burninmylight said:
And like I said, "It's only a plot hole if something that happened that logically should have grounded the events to a halt with no possible explanation as to why that event happened." Dying is not a plot hole. Gameplay wise, you get a Game Over screen and you have to start from a save point. In the game's plot, Samus does not die. You have an explanation as to why Samus didn't use the Varia suit: she was ordered not to use it. It doesn't matter how stupid the reason is. It doesn't matter how impractical it is to run through an area with extremely unsafe temperatures. As long as it is possible within the rules of that fictional world (not our world), it is not a plot hole. I have an honest question: are you screwing with me, for the lulz? I'm not going to start throwing around the T-word, because you've been polite toward me. But I honestly cannot understand why you're arguing against the very definition of a concept. I understand you don't like the events of Other M, but you're arguing against fact. 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact and a law. 2 + 2 = 5? That would be a paradox. Your arguments for Other M is not 2 + 2 = 5. |
I have to disagree. Video games differ from television/films/books in that they are an interactive medium. Dying is made possible in most games, and when this occurs it changes the story to end at that point. Sure you can reload a save point and continue the main, intended storyline as if the death never occured, but the death must make sense and is subject to critique.
The definition you provided stated "[Plot holes] include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline."
Dying/almost dying for not using defensive equipment, when Samus is ordered to hold back in case she accidentally kills potential survivors (i.e offensively) is contradictory and illogical.