23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

@Redbelle,

I think so much is explained in the game and can be summed up with things that Shepard can say.  At one point Shepard can tell the dying reaper that Synthetics and organics need not always be fighting.  At another point Shepard can say that you don't condemn a race to extinction based upon what might happen.  Since the kid isn't shown to be a fortune teller, the kid doesn't know with any certainty that anything will happen-everything he says is predicated upon what might happen.  But it also may be predicated on what he has seen happen.  So what?  Past events are not true predictors of future ones and anyone with a brain knows this is so.

I may kill a bee today, but that does not mean I will do so in the future.  Perhaps between today and tomorrow, I will learn there's a reason not to kill bees so I will never knowingly kill another.

This is something that would be known about intelligent beings-but is not known by the kid.  And it is perhaps a true predictor of what the synthesized brain would be.  Then again, maybe not.  Since there are many indicators that the kid may want Synthesis to be the choice Shepard makes, and he's had the reapers attempt a horrific form of it, and they have always sought the most advanced, there may be another reason.  And, the kid's inability to understand "human" (or advanced organic) nature and learning, may be the key.  He may want that force of will, that self-determination, and the ability to change the predictability of the future to be assimilated within himself.

No culture previously has been able to do this.  The Protheans couldn't because they actually created a very fated existence for everyone within their galaxy.  They assimilated all and didn't give them any choice.  They had clearly defined societal roles and couldn't vary from what they were at all.  They had already stagnated and Javik says that what they did was their downfall-they had limited diversity.

In the game, it's a constant thread of diversity mattering, the ability to reject fate mattering, self-determination mattering, and so on.  It seems very likely that these are the things the kid wants incorporated into his programming-stuff he doesn't understand.

But all this is conjecture and brings me back around to the fact that it still doesn't matter.  Evil is as evil does.  He's done evil, no matter why.  That he seems to be crazy as well, is just one more nail I'd like to see in his coffin.

[Voodoo-j]

I figured as much, I just tire of seeing him think he is "winning" cause he got someone to respond to him. Then someone new comes in to post and takes him seriously...for a few posts.

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

I figured as much, I just tire of seeing him think he is "winning" cause he got someone to respond to him. Then someone new comes in to post and takes him seriously...for a few posts.

He only wins when we stoop to his level.  I've made the mistake of doing so at times, but I think in his world "winning" means something else entirely.  Don't want to know what that is, because I'm losing enough brain cells daily as it is.

[sdinc009]

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

The problem is they didn't foreshadow this at all and it breaks with good storytelling.  When you read a book or see a movie, there are characters that are the main characters in the story.  You may have a hero who is the one you identify with the most-he takes you along for the ride.  You live things through his/her eyes and in doing this the writer/creator helps to draw you in emotionally and mentally.  The hero is the protagonist.

In good v. evil stories, there's a clear antagonist.  This is they guy that you are fighting against.  You hate him, your goal is always to defeat him.  The antagonist can be one person or a group of people.  You are set up to be emotionally and mentally against the antagonist. 

ME was very clear from the start on these 2 points.  Shepard was the protagonist, the reapers the antagonist.  In ME, Sovereign was the reaper at large and Saren was his henchman-they were linked from the start.  Everything you did as Shepard was to get to Saren to stop what Sovereign stood for.

In ME2, the collector's were working for the reapers and the goal was to destroy the collectors (also in the Arrival to prevent the reapers from even getting to the galaxy too soon) in order to stop their harvesting (for the reapers) of human colonies.  The goal was also to figure out just why they were doing it and it led further into the notion that the reapers were on the way-Harbinger was directly controlling the collectors.  The reapers were never out of the picture completely.

ME3 put the reapers front and center, of course.  They were there and everything they did hit you emotionally and mentally, constantly.  They were frightening and they were doing frightening things.  They were also the biggest, baddest evil ever encountered.

In the last moments of the game the antagonist (reapers) were substituted with some glowing boy that is not a boy, but a VI or AI or whatever.  And people can't even agree as to whether he is the antagonist or not.  In my mind, he can't be anything good (from the view of people that don't like everyone being killed) because he controls and brought the reapers to the galaxy, so he must be the antagonist.  But, because he wasn't the one we'd been fighting and seeing kill people, I feel nothing for him.  He wasn't a part of the story.  He's nothing.  I don't care that he's an AI or VI at all.  He could be a real puppy or he could be a rock, for all I care.  To fit into the story, if he was to be there at all, he needed to be something that related to the reapers in a way that draws the player in emotionally.  He could have looked like Mordin or like Harbinger (the way Sovereign had his VI on Virmire).  But, I think they intended to make him ambiguous for some reason that was never explored at the end.

The other VIs and AIs have context within the story-their stories get told.  Legions and the geths stories are played out in many ways through all 3 games.  EDI evolves very clearly through 2, but is also foreshadowed by other AIs such as the one that was stealing money on the Citadel in ME1.

The star kid isn't part of the story, and many of us have made the case that even the real kid doesn't fit in so well.  Shepard shows more feeling over his death than over shooting Anderson.

