831 réponses à ce sujet

[Badwolf_alpha]

Bravo. Spot on.

[CamlTowPetttingZoo]

Will read later but I did enjoy what I read so far.

[Relwyn]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Assuming nobody's brought this up before (chances are that they have)... but it is a deus ex machina. The beginning of the Story starts with the hunt for Saren Arterius in ME1 and Sovereign's attack on Eden Prime, not with Shepard finding the plans to a doomsday weapon on Mars at the beginning of ME3. This is further reinforced by the fact that Bioware has been droning on that ME3 is a trilogy and that the story supposedly hangs together. (Not sure what use the Collector base was in the story thanks be to ME3's wonderful ambiguity about damn near everything but there it is...)

Modifié par Relwyn, 10 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[Helios969]

Relwyn wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Assuming nobody's brought this up before (chances are that they have)... but it is a deus ex machina. The beginning of the Story starts with the hunt for Saren Arterius in ME1 and Sovereign's attack on Eden Prime, not with Shepard finding the plans to a doomsday weapon on Mars at the beginning of ME3. This is further reinforced by the fact that Bioware has been droning on that ME3 is a trilogy and that the story supposedly hangs together. (Not sure what use the Collector base was in the story thanks be to ME3's wonderful ambiguity about damn near everything but there it is...)

I think...though I may be wrong, that the use of deus ex machina is a sudden contrivance, whereas the crucible is introduced at the beginning of the 3rd act and continually reinforced.  Hackett orders you to get him people to build it and you are regularly updated on its progress.

If the crucible had been a deus ex machina mechanism, it would have been introduced just prior to Priority: Earth after all alliances and war assets had been gathered.  You would have been in your conversation with Hackett and he would have said:  Oh, and Sheppard, I've got a surprise for you...  Shows holo of lights coming on to reveal crucible. (I'm not saying I think it's a great plot device as there were a couple instances where I was like...I don't know about this...  I also wouldn't say it's terrible either.)

Perhaps, the literary people can confirm or deny...clarify.

[Grimwick]

Helios969 wrote...

Relwyn wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Assuming nobody's brought this up before (chances are that they have)... but it is a deus ex machina. The beginning of the Story starts with the hunt for Saren Arterius in ME1 and Sovereign's attack on Eden Prime, not with Shepard finding the plans to a doomsday weapon on Mars at the beginning of ME3. This is further reinforced by the fact that Bioware has been droning on that ME3 is a trilogy and that the story supposedly hangs together. (Not sure what use the Collector base was in the story thanks be to ME3's wonderful ambiguity about damn near everything but there it is...)

I think...though I may be wrong, that the use of deus ex machina is a sudden contrivance, whereas the crucible is introduced at the beginning of the 3rd act and continually reinforced.  Hackett orders you to get him people to build it and you are regularly updated on its progress.

If the crucible had been a deus ex machina mechanism, it would have been introduced just prior to Priority: Earth after all alliances and war assets had been gathered.  You would have been in your conversation with Hackett and he would have said:  Oh, and Sheppard, I've got a surprise for you...  Shows holo of lights coming on to reveal crucible. (I'm not saying I think it's a great plot device as there were a couple instances where I was like...I don't know about this...  I also wouldn't say it's terrible either.)

Perhaps, the literary people can confirm or deny...clarify.

But something that comes straight out of nowhere in the last 20 hours of a 60 hour game is sudden. It's absurd to not call it a DEM (or at least something very very similar). It doesn't matter when it was introduced in ME3 because ME3 is the last chapter and should be the point at which the story culminates. Instead we get a mysterious machine that is discovered which makes the previous two installments almost obsolete.

[nos_astra]

Even if it isn't one in the context of the complete trilogy; I feel it comes awfully close. Oh no, the Reapers are here and we have no idea how to stop them, but don't despair for we have found these plans just in time to build what we think might be an ancient weapon. We don't know what it does but it's the only way we could possibly defeat them.

Even if it isn't one ... it's still horrible writing. Probably as a result of scrapping the Dark Energy thing (not that I'm overly fond of what I know about this plot) and making the Alliance and the Council dumb.

This reminds me: Is anyone else annoyed by the notion that the Alliance and the Council are just too dumb to acknowledge an obvious threat? What a shallow world is this if there seems to be no vocal opposition against the government and how is it possible the media don't pick up on this?
Hell, there is cut content of the Alliance representatives bleating "Saaaaaaaave us!" at Shepard. I'm glad it was cut but still ... at some point Bioware thought this was a good idea and created a cutscene for this. Gah. Is this nitpicking? Or would it be considered a valid complaint from a writer's perspective?

