Most Obvious Plot Holes (spoilers ahoy!)

Recommended Videos

JaredXE

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,378
0
0
brunothepig said:
I'm just going to point out the Eragon MOVIE.
The books are awesome. The movie fucked with everything, broke the original narrative, and tore plot holes in it. The biggest one I think is when they rescue Arya, who is conscious, then Brom is stabbed, while Arya is with them. Watching. One of the most powerful magic users in the land, could heal him in a second... Watching.

What magic? Remember, in the movies Arya isn't an elf, she's just a tanned human. Same as there are no Urgals, no Dwarves and the Ra'zac were mummy-bug things. Magic ONLY comes from sorcery or being a dragon rider.

Oh, and John Malkovich wants his stone back. He is suffering without it. Do not prolong his suffering.
 

Zayren

New member
Dec 5, 2008
498
0
0
TheDoctor455 said:
After you finish the main quest in Oblivion, you literally leave the entire place without an Emperor, or any heirs to speak of. This wouldn't be much of a problem, except that up to that point, the game keeps selling you on the idea that the royal blood line is needed to preserve the magical barriers between Tamriel and Oblivion. Well, by the end of the game, Martin, the last remnant of the royal bloodline sacrifices himself to kill Mehrunes Dagon. Trouble is... now that the bloodline is gone forever, what's to stop the Daedra from launching another invasion?
I'm pretty sure it's because Mehrunes Dagon is the only one who felt like attacking Tamriel. The rest seem pretty content to piss about in their own realms.
 

Cab00se206

New member
Jul 9, 2008
160
0
0
Therumancer said:
Planes have to land for fueling and such, which is why things like Aircraft Carriers and/or island bases are important.

Also we *DO* possess a lot of islands and territories between here and Russia, jockeying for position is what "The Cold War" was all about. We were winning it by leaps and bounds too, which is part of what caused the USSR to collapse, though there were a lot of factors.

The straw that broke the Camel's back so to speak was "Desert Storm" which was pretty much the US Vs. USSR junior. The USSR was backing Saddam and had trained and equipped his guys. The US was by and large behind not only it's own forces, but the allied nations as well. So basically what we got to see was USSR tech vs. American tech, and Russian training vs. American training. What some expected would be an epic battle, turned into a massive slaughter, largely because the USSR was lying about what it could do, and assumed we were doing the same, when we understated things. We were also pretty confident of this because we pretty much reamed them a new one on the espionage/black ops front as well and they knew pretty much only what we wanted them to know.

With the economy and everything else, this demonstration of the goverment's lies, and ineffectiveness of the USSR military the people sacrificed everything for because "it was the best" caused a massive loss of faith.
Uh. No. Just . . . no. Not even.

The Cold War was not all about 'jockeying for position' for a bunch of North Atlantic islands. Both players knew that attacking each others' territories would be a sure-fire way to get cluster nuked all to hell. Even if they knew FOR CERTAIN that the other player wouldn't fire his nukes, the collection of treaties that bound the USSR and EU+US together would drag the world into another world war. With the resources of several continets between them with sophisticated warmaking technology, such a war would be devastating beyond imagining. It was never going to be worth the effort. And for the record, America didn't win the Cold War, Russia lost it. America 'won' by being the only country in the world capable of sustaining its monumental military spending, not by any decisive military action.

And Desert Storm? The USSR condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and supported the UN's proposal to enforce, with violence if necessry, an embargo on Iraq. The first Gulf War was not about US-USSR competition, it was a reaction to Iraqi aggression. While the USSR was a supplier of arms and some training personnel to iraq, its military involvement was dwarfed by its commitment to other Middle Eastern countries about a decade before.

You mention the fact that 'Desert Storm' was the US vs USSR Jr. What you might have been thinking of was the series of wars fought between the US-backed Israel and a coalition of Arab countries, such as Egypt, Syria etc, supported by the USSR in the 1970s. Those were more like the US Jr. vs USSR Jr. you described, and was indeed a proving ground for both countries military technologies and doctrines. While it is true that Israel has won all of those wars, it is far more to do with the military skill and dedication of the Israeli people than any disparity of technology. The USR certainly didn't lie about their gear. During these wars, Russian-made SAM missiles kept the air war inside Israel for much of that time, and the Russian tanks delivered to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were some of the best tank designs in the world. Plus, it's been well established that the Russian AK-47 was vastly superior to the US standard rifle, the M-16.

So, no. The USSR didn't lie about their technology and the Cold War wasn't won because of it.
 