A story is a ride-the writer wants the reader/viewer/player to remain emotionally connected to the characters through to the end.  Just consider if Shepard had been killed by Harbinger's beam in London and Corporal Tom Evans was sent up the conduit and met Anderson and TIM and was going to decide what would happen to everybody.  Who's Tom Evans?  Good question.  Just like the star kid, he's nobody you've evern heard of before.  And you'd be wondering what the heck he's doing there.


They already had the perfect head reaper guy and didn't need the star kid.  Harbinger was the oldest reaper.  He was the force behind the collectors.  He wanted Shepard's body.  He could have been that badass behind it all.  And he might have known everything, something Sovereign hinted at.  Sovereign did seem to know what he and the reapers were doing and why.  He just didn't feel the "ants" of the galaxy would or needed to understand.  The reapers use their mystique as much as their presence to overcome the galaxy.

I can see you never have written a story or book.....Sometimes a story
evolves the way you don't expect. I don't they they realized they mad the
Reapers so brain dead. I also don't think it is bad storytelling to have
something to sum up the story at the end...Most Fantasy stories do
this. Normally it is a angel or alien or some great power at first unknown...This isnt new. Shoot they did better with it in the game then Sagan used in his Contact book. I believe that your hatred for the
catalyst AI or VI is that you didn't see it coming and you apparently don't like surprises. Where it is true much of the ME games are predictable they always did try and throw a twist in....Just normally your
figure it out before hand.

The problem is you don't think bubbles and most stories do not do this. Do I really need to repost the literary definition of Deus Ex Machina? This is a plot device that the literary community considers poor writing because it completely underminds the actions of the characters throughout the entire narative. You are correct in that this isn't a new plot device. It was widely used in Greek and Roman literature, however in this style it can be accepted because the Greeks and Romans believed that the Gods influenced their everyday life. It is not a stretch for them to believe that out of nowhere Zeus would come down from Mount Olympus to defeat the bad guy and make everything right. But, in the present, this writing tool is weak and the literary community as a whole considers it poor writing. This is not my opinion even though I agree, this is what experts of literature agree on.

[Benchpress610]

It’s very interesting when bubbles say he has only insulted three or four people when most of the time he starts his posts with the words “You guys…” that expression obviously engulfs anyone who disagrees with him, which is 98% of the people in this thread.
 
I don’t particularly think he is an idiot, although most of the time he sounds like one. I think he is having the time of his life trolling this thread. For more that two months he has been hounding us dropping one-liners here and there to hook us into arguing with him. He must get a good kick out of it. No matter how articulate and logic our arguments are, he won’t concede an inch. His objective is not to reason with us, is just to argue and drag along the argument as long as possible no matter how absurd he might sound. If we say blue, he will say red. It has become predictable.
 
That why I never quote him or reply directly to him, even though he has insulted me several times. I won’t take his bait.  

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

I've generally found that Than is right and wrong. An an example here's a past post on the topic of BW lying to it;s consumers.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10056886/1

The thing is whenever someone from a company gives an interview or talks about a product they make they are advertising that product and making promises.

They need not say, "I promise" in order for something to be a promise.  In fact, we all make promises all the time without using those words.  I won't forget what you did for me.  I will help you later.  I will wash the car.  We in effect promise to do things for people so they will like us.  People today rarely use the words "I promise" specifically because no one believes anyone that uses those specific words.  Ever seen the series, "Lie to Me"?  You should watch it-it is so interesting the many things you can see that people do to indicate on a subconscious level that they are lying.

People from Bioware made statements-they in effect were advertising their game in order to make people want to buy it.  I will make this clear-they stated things purposely in order to get you and I to buy their product.  The statements they made were not specifically said to be promises, but they were promises.  And lying by omission or by using misleading and ambiguous wording is still lying.  It may not have been intentional in some cases-they may have gotten caught up in the hype too, but they were doing the hyping.

If I as a fan say, "this is the greatest game you will ever play" it's my opinion and not wrong and you can't hold me to it.  If I as a game publisher say, "this it the greatest game you will ever play" there's a problem.  It may still be an opinion, but it is also tied to getting people to buy and it must deliver or the game publisher is not being truthful.  He's saying it to get you to buy it, but he knows he can't deliver on something like this.

We actually hold the makers of other things to higher standards.  They can't speak untruthfully of a product without some consequences.  They can't just make claims and not follow through on them.

It's not the buyer's fault if the developer of a game overhypes the game.  It is the fault of the developer.  People buy things based upon all those advertising interviews developers give.  They believe the devs are being truthful.  And the people sayind these things get paychecks for saying them-they are paid by the people buying the stuff they've not been completely truthful about.

Their statements made previous to and after the game's release might not stand as misleading or lying if it were just one or two, but it is almost everything they said.  Some things they've tried to "take back" but even in their re-does, something seems off or disingenuous.  And since you brought it up, the ABC ending is a core issue.  There are still only 3 ABC type choices, but it's also about what CH said right after that-

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”

Point me to the sophistication and variety and everyone can count how many endings are at the actual end of the game so saying that it's not even like you can say how many endings there are is at best misleading.  And trying to get people to buy any product by using misleading statements is akin to lying.

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I've generally found that Than is right and wrong. An an example here's a past post on the topic of BW lying to it;s consumers.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10056886/1

The thing is whenever someone from a company gives an interview or talks about a product they make they are advertising that product and making promises.