Modifié par klarabella, 10 juin 2012 - 10:54 .

[Grimwick]

klarabella wrote...

Even if it isn't one in the context of the complete trilogy; I feel it comes awfully close. Oh no, the Reapers are here and we have no idea how to stop them, but don't despair for we have found these plans just in time to build what we think might be an ancient weapon. We don't know what it does but it's the only way we could possibly defeat them.

Even if it isn't one ... it's still horrible writing. Probably as a result of scrapping the Dark Energy thing (not that I'm overly fond of what I know about this plot) and making the Alliance and the Council dumb.

Also this.

[Helios969]

Grimwick wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Relwyn wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Assuming nobody's brought this up before (chances are that they have)... but it is a deus ex machina. The beginning of the Story starts with the hunt for Saren Arterius in ME1 and Sovereign's attack on Eden Prime, not with Shepard finding the plans to a doomsday weapon on Mars at the beginning of ME3. This is further reinforced by the fact that Bioware has been droning on that ME3 is a trilogy and that the story supposedly hangs together. (Not sure what use the Collector base was in the story thanks be to ME3's wonderful ambiguity about damn near everything but there it is...)

I think...though I may be wrong, that the use of deus ex machina is a sudden contrivance, whereas the crucible is introduced at the beginning of the 3rd act and continually reinforced.  Hackett orders you to get him people to build it and you are regularly updated on its progress.

If the crucible had been a deus ex machina mechanism, it would have been introduced just prior to Priority: Earth after all alliances and war assets had been gathered.  You would have been in your conversation with Hackett and he would have said:  Oh, and Sheppard, I've got a surprise for you...  Shows holo of lights coming on to reveal crucible. (I'm not saying I think it's a great plot device as there were a couple instances where I was like...I don't know about this...  I also wouldn't say it's terrible either.)

Perhaps, the literary people can confirm or deny...clarify.

But something that comes straight out of nowhere in the last 20 hours of a 60 hour game is sudden. It's absurd to not call it a DEM (or at least something very very similar). It doesn't matter when it was introduced in ME3 because ME3 is the last chapter and should be the point at which the story culminates. Instead we get a mysterious machine that is discovered which makes the previous two installments almost obsolete.

We're talking about conventions of writing.  20 hours is a long time to assimilate an idea.  But perhaps I didn't do the best job explaining.  The Catalyst/Star Child/whatever you want to call it, is more like a deus ex machina device.  It just pops up during the last 10 minutes of the game to wrap everything up.  Again, I'm hardly an expert on the matter.  Also, if it feels that way to you, then it obviously just doesn't work.  Other than I didn't think it was the strongest plot device, I was alright with it's presentation throughout the final act.

[Grimwick]

Helios969 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Relwyn wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Assuming nobody's brought this up before (chances are that they have)... but it is a deus ex machina. The beginning of the Story starts with the hunt for Saren Arterius in ME1 and Sovereign's attack on Eden Prime, not with Shepard finding the plans to a doomsday weapon on Mars at the beginning of ME3. This is further reinforced by the fact that Bioware has been droning on that ME3 is a trilogy and that the story supposedly hangs together. (Not sure what use the Collector base was in the story thanks be to ME3's wonderful ambiguity about damn near everything but there it is...)

I think...though I may be wrong, that the use of deus ex machina is a sudden contrivance, whereas the crucible is introduced at the beginning of the 3rd act and continually reinforced.  Hackett orders you to get him people to build it and you are regularly updated on its progress.

If the crucible had been a deus ex machina mechanism, it would have been introduced just prior to Priority: Earth after all alliances and war assets had been gathered.  You would have been in your conversation with Hackett and he would have said:  Oh, and Sheppard, I've got a surprise for you...  Shows holo of lights coming on to reveal crucible. (I'm not saying I think it's a great plot device as there were a couple instances where I was like...I don't know about this...  I also wouldn't say it's terrible either.)

Perhaps, the literary people can confirm or deny...clarify.

But something that comes straight out of nowhere in the last 20 hours of a 60 hour game is sudden. It's absurd to not call it a DEM (or at least something very very similar). It doesn't matter when it was introduced in ME3 because ME3 is the last chapter and should be the point at which the story culminates. Instead we get a mysterious machine that is discovered which makes the previous two installments almost obsolete.