RDubayoo

New member
Sep 11, 2008
170
0
0
Oh, God. Don't feel like going through the whole thread to see if this has been posted, but how about the scene in Heavy Rain where....

The police arrest Ethan Mars, and that FBI agent DECIDES TO LET HIM GO. Dude, so what if you don't think he did it! He's still the prime suspect and he's still your best lead for finding the real killer! And he's obviously very troubled in any case. Letting him go could be--and IS, as it turns out later in the game--dangerous to him and the public! WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT!?!?

Don't tell me the FBI guy was trying to save Ethan from getting beaten. Even if you assumed a police department in the US would actually allow its officers to do that sort of thing, all the FBI agent has to do is call his superiors in the FBI and report the problem. And if that doesn't get results fast enough, he can call the media. This would be the headline: 'Police Arrest Origami Killer Suspect--and They're Beating the Crap Out of Him!' That would put a stop to that nonsense quick. But no, we have to do things in the most moronic and retarded fashion possible in order to create "drama."

And I don't wanna hear that the FBI agent seriously believed that Ethan Hunt had a better chance of finding him just because he said so. The agent had no reason to believe Ethan Hunt was anything other than completely delusional. I mean, what, the whacked out, desperate Dad's a better investigator than the FBI agent with magic glasses? I don't think so.

I could also go on how about the ridiculous scene where, if you continue to try and protect Ethan from that rogue detective, he'll pull a gun on you, a freaking FBI agent! And nothing happens to him, as far as the player knows!

I could go on about this game for a long time, but I think I'll stop here before I give myself an aneurysm.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Cab00se206 said:
Therumancer said:
Planes have to land for fueling and such, which is why things like Aircraft Carriers and/or island bases are important.

Also we *DO* possess a lot of islands and territories between here and Russia, jockeying for position is what "The Cold War" was all about. We were winning it by leaps and bounds too, which is part of what caused the USSR to collapse, though there were a lot of factors.

The straw that broke the Camel's back so to speak was "Desert Storm" which was pretty much the US Vs. USSR junior. The USSR was backing Saddam and had trained and equipped his guys. The US was by and large behind not only it's own forces, but the allied nations as well. So basically what we got to see was USSR tech vs. American tech, and Russian training vs. American training. What some expected would be an epic battle, turned into a massive slaughter, largely because the USSR was lying about what it could do, and assumed we were doing the same, when we understated things. We were also pretty confident of this because we pretty much reamed them a new one on the espionage/black ops front as well and they knew pretty much only what we wanted them to know.

With the economy and everything else, this demonstration of the goverment's lies, and ineffectiveness of the USSR military the people sacrificed everything for because "it was the best" caused a massive loss of faith.
Uh. No. Just . . . no. Not even.

The Cold War was not all about 'jockeying for position' for a bunch of North Atlantic islands. Both players knew that attacking each others' territories would be a sure-fire way to get cluster nuked all to hell. Even if they knew FOR CERTAIN that the other player wouldn't fire his nukes, the collection of treaties that bound the USSR and EU+US together would drag the world into another world war. With the resources of several continets between them with sophisticated warmaking technology, such a war would be devastating beyond imagining. It was never going to be worth the effort. And for the record, America didn't win the Cold War, Russia lost it. America 'won' by being the only country in the world capable of sustaining its monumental military spending, not by any decisive military action.

And Desert Storm? The USSR condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and supported the UN's proposal to enforce, with violence if necessry, an embargo on Iraq. The first Gulf War was not about US-USSR competition, it was a reaction to Iraqi aggression. While the USSR was a supplier of arms and some training personnel to iraq, its military involvement was dwarfed by its commitment to other Middle Eastern countries about a decade before.

You mention the fact that 'Desert Storm' was the US vs USSR Jr. What you might have been thinking of was the series of wars fought between the US-backed Israel and a coalition of Arab countries, such as Egypt, Syria etc, supported by the USSR in the 1970s. Those were more like the US Jr. vs USSR Jr. you described, and was indeed a proving ground for both countries military technologies and doctrines. While it is true that Israel has won all of those wars, it is far more to do with the military skill and dedication of the Israeli people than any disparity of technology. The USR certainly didn't lie about their gear. During these wars, Russian-made SAM missiles kept the air war inside Israel for much of that time, and the Russian tanks delivered to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were some of the best tank designs in the world. Plus, it's been well established that the Russian AK-47 was vastly superior to the US standard rifle, the M-16.