They need not say, "I promise" in order for something to be a promise.  In fact, we all make promises all the time without using those words.  I won't forget what you did for me.  I will help you later.  I will wash the car.  We in effect promise to do things for people so they will like us.  People today rarely use the words "I promise" specifically because no one believes anyone that uses those specific words.  Ever seen the series, "Lie to Me"?  You should watch it-it is so interesting the many things you can see that people do to indicate on a subconscious level that they are lying.

People from Bioware made statements-they in effect were advertising their game in order to make people want to buy it.  I will make this clear-they stated things purposely in order to get you and I to buy their product.  The statements they made were not specifically said to be promises, but they were promises.  And lying by omission or by using misleading and ambiguous wording is still lying.  It may not have been intentional in some cases-they may have gotten caught up in the hype too, but they were doing the hyping.

If I as a fan say, "this is the greatest game you will ever play" it's my opinion and not wrong and you can't hold me to it.  If I as a game publisher say, "this it the greatest game you will ever play" there's a problem.  It may still be an opinion, but it is also tied to getting people to buy and it must deliver or the game publisher is not being truthful.  He's saying it to get you to buy it, but he knows he can't deliver on something like this.

We actually hold the makers of other things to higher standards.  They can't speak untruthfully of a product without some consequences.  They can't just make claims and not follow through on them.

It's not the buyer's fault if the developer of a game overhypes the game.  It is the fault of the developer.  People buy things based upon all those advertising interviews developers give.  They believe the devs are being truthful.  And the people sayind these things get paychecks for saying them-they are paid by the people buying the stuff they've not been completely truthful about.

Their statements made previous to and after the game's release might not stand as misleading or lying if it were just one or two, but it is almost everything they said.  Some things they've tried to "take back" but even in their re-does, something seems off or disingenuous.  And since you brought it up, the ABC ending is a core issue.  There are still only 3 ABC type choices, but it's also about what CH said right after that-

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”

Point me to the sophistication and variety and everyone can count how many endings are at the actual end of the game so saying that it's not even like you can say how many endings there are is at best misleading.  And trying to get people to buy any product by using misleading statements is akin to lying.

One of your best posts...and you've had many!

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...
.Now I do like to post the truth but I guess to you having moved on means I should just allow lies to constantly be spread...Sorry I
have honor.

Hipocrisy on a whole new level


New word just for you!
Thanatisy - it's being a hipocrite while fantasizing you are not!

You really need to look up the definition of that word.....Unlike you I have been consistant.

again the catalyst isnt the good guy the enemy that has been destroying advanced organics for generations and then saying their going to save us from advanced synthetics but then use the geth to kill us or fight us with their reaper code after nearly destroying the galaxy and do this a thousand times over do you really think the reapers are just gonna sit down and drink milk and cookies with us I hardly doubt so

In A situation where the enemy that your fighting or brought all your forces to beat it makes no sense to automaticlly give into said enemy with circular logic that can be torn apart and then forced into 3 choices that either sound suicidal and ends up traping all your forces or commiting mass genocide to races like the geth and the quarians

Or turing everybody into half machines or half organic hybrids against their will destroying individuality evolution to affect real change to destroy the whole essence of bringing different people together to accomplish a goal

And No one has ever been able to control the reapers so it makes no sense why it would be able to work now when the illusive man and saren both failed to do so and how is shepard controlling the reapers if his or her body is destroyed how in hells name are the reapers being controlled and in any of the endings where the main villian lives what makes you think they won't try to harvest or commit mass genocide again it just


*Deep breath* dear god I just oooooih *Facepalms


Maybe from now on on every post I make I shall have this picture accompanie it

Thought this was kinda cool





Yeah a sacrifical ending is fine if you end up saving the people you sacrifice for but giving into the enemy and then having the enemy pick what you should or force you into 3 terrible choices that personally as player and as shepard would probably never do I'm sorry

I'd rather fight the reapers to the end and depending on how high ems is how bad we lose or how good we win with keeping the relays intact so all the forces can go home and have loyal squad stay with us and the fleets

And why Can't mass effect 3 have a good ending or at least a victory ending mass effect 1 had one mass effect 2 had one 99% of mass effect 3 despite the noble and sad sacrifices had heroic and well done moments so why in the ending where everything is suppose to make sense where we are suppose to be reaching a decent conclusion does everything lose cohesion losing gallons of blood or not I wouldn't give in or accept the cataylst without questioning my own sanity because he created the reapers he is using the reapers to destroy organics for aeons on end and is still using the reapers to destroy my forces as we are having this very conversation with the catalyst


And ultimately why would I Trapt my own forces or let the enemy that has been destroying life for thousand of years or is destroying us during most of the final game why in hells name would I let them live so that they can potentially kill us all over again I just sweet christmas U_u

At the end of the day a defeat is a defeat I wish our choices would've mattered I wish we could've really beaten the reapers espically under our own steam and not their creators wishes

Yea thanatos loves playing games to lose I bet he plays call of duty all the time online so he can get his ass destroyed or so that no matter what he does he will always lose yup he loves it more then anything


The False expectations and the lies that they said how things would occur was what was terribly wrong

Secondly you seem to love the thing about heroes giving into the enemies that they said they would destroy to save the galaxy but instead we get either reapers live with their creator telling us which way to die with either  the reapers living so they can commit genocide on us again or all our forces trapt in our damaged solar system

And Vigil from Ilos already said that the reapers turn off the relays to make it easyer to harvest organics so if the relays are destroyed it would make it that much easyer for the reapers to annhilate us

Giving into the enemy and having them force into the choices they believe and then ultimately not beating the enemy or not saving any of your forces from the sacrifice that you make ends up ultimatel a failure ending where you lose no matter what decisions and actions you did during all three games

Anybody get the new vorcha character

[sdinc009]

Something to see

[sdinc009]

Something to see

[Voodoo-j]

LiarasShield wrote...

