ignore the plot and enjoy the game despite its glaring flaws, but that's not the point of this thread, is it?
Originally, Johnnyallstar said there was a "plot hole", of which said "plot hole" is (Imo) a matter of his inadequate understanding of the plot (whether it's really a plot hole or not is subjective).

Now, Therumancer isn't pointing out a plot hole, but rather plausibility. There's a difference between a disconnect in plot, and a disconnect in reality, which Therumancer expounded on in a long post, as seen above.

And I'm getting bent out of shape by the apparent bashing of MW2 by people who seem to not fully understand what exactly went on (which is definitely a mistake on part of IW).
Well, my point is that Modern Warfare 2 makes pretensions of being set in reality more or less. It's using real players, and trying to present a "this could happen", "five minutes into the future", type techno-thriller approach.

The issue is that it's using groups like the USA and Russia pretty much as they are now, under the theory of a fanatical goverment taking control of Russia. When the plot doesn't account for key elements of what makes the USA a world power and an enemy to Russia (which
is pretty much reliant on people knowing who/what the US is and can do), you pretty much have to look at all the things they aren't accounting for as plot holes in the story.

Modern Warfare 2 isn't my time of game, I've seen a decent portion of it now, and tinkered with it a bit (but don't own it). I'm not bashing it really, but this subject is on plot holes. Simply put the plot of "America and Russia go to war" is fine, but given the reliance on real world knowlege, how those Russian troops magically get onto American soil and what's more penetrate as far as DC irregardless of the natural barriers making "Fortress America" a pain to invade even if someone was to land (and once they hit the beaches it's no longer a "surprise") represents a major plot hole. Okay the ACS thing they have might have helped with some things, but it wouldn't have accounted for everything. Heck if these guys are landing on either coast they are going to have to basically contend with armed civilians in swamps and mountains along with national guard and everything else. They aren't getting to DC in a hurry. Living here in peace time doesn't do justice to the experience of what it would be like to fight through some of this, especially if a lot of the bridges and stuff people use casually nowadays were knocked down intentionally. Let's just say I wouldn't want to be the guy tasked with trying to get through the Appalacian Mountains, you think our troops in Afghanistan have a problem...

I'm rambling again, but I think it's a fair criticism.

Now if you want to get technical almost everything has plot holes, even "Citizen Kane". As Spider Robinson explained, if a certain important character died alone (important plot point) how did anyone hear his final words (another important plot point).... Some things are tighter than others, but I haven't found anything I could consider truely airtight.

I just personally think Modern Warfare 2 is one of the biggest WELL KNOWN plot train wrecks out there. I could probably pick apart anything (I did this because others nmentioned it), although truthfully the worst offenders would probably be obscure games that few people would have heard of because of how bad they were.