So, no. The USSR didn't lie about their technology and the Cold War wasn't won because of it.
This is getting well off topic, suffice it to say we'll have to agree to disagree, as it will go nowhere. I think your wrong.

The only bit I'm going to mention (which has nothing to do with the overall thread) is that the AK-47 was never determined to be "vastly" superior to the M-16.

This story pretty much exists because the M-16 was not well tested for hostile enviroments, and the first generation had a tendency to malfunction in enviroments like Vietnam and Korea, problems which were later corrected. One of the problems was that it was developed to be a no-maitnence, self-cleaning rifle. It was never tested for those enviroments, and because of the hype the soldiers were not trained or equipped for rifle maitnence. While the Wikipedia articles on the subject (they have an article on comparing the AK-47 to the M-16) are inaccurate in some places, they themselves cover this minor little "detail".

One of the big points about the M-16 is it's weight, which was a major part of the design philsophy, the first generation only weight about 6.5 points, later models which were updated to deal with the design problems above, did indeed weigh more, adding like a whopping two pounds to the weight (ie it's still very light). The AK series (of which the AK-47 is just one) in comparison weighs a lot more.

Another bit point of contention is that the M-16 is a more advanced gun, and harder to manufacture. The AK-47 and 74 have become so popular internationally not so much because of how awesomely effective they are (though they get the job done) but because they are easy to knock off and manufacture.

One of the key elements of the M-16 design philosophy was that when it comes to moving and supplying troops, weight counts. Every pound in a shipment is more fuel expended either on a boat or plane, and every pound carried by a soldier is more weight dragging him down during travel or a march. Less weight can mean faster movement, and less fatigue when the troops arrive. Finding ways to reduce the weight of a soldier's gear while maintaining his effectiveness has long been a military concern.


The effectiveness of the evolved M-16 versions and the evolved AK versions can be debated. Both guns drew inspiration from each other despite what anyone might think since the modern AK series can be a bit lighter depending on who exactly is manufacturing it. Overall it comes down to general design philsophies, logistically the M-16 is a better gun, being designed with troop movements and re-supply in mind as much as anything. Combat effectiveness wise in a firefight, it's a very close thing, though the AK-47 *DID* have a major advantage due to durability and simply being maintainable on the first battlefields after it's inception. The M-16 would probably be a bit more respected had the whole 'self cleaning and maintaining rifle' schtick actually worked in practice upon it's initial release.
 

flipsalty

New member
May 11, 2010
128
0
0
I guess modern warfare 2 got it right then, because the Americans beat the Russians back in the game.
 

flipsalty

New member
May 11, 2010
128
0
0
Therumancer said:
flipsalty said:
Therumancer said:
The Russians parachuted in, they didn't land on the shores.
... and how pray tell did they managed to keep all of those planes fueled to pretty much get from one end of the world to another with enough troops to make a differance?

Simply put they would have needed to take over a number of islands and brought in carriers in order to do that, and they still probably would have needed a beach head to boot.

Truthfully I think the Coast Guard alone would have done a massive job on them without one.

From what I've seen of MW2, the entire thing seems to revolve around this ACS system and the idea that with this one mystical device, and a total lack of common sense or additional security, Russia is basically able to disable all of the defenses of the US and somehow magically get troops from one end of the globe to the other without anyone in between here and there noticing, and penetrate all the way to the US Capitol....

Stop and think about this for a second.

They wouldn't be in it alone, of course, but consider that we have an entire branch of the military that uses rather large and heavily armed cutters, and other sea faring craft, combined with helicopters and an aviation division, to patrol the waters around the US. The Coast Guard, acts as police, rescue, and is tasked with Homeland security. Even if one was to argue that our Satellites and such were offline, someone moving these massive clouds of planes which are probably reliant on aircraft carriers close enough to the US to land Paratroopers is *not* going to be unnoticed. Oh sure, in a pitched battle a couple dedicated task forces of the Russian Navy and Airforce would decimate the US Coast Guard... well unless of course they aren't going to bother even hitting the beaches or something dumb like that.. I mean the Coasties aren't intended for that kind of engagement. One thing that they would do is prevent a surprise attack of this sort (which is part of the point) and they could make themselves a bit annoying to deal with while the real military got involved.

Or to put things into perspective, simply using where I live in Connecticut as an example. We have a Coast Guard Academy, and a Naval Submarine base. If something like that happened off our coast line, I sort of think they would talk to each other. There is going to be a fight. The same is probably going to apply to just about any other coastal area/state.