Anybody get the new vorcha character

I did play the other night, while I didn't have it, those that did made for interesting conversation.
They did a really good job with it, those I was grouped with all had fun commenting on the the vorcha dialouge.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 01 juin 2012 - 03:49 .

[Benchpress610]

Voodoo-j wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Anybody get the new vorcha character

I did play the other night, while I didn't have it, those that did made for interesting conversation.
They did a really good job with it, those I was grouped with all had fun commenting on the the vorcha dialouge.

LOL...I found myself shooting at them a couple of times..they do look a lot like Marauders...

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

Something to see

That is awesome.

[Thanatos144]

Redbelle wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

You dont like the idea that  showing those that commit great evil thinks
they are doing great good? Even Hitler thought he was doing good ....
He was wrong and evil but he didnt see himself that way. I see machines
coming to a machine conclusion that in order to save all biologic life
they have to cull it....Heck we have humans like Sanger in real life who
thought the same it is called Eugenics. It was wrong and evil but they
are machines and maybe those that first created them were not much
better...heck might have been worse.

While the comparison of the motivations of the war leaders of WW2 and the Catalyst may hold relevant aspects for intellectual discussion and debate. At some point a definitive judgement has to be rended upon the individual. In this case good or evil. Your correct in that it is not always easy to distinguish the two and good ppl can do bad things and bad ppl can do good things. However the scale of the good or bad is just as important as the frequency of the deeds in question. If the SC saved a drowning puppy from the presidium every cycle it would not balance out commiting galactic genocide.

The actual events are however a tad more complex.

The SC says he is saving us from Synthetics........ That's very good of him.

He has created an organic/machine race to kill advanced races....... Very Bad.

He spares lesser races........Very Good.........

Until they become advanced and then their Reaper food..... Wait did I say good? That's baaaaaad.

He's doing all this to save us from synthetics.......Goo.....(wait I'm not finished), but synthetics, while theorised as having the potential to overthrow the organics have not and shown no desire too over the course of 3 games.......Is that good or ba...(shhh, hold your horses, still not finished),  And every time we have seen or heard of a synthetic uprising it has ether been put down, or turned out not to have been a move to wipe organics off the map........... Bad? Maybe? (Ok, lets simpify the above).

The Catayst is saying that he is saving us from an event he believe's will happen if he does nothing. Yet the machine race Javik spoke of were stopped. The AI that became EDI on the moon was stopped and became a great ally and friend. and the Geth were shown to have been misunderstood from the beginning and only went Heretic after the Quarian exodus and the introduction of Sovereign. Therefore the SC inadvertently and indirectly created the situation he wanted to avoid in the first place............ I'm going with Bad on this one.

The Catalyst provides no context for what he is doing. If he had spoken of a great war in the first cycle against machines......... and the only way to win was to build the Reapers that have been haunting the galaxy ever since I'd have an easier time accpeting the SC's logic as something occured in this past to make him think that way. Instead we get another 'Oh you wouldn't understand.'

The only thing I don't understand is why the SC thinks I wouldn't understand.

Your not understanding me....I am not saying you have to accept that the
catalyst is good cause obviously it is not. I am saying that it is a
machine. It came to a messed up conclusion and it took Shepard's actions
to show it its misguided ideas.  How else are we to defeat a race of
Machines that are FAR more advanced and has
shown to easily cut through our defenses ....... Having more cannon fodder
isnt a very effective way of doing it. So they though of another way.

[Thanatos144]

sdinc009 wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

The problem is they didn't foreshadow this at all and it breaks with good storytelling.  When you read a book or see a movie, there are characters that are the main characters in the story.  You may have a hero who is the one you identify with the most-he takes you along for the ride.  You live things through his/her eyes and in doing this the writer/creator helps to draw you in emotionally and mentally.  The hero is the protagonist.

In good v. evil stories, there's a clear antagonist.  This is they guy that you are fighting against.  You hate him, your goal is always to defeat him.  The antagonist can be one person or a group of people.  You are set up to be emotionally and mentally against the antagonist. 

ME was very clear from the start on these 2 points.  Shepard was the protagonist, the reapers the antagonist.  In ME, Sovereign was the reaper at large and Saren was his henchman-they were linked from the start.  Everything you did as Shepard was to get to Saren to stop what Sovereign stood for.

In ME2, the collector's were working for the reapers and the goal was to destroy the collectors (also in the Arrival to prevent the reapers from even getting to the galaxy too soon) in order to stop their harvesting (for the reapers) of human colonies.  The goal was also to figure out just why they were doing it and it led further into the notion that the reapers were on the way-Harbinger was directly controlling the collectors.  The reapers were never out of the picture completely.

ME3 put the reapers front and center, of course.  They were there and everything they did hit you emotionally and mentally, constantly.  They were frightening and they were doing frightening things.  They were also the biggest, baddest evil ever encountered.

In the last moments of the game the antagonist (reapers) were substituted with some glowing boy that is not a boy, but a VI or AI or whatever.  And people can't even agree as to whether he is the antagonist or not.  In my mind, he can't be anything good (from the view of people that don't like everyone being killed) because he controls and brought the reapers to the galaxy, so he must be the antagonist.  But, because he wasn't the one we'd been fighting and seeing kill people, I feel nothing for him.  He wasn't a part of the story.  He's nothing.  I don't care that he's an AI or VI at all.  He could be a real puppy or he could be a rock, for all I care.  To fit into the story, if he was to be there at all, he needed to be something that related to the reapers in a way that draws the player in emotionally.  He could have looked like Mordin or like Harbinger (the way Sovereign had his VI on Virmire).  But, I think they intended to make him ambiguous for some reason that was never explored at the end.

The other VIs and AIs have context within the story-their stories get told.  Legions and the geths stories are played out in many ways through all 3 games.  EDI evolves very clearly through 2, but is also foreshadowed by other AIs such as the one that was stealing money on the Citadel in ME1.

The star kid isn't part of the story, and many of us have made the case that even the real kid doesn't fit in so well.  Shepard shows more feeling over his death than over shooting Anderson.

A story is a ride-the writer wants the reader/viewer/player to remain emotionally connected to the characters through to the end.  Just consider if Shepard had been killed by Harbinger's beam in London and Corporal Tom Evans was sent up the conduit and met Anderson and TIM and was going to decide what would happen to everybody.  Who's Tom Evans?  Good question.  Just like the star kid, he's nobody you've evern heard of before.  And you'd be wondering what the heck he's doing there.


They already had the perfect head reaper guy and didn't need the star kid.  Harbinger was the oldest reaper.  He was the force behind the collectors.  He wanted Shepard's body.  He could have been that badass behind it all.  And he might have known everything, something Sovereign hinted at.  Sovereign did seem to know what he and the reapers were doing and why.  He just didn't feel the "ants" of the galaxy would or needed to understand.  The reapers use their mystique as much as their presence to overcome the galaxy.

I can see you never have written a story or book.....Sometimes a story
evolves the way you don't expect. I don't they they realized they mad the
Reapers so brain dead. I also don't think it is bad storytelling to have
something to sum up the story at the end...Most Fantasy stories do
this. Normally it is a angel or alien or some great power at first unknown...This isnt new. Shoot they did better with it in the game then Sagan used in his Contact book. I believe that your hatred for the
catalyst AI or VI is that you didn't see it coming and you apparently don't like surprises. Where it is true much of the ME games are predictable they always did try and throw a twist in....Just normally your
figure it out before hand.

The problem is you don't think bubbles and most stories do not do this. Do I really need to repost the literary definition of Deus Ex Machina? This is a plot device that the literary community considers poor writing because it completely underminds the actions of the characters throughout the entire narative. You are correct in that this isn't a new plot device. It was widely used in Greek and Roman literature, however in this style it can be accepted because the Greeks and Romans believed that the Gods influenced their everyday life. It is not a stretch for them to believe that out of nowhere Zeus would come down from Mount Olympus to defeat the bad guy and make everything right. But, in the present, this writing tool is weak and the literary community as a whole considers it poor writing. This is not my opinion even though I agree, this is what experts of literature agree on.

LOL Most writers think it is bad? And yet most of the greatest stories use this. including stories like lord of the rings....Dune...Foundation....To sail beyound sunset...Number of the beast...J.O.B ......Hell the wizard of OZ.....

[Thanatos144]

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s very interesting when bubbles say he has only insulted three or four people when most of the time he starts his posts with the words “You guys…” that expression obviously engulfs anyone who disagrees with him, which is 98% of the people in this thread.
 
I don’t particularly think he is an idiot, although most of the time he sounds like one. I think he is having the time of his life trolling this thread. For more that two months he has been hounding us dropping one-liners here and there to hook us into arguing with him. He must get a good kick out of it. No matter how articulate and logic our arguments are, he won’t concede an inch. His objective is not to reason with us, is just to argue and drag along the argument as long as possible no matter how absurd he might sound. If we say blue, he will say red. It has become predictable.
 
That why I never quote him or reply directly to him, even though he has insulted me several times. I won’t take his bait.  

one of your earliest  posts  was calling me a troll and that was only
cause I said I liked the ending and started to explain why..... You can
try to snow these people but I am here to set the record straight

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I've generally found that Than is right and wrong. An an example here's a past post on the topic of BW lying to it;s consumers.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10056886/1

The thing is whenever someone from a company gives an interview or talks about a product they make they are advertising that product and making promises.

They need not say, "I promise" in order for something to be a promise.  In fact, we all make promises all the time without using those words.  I won't forget what you did for me.  I will help you later.  I will wash the car.  We in effect promise to do things for people so they will like us.  People today rarely use the words "I promise" specifically because no one believes anyone that uses those specific words.  Ever seen the series, "Lie to Me"?  You should watch it-it is so interesting the many things you can see that people do to indicate on a subconscious level that they are lying.