... and that's kind of ridiculous too, because again, I don't think they'd get accross all that ocean unopposed or unseen.
I'm fairly certain that the coast guard is not equipped to shoot down enemy high altitude aircraft. And I'm aware that there is a naval base in New London. How many of those naval ships do you think are outfitted and operational? There are no carrier groups patrolling the northeast corridor, they would either be deployed overseas or the nearest is in Virginia I believe. I also believe you are overestimating the coast guard's presence along the atlantic coast. They patrol within 12 miles of the coast, everything else is international waters where they have no jurisdiction. And as for your concern over the aircraft needing to refuel, I'm not too sure how familiar you are with modern aircraft but a typical Russian midrange cargo plane has a range of 8000km, http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/an_70.html, more than enough to reach the continental United States. How do you think that transatlantic commercial flights work? Do they land on nonexistent islands? How do you think the United States flies troops to the Persian Gulf? This isn't WWII, there aren't troop ships anymore, it's all done in the air.
You are aware of the logistics of moving an invasion force right? It's not a simple matter of moving some civilians from point A to point B. There is a reason why we put Carriers and such in the middle of the Persian Gulf instead of just flying our stuff back and forth accross the ocean. We also need to use tenders constantly to keep these groups operational.

In New London it's not just a Naval Base, it's a Submarine base. All of them are armed and operational. Part of the point of modern subs is that they carry missles and are very capable of intercepting both planes and other missles.

The point of the Coast Guard isn't so much that they could shoot down the Aircraft, but simply that it blows any chance of there being a surprise attack of the sort presented. What's more if the Russians *DID* fly in a bunch of unsupported troops it would be the most lulzworthy and ridiculous military failure in history.

It's like this, let's say they disable the satellite "early warning system" with this magical key of baloney. Some Russian general decides "hey, let's fly a bunch of cargo jets with paratroopers into DC for the ultranationalist lulz". Somehow, these Jets manage to make it past everything between here and there, and somehow nobody notices from allied nations, military bases thata aren't in the US, patrolling subs, air patrols, and whatever else. When they arrive, your Paratroopers are going to have no ammo resupply, resources, timely reinforcements, or anything else. They are going to be cut to ribbons no matter how many
are sent. Forget military response, they are going to have their hands full just with the DC Police, FBI, and armed civilians (and the military/national guard WOULD respond). I mean they aren't going to have the numbers, they aren't going to have the munitions, and they aren't going to have the support. I mean I'm sure it would be a big deal, but it would fall more under the "The Russians are flaming stupid" than any real bonafide threat to the US.

But honestly, they aren't going to get that far.

The point here being that Modern Warfare 2's plot is inherantly garbage. Now that doesn't mean it's not entertaining if you put your brain into neutral and just go with it. I mean heck, it worked for "Invasion USA". But the subject here is ridiculous plot holes.

Getting past the entire issue of the troops themselves getting here undetected and being a viable threat, the basic premise of there being a single magical method of disabiling the entire US "early warning system" (satellites, etc..) is also fundementally ridiculous in of itself. There is a plothole before you even get to the issue as to whether the Russians could somehow land an invasion force directly in DC and do anything besides realize how dumb it was before they died.

I guess the game got it right then because I'm pretty sure that the Americans beat back the Russians.
 

reg42

New member
Mar 18, 2009
5,390
0
0
Canid117 said:
F-I-D-O said:
Canid117 said:
F-I-D-O said:
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!
Those are Cliches not plot holes
Can't cliches be plot holes as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliche

Educate yourself so you don't look so stupid next time.
They can be, but most of the ones you gave aren't.

EDIT: Shite, sorry. Got confused. You were right, he was wrong.
 

MajorKris

New member
Aug 10, 2009
283
0
0
Final Fantasy XIII

We have SUMMONS that can FLY for crying out loud! Why do we feel the need to climb the annoying tower on foot with all the baddies around?
 

Punisher A.J.

New member
Nov 18, 2009
445
0
0
Crystal Cuckoo said:
Did Adam and Eve produce daughters?
If no then.... HA!!! don't question science!
If yes.... then we are the deformed product of the 1st ever genes and we are all related.... sooooo.....gross.......