People from Bioware made statements-they in effect were advertising their game in order to make people want to buy it.  I will make this clear-they stated things purposely in order to get you and I to buy their product.  The statements they made were not specifically said to be promises, but they were promises.  And lying by omission or by using misleading and ambiguous wording is still lying.  It may not have been intentional in some cases-they may have gotten caught up in the hype too, but they were doing the hyping.

If I as a fan say, "this is the greatest game you will ever play" it's my opinion and not wrong and you can't hold me to it.  If I as a game publisher say, "this it the greatest game you will ever play" there's a problem.  It may still be an opinion, but it is also tied to getting people to buy and it must deliver or the game publisher is not being truthful.  He's saying it to get you to buy it, but he knows he can't deliver on something like this.

We actually hold the makers of other things to higher standards.  They can't speak untruthfully of a product without some consequences.  They can't just make claims and not follow through on them.

It's not the buyer's fault if the developer of a game overhypes the game.  It is the fault of the developer.  People buy things based upon all those advertising interviews developers give.  They believe the devs are being truthful.  And the people sayind these things get paychecks for saying them-they are paid by the people buying the stuff they've not been completely truthful about.

Their statements made previous to and after the game's release might not stand as misleading or lying if it were just one or two, but it is almost everything they said.  Some things they've tried to "take back" but even in their re-does, something seems off or disingenuous.  And since you brought it up, the ABC ending is a core issue.  There are still only 3 ABC type choices, but it's also about what CH said right after that-

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”

Point me to the sophistication and variety and everyone can count how many endings are at the actual end of the game so saying that it's not even like you can say how many endings there are is at best misleading.  And trying to get people to buy any product by using misleading statements is akin to lying.

Then prove that in court.

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Your not understanding me....I am not saying you have to accept that the
catalyst is good cause obviously it is not. I am saying that it is a
machine. It came to a messed up conclusion and it took Shepard's actions
to show it its misguided ideas.  How else are we to defeat a race of
Machines that are FAR more advanced and has
shown to easily cut through our defenses ....... Having more cannon fodder
isnt a very effective way of doing it. So they though of another way.

Who thought of another way?  The Catalyst says the Crucible changed him, but he could be making that up.  If this is what you are referring to, there's no way Shepard would have of knowing the star kid is not just lying about this.  Anyone that would believe the guy that is turning people into goo, needs serious help.

So what if it's a machine, which is not even proven.  He could be some evil manipulative organic based person with delusions of godhood or he could just be an energy based entity that is using synthetics and organics like circus animals.  We don't know what or who he is at all.

He has not proven that he learned anything at all from Shepard or that Shepard changed anything least of all his misguided ideas. There's no proof of this at all.  In fact, the kid keeps spouting misguided ideas that something FAR more advanced should not think, because of all the proof to the contrary.  If it is all that smart, it should make some sense. 

And the change that the star kid mentions presumably happens because Shepard made it to the top of the Citadel/Crucible.  But in an instant those 3 choices popped up with all that amazing super magical ability (fantasy world Synthesis machine) because Shepard made it to the top.  And the kid hasn't changed, merely his solutions have.  All the while he is still turning people into goo.

He controls the reapers but needs Shepard to destroy them?  Ok, that makes sense, uh yeah. 

[Benchpress610]

^See what I mean?

[sdinc009]

The problem is you don't think bubbles and most stories do not do this. Do I really need to repost the literary definition of Deus Ex Machina? This is a plot device that the literary community considers poor writing because it completely underminds the actions of the characters throughout the entire narative. You are correct in that this isn't a new plot device. It was widely used in Greek and Roman literature, however in this style it can be accepted because the Greeks and Romans believed that the Gods influenced their everyday life. It is not a stretch for them to believe that out of nowhere Zeus would come down from Mount Olympus to defeat the bad guy and make everything right. But, in the present, this writing tool is weak and the literary community as a whole considers it poor writing. This is not my opinion even though I agree, this is what experts of literature agree on. [/quote] LOL Most writers think it is bad? And yet most of the greatest stories use this. including stories like lord of the rings....Dune...Foundation....To sail beyound sunset...Number of the beast...J.O.B ......Hell the wizard of OZ.....
[/quote]

Well apparently bubbles I do need to repost this for you so hear you go


Literary Definitions: Deus Ex Machina


Deus ex machinamight be one of the world's oldest plot devices. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides used this device in nearly half of his plays that still exist - and based on the writings of Aristotle and others, we know that Euripides was considered one of the foremost writers of his day.  If that's the case, then we can probably safely assume that a deus ex machina was used in a lot of Greek plays - the same source that most of our modern narrative techniques come from.
Deus ex machina (pronounced day-oos x mach-ee-na) means "god out of the machine" or "god from the machine" in Latin. As a literary device, it is where, at the conclusion of the narrative, a climax and ending simply presents itself. In Euripides' play, it would have been a god causing something to occur, which triggers the ending - this is where we get the name.
Essentially, the deus ex machina is when, at the end of a story, an extraneous element appears, having nothing to do with the main characters or the central plot, that solves all the problems in the narrative and effectively ends the story.
So why is this bad for modern readers?
In modern narratives, readers expect that the writer will solve the narrative (the story-wide tension building leading from the instigating incident to the climax) by building a set of clues into the main characters' actions and personalities. If you have a murder mystery, you want your main character to solve the problem - not a random cop you've never seen before show up to explain what really happened.
Even Sherlock Holmes can sometimes be considered a deus ex machina, because some of the lesser stories don't have enough clues in place for Holmes to really be able to solve the case, so his explanations just sound like a justification for the ending. "Miracle" endings - where things suddenly change for the better, like incurable cancer suddenly goes into remission despite no effort on anyone's doing, are also deus ex machina.
Basically, when deus ex machina happens, it breaks the readers' trust in the writer, because the writer wasn't able to solve the narrative organically and from within the story. We go to stories to escape from reality, but not to the point where reality doesn't hold.
In essence, the deus ex machina breaks the reader's willing suspension of disbelief - the act of believing in a story's truth, even when the reader knows it's just a story. Since this break happens only in the final moments of a story, the deus ex machina generally ruins the entire narrative for the reader. It is the considered one of the weakest narrative endings.

Lord of the Rings did not use this. Dune did not use this. Stop fabricating falsehoods and passing them off as facts because they're not

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s very interesting when bubbles say he has only insulted three or four people when most of the time he starts his posts with the words “You guys…” that expression obviously engulfs anyone who disagrees with him, which is 98% of the people in this thread.
 
I don’t particularly think he is an idiot, although most of the time he sounds like one. I think he is having the time of his life trolling this thread. For more that two months he has been hounding us dropping one-liners here and there to hook us into arguing with him. He must get a good kick out of it. No matter how articulate and logic our arguments are, he won’t concede an inch. His objective is not to reason with us, is just to argue and drag along the argument as long as possible no matter how absurd he might sound. If we say blue, he will say red. It has become predictable.
 
That why I never quote him or reply directly to him, even though he has insulted me several times. I won’t take his bait.  

one of your earliest  posts  was calling me a troll and that was only
cause I said I liked the ending and started to explain why..... You can
try to snow these people but I am here to set the record straight

You are here to see your words in electronic print-meaning you are here to hear yourself talk.  You came on here with the biggest chip on your shoulder of anyone.  You consistently insulted people calling them childish and whiny and told them they were acting entitled.  You said they were demanding things they weren't owed.  When people rejected and resisted this and called you out for insutling them, you said those were just opinions and not insults.

You specifically treated me like an ignorant child and told me that I can't always get what I want, to which I responded that as an adult woman, older than you I was fully aware of that.

You continually mis-characterized things people were saying, and said they just kept saying Bioware sucked, the game sucked, they hated Bioware, and many other things.  You insulted people's education and their intelligence repeatedly.

So, when someone finally started calling you a troll and when someone pointed to lies you made, you started crying like the real mature person you are.  You whine about people whining.  You insult others and claim they are insulting you.  You call people childish in a very immature way, and now, now you want people to back off?

You tell people to quit posting here, but when someone says they have a right to post, you act like they are telling you to stop posting-you even said you had moved on and were done here, but you haven't.  And you think because people remember that they are telling you you are not entitled to an opinion.

Personally, I don't care if you have an opinion or not, what I do care about is how you choose to express it.  You are without a doubt the biggest flamer I have ever seen in all the forums I've visited, game or otherwise.  You are also the most vocal in his ignorance.  Enjoy wallowing in the shallow pool in which you live.  There's not much room for anyone else there.

[3DandBeyond]

Benchpress610 wrote...

^See what I mean?

Oh yes of course you are right BP, but still and all all that bubbles achieves is the lengthening of a thread he dislikes.  He's convinced himself he's having fun in making fun of us, but he's kind of like a freak show.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Your not understanding me....I am not saying you have to accept that the
catalyst is good cause obviously it is not. I am saying that it is a
machine. It came to a messed up conclusion and it took Shepard's actions
to show it its misguided ideas.  How else are we to defeat a race of
Machines that are FAR more advanced and has
shown to easily cut through our defenses ....... Having more cannon fodder
isnt a very effective way of doing it. So they though of another way.

Who thought of another way?  The Catalyst says the Crucible changed him, but he could be making that up.  If this is what you are referring to, there's no way Shepard would have of knowing the star kid is not just lying about this.  Anyone that would believe the guy that is turning people into goo, needs serious help.

So what if it's a machine, which is not even proven.  He could be some evil manipulative organic based person with delusions of godhood or he could just be an energy based entity that is using synthetics and organics like circus animals.  We don't know what or who he is at all.

He has not proven that he learned anything at all from Shepard or that Shepard changed anything least of all his misguided ideas. There's no proof of this at all.  In fact, the kid keeps spouting misguided ideas that something FAR more advanced should not think, because of all the proof to the contrary.  If it is all that smart, it should make some sense. 

And the change that the star kid mentions presumably happens because Shepard made it to the top of the Citadel/Crucible.  But in an instant those 3 choices popped up with all that amazing super magical ability (fantasy world Synthesis machine) because Shepard made it to the top.  And the kid hasn't changed, merely his solutions have.  All the while he is still turning people into goo.

He controls the reapers but needs Shepard to destroy them?  Ok, that makes sense, uh yeah. 

They being Bioware

[Thanatos144]

sdinc009 wrote...