However the story goes that Adam and Eve had two kids, both boys, and Cain killed Able....so population on earth = 2 males and 1 female. also Adam and Eve are OLD!!!!! so no more babies for Eve...... That makes as much sense as the Noah and the Ark story. 600 year old man saves his family, 2 of every animal and uses a boat to avoid a flood as they set sail for 40 years.(or was it days)

problem 1 - Didn't other people have boats?

problem 2 - 600 years old seems pretty old to be taking on this kinda project?

problem 3 - 40 years....... 2 kinds of every animal.... don't animals, you know, eat other animals?

problem 4 - Evan almighty.

problem 5 - Why Noah.

problem 6 - I may be the deformed product of Adam and Eve.... BUT I AM NOT THAT RETARDED!!!
-thank you Joe Rogan.
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
JimmyBassatti said:
azncutthroat said:
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...
When did they fire ICBMs? Russia never fired ICBMs in the Cold War...
The Russian government in MW2 launched nukes as the primary antagonists (aka Ultranationalists, when they weren't in control of the Russian gov) in MW1:

 

mornal

New member
Aug 19, 2009
297
0
0
To everyone fretting over the MW2 plotholes, the wonderful folks over at tvtropes have put a bit of effort into coming up with semi-plausible reasons. Give it a read.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/CallOfDuty (may have to scroll down a bit)
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Well, since I've just been immersed in the Half-Life 2 saga recently, I have one major complaint, stemming from Half-Life 2:

Hell, I can type it right here since it doesn't really spoil anything significant: why the hell are the vortigaunts suddenly your allies? Like, I realise that HL prides itself on being a game which refuses to explain the story directly (which I actually like, for the most part), but seriously - what's up with this? The last time you had any encounter with them was when you were slaughtering hunderds of them in Xen back in Half-Life, and suddenly..... they're allies with humans? Maybe they really hate the Combine, as well?
 

Daipire

New member
Oct 25, 2009
1,132
0
0
Sylocat said:
Terry576 said:
You know what always bugged me?

James Bond. His ages goes from 20 to 40 to 30. How old is he exactly?
He's a Time Lord!
Theres a theory that James Bond is a title, like 'sir'. Think of it as the Dread Pirate Roberts.
 

Skeleton Jelly

New member
Nov 1, 2009
365
0
0
Saint_Demon963 said:
Any movie or videogame with invisibility. You wouldn't be able to see if you were completely invisible due to the fact that invisibility is light passing through you, and seeing is light being collected inside your eyes (or something like that).
Most times when invisibility is used in a game, its usually cause light is BENDING around the player. Thats why you're usually see through, but you can still see the outline of your body, its just a bit wavy.
 

Skeleton Jelly

New member
Nov 1, 2009
365
0
0
Punisher A.J. said:
Crystal Cuckoo said:
Did Adam and Eve produce daughters?
If no then.... HA!!! don't question science!
If yes.... then we are the deformed product of the 1st ever genes and we are all related.... sooooo.....gross.......

However the story goes that Adam and Eve had two kids, both boys, and Cain killed Able....so population on earth = 2 males and 1 female. also Adam and Eve are OLD!!!!! so no more babies for Eve...... That makes as much sense as the Noah and the Ark story. 600 year old man saves his family, 2 of every animal and uses a boat to avoid a flood as they set sail for 40 years.(or was it days)

problem 1 - Didn't other people have boats?

problem 2 - 600 years old seems pretty old to be taking on this kinda project?

problem 3 - 40 years....... 2 kinds of every animal.... don't animals, you know, eat other animals?

problem 4 - Evan almighty.

problem 5 - Why Noah.

problem 6 - I may be the deformed product of Adam and Eve.... BUT I AM NOT THAT RETARDED!!!
-thank you Joe Rogan.
Apparently Noah and his family were the ONLY PEOPLE ON EARTH to have not been tainted by sin. Yup so every man, women, child, baby and elder were all evil and brimming with sin. And don't bother telling me how scientists found Noahs Arc on some mountain. I don't know how many news stories have said someone found Noahs Arc all on several different mountains and even on some shorelines.
 

Raiha

New member
Jul 3, 2009
416
0
0
The Seldom Seen Kid said:
The only one I can think of is The Dark Knight (I know, it's not really gaming, whatever.)
As much as I love that movie, it's just littered with inconsistencies.
Why would Joker give two different versions of how he got his scars?

i believe that is a reference to the brilliant graphic novel "the killing joke". it gives what is probably the most accurate joker origin story in the comics. in it the joker tells batman that even he doesn't remember what actually happend to him. he says something along the lines of "sometimes i remember it one way, other times its another. if i am going to have a history i would perfer it to be multiple choice!" i would highly reccomend buying this novel as it is in my opinion the best joker vs. batman story ever written.
 

Notthatbright

New member
Apr 13, 2010
169
0
0
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.
$10 dollar DLC that fixes the story? Sounds like Broken steel should have been a patch, not an expansion.