Well apparently bubbles I do need to repost this for you so hear you go


Literary Definitions: Deus Ex Machina


Deus ex machinamight be one of the world's oldest plot devices. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides used this device in nearly half of his plays that still exist - and based on the writings of Aristotle and others, we know that Euripides was considered one of the foremost writers of his day.  If that's the case, then we can probably safely assume that a deus ex machina was used in a lot of Greek plays - the same source that most of our modern narrative techniques come from.
Deus ex machina (pronounced day-oos x mach-ee-na) means "god out of the machine" or "god from the machine" in Latin. As a literary device, it is where, at the conclusion of the narrative, a climax and ending simply presents itself. In Euripides' play, it would have been a god causing something to occur, which triggers the ending - this is where we get the name.
Essentially, the deus ex machina is when, at the end of a story, an extraneous element appears, having nothing to do with the main characters or the central plot, that solves all the problems in the narrative and effectively ends the story.
So why is this bad for modern readers?
In modern narratives, readers expect that the writer will solve the narrative (the story-wide tension building leading from the instigating incident to the climax) by building a set of clues into the main characters' actions and personalities. If you have a murder mystery, you want your main character to solve the problem - not a random cop you've never seen before show up to explain what really happened.
Even Sherlock Holmes can sometimes be considered a deus ex machina, because some of the lesser stories don't have enough clues in place for Holmes to really be able to solve the case, so his explanations just sound like a justification for the ending. "Miracle" endings - where things suddenly change for the better, like incurable cancer suddenly goes into remission despite no effort on anyone's doing, are also deus ex machina.
Basically, when deus ex machina happens, it breaks the readers' trust in the writer, because the writer wasn't able to solve the narrative organically and from within the story. We go to stories to escape from reality, but not to the point where reality doesn't hold.
In essence, the deus ex machina breaks the reader's willing suspension of disbelief - the act of believing in a story's truth, even when the reader knows it's just a story. Since this break happens only in the final moments of a story, the deus ex machina generally ruins the entire narrative for the reader. It is the considered one of the weakest narrative endings.

Lord of the Rings did not use this. Dune did not use this. Stop fabricating falsehoods and passing them off as facts because they're not

You can repost all you want that doesnt mean your right. They did do this by the way....All stories are my favorites so I have read them.

Modifié par Thanatos144, 01 juin 2012 - 05:03 .

[sdinc009]

Thanatos144 wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...



Well apparently bubbles I do need to repost this for you so hear you go


Literary Definitions: Deus Ex Machina


Deus ex machinamight be one of the world's oldest plot devices. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides used this device in nearly half of his plays that still exist - and based on the writings of Aristotle and others, we know that Euripides was considered one of the foremost writers of his day.  If that's the case, then we can probably safely assume that a deus ex machina was used in a lot of Greek plays - the same source that most of our modern narrative techniques come from.
Deus ex machina (pronounced day-oos x mach-ee-na) means "god out of the machine" or "god from the machine" in Latin. As a literary device, it is where, at the conclusion of the narrative, a climax and ending simply presents itself. In Euripides' play, it would have been a god causing something to occur, which triggers the ending - this is where we get the name.
Essentially, the deus ex machina is when, at the end of a story, an extraneous element appears, having nothing to do with the main characters or the central plot, that solves all the problems in the narrative and effectively ends the story.
So why is this bad for modern readers?
In modern narratives, readers expect that the writer will solve the narrative (the story-wide tension building leading from the instigating incident to the climax) by building a set of clues into the main characters' actions and personalities. If you have a murder mystery, you want your main character to solve the problem - not a random cop you've never seen before show up to explain what really happened.
Even Sherlock Holmes can sometimes be considered a deus ex machina, because some of the lesser stories don't have enough clues in place for Holmes to really be able to solve the case, so his explanations just sound like a justification for the ending. "Miracle" endings - where things suddenly change for the better, like incurable cancer suddenly goes into remission despite no effort on anyone's doing, are also deus ex machina.
Basically, when deus ex machina happens, it breaks the readers' trust in the writer, because the writer wasn't able to solve the narrative organically and from within the story. We go to stories to escape from reality, but not to the point where reality doesn't hold.
In essence, the deus ex machina breaks the reader's willing suspension of disbelief - the act of believing in a story's truth, even when the reader knows it's just a story. Since this break happens only in the final moments of a story, the deus ex machina generally ruins the entire narrative for the reader. It is the considered one of the weakest narrative endings.

Lord of the Rings did not use this. Dune did not use this. Stop fabricating falsehoods and passing them off as facts because they're not

You can repost all you want that doesnt mean your right. They did do this by the way....All stories are my favorites so I have read them.

Please feel free to cite the Deus Ex Machina in LOTR and Dune. And, yeah, it does mean I'm right because unlike you I don't base my posts on conjecture or personal opinion, but ground it in fact. That post is not my opinion but a literary defintion just like my previous one defining the dictionary defintion of "end" which you decided to disregard. So you appartently know better than the dictionary and the literary community as well. If you want to make an argument it needs to be made with substance and not simply hot air. I've provided facts, reason, and logic backed up with evidence cited from knowledgable sources. You vomit non-sense from your face hole and then put your fingers in your ears and shout "La La La, I can't hear you!" Now, you're going to say I'm wrong, right? Well, go ahead and PROVE IT!