We're talking about conventions of writing.  20 hours is a long time to assimilate an idea.  But perhaps I didn't do the best job explaining.  The Catalyst/Star Child/whatever you want to call it, is more like a deus ex machina device.  It just pops up during the last 10 minutes of the game to wrap everything up.  Again, I'm hardly an expert on the matter.  Also, if it feels that way to you, then it obviously just doesn't work.  Other than I didn't think it was the strongest plot device, I was alright with it's presentation throughout the final act.

The problem is that they didn't really assimilate the idea at all.

We were told 'the crucible is our only chance'. Then we were told to help build it.

There wasn't anything said/done/added to explain what the Crucible really does (though this is deliberate) or if there are any other options etc etc. Instead we are just forced into doing it. There is no foreshadowing in the other games, there is no development of the idea, there is no discussion/debate (other than the cliched 'should we really do this?'). We are suddenly told in the last chapter that it is the solution and we must do it.

Taken into account with the rest of the trilogy and the sheer lack of previous hinting/information the crucible seems a lot like a DEM to me... irrespective of the few hours of the story that remains.

[Hvlukas]

 This was an EXCELLENT read. 

[Helios969]

Well, literary conventions aside, isn't the real issue with the crucible the speed at which it was built. I mean...could you build the Death Star in 3-6 months? Even with unlimited resources and manpower?

[AxStapleton]

Very interesting points. While I don't know whether its a deus ex or not, (does a plot device getting introduced over 2/3 into the story without any prior foreshadowing count?) it was a horrible plot device. Nobody knew exactly what it was going to do and yet the characters spend 3-6 months building it, and even after all that, they still barely have the faintest idea about it other than 'it might stop the Reapers'. There was enough holes in the story to sink a ship.

Anyway (*rant over*), I enjoyed reading your article and can't wait to see what you write for the EC, be it good or bad.

[DaveTCH]

Introducing new key plot devices very early on in ME3 did feel very lazy.

Modifié par DaveTCH, 16 juin 2012 - 10:19 .

[Funkdrspot]

Someone needs to fire mac and casey and give this guy and weekes the lead writer role

[Funkdrspot]

Helios969 wrote...

Well, literary conventions aside, isn't the real issue with the crucible the speed at which it was built. I mean...could you build the Death Star in 3-6 months? Even with unlimited resources and manpower?

i cant speak for you but for me, the 5 or 6 lines they devoted to this very issue was enough for me. they basically state its amazingly complex and amazingly elegant in its simplicity

[zambot]

Wow, what an excellent post.  Thank you to whoever bumped this today.

Funkdrspot wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Well, literary conventions aside, isn't the real issue with the crucible the speed at which it was built. I mean...could you build the Death Star in 3-6 months? Even with unlimited resources and manpower?

i cant speak for you but for me, the 5 or 6 lines they devoted to this very issue was enough for me. they basically state its amazingly complex and amazingly elegant in its simplicity

I don't think anyone would care about the crucible had the ending actually addressed the points in the OP.  I certainly wouldn't have.

[ThaCarter198]

The information in this post was well written, and also I think your ending would be way better than the current ones. Great Post.

[shinder]

 So I, too, am a screenwriter (well, more like screenwriter-in-training...I'm entering my 4th year at NYU's Goldberg Department of Dramatic Writing) and this thread is fantastic. I do have some comments about a few of your notes, though...well, actually, only two of them.

In regards to The Illusive Man becoming the bad guy--I'm totally okay with that. Lots of Bioware RPG's have layers and layers of bad guys. The first two Bioware RPGs that I ever played, KOTOR 1 and KOTOR 2, both always had at least two end-game bad guys (and the second one had 3, as we all know--or 4, if you want to count Atris) and Dragon Age: Origins had unlimited main bad guys (the arch-demon, arl howe, and Teyrn Loghain can all be considered bad guys--at the very least, they're all antagonists)...

Even then, I legitimately believe that throughout the series, The Illusive Man is far more established as a primary bad guy than Harbinger is, and here's why:

Harbinger and Shepard almost never interact. At all. There is very little dialogue, there is no conflict on a personal level (in fact, I'd argue that there is barely any character-to-character conflict at all) and Harbinger is barely mentioned at all. The Illusive Man, on the other hand, lied and manipulated to Shepard, all after saving his life (which several characters in the story misinterpret as giving the two men a bond of some sorts), used him as his own personal weapon, and throughout both Mass Effect 2 AND Mass Effect 3, has TONS of head-butting arguments with Shepard on just about EVERYTHING (this is doubly so if you play as a paragon shepard). 

Harbinger isn't the main antagonist (and, as you know, when I say antagonist, I don't mean bad guy but actually the guy who is the most active in stopping everything that Shepard is working towards)--The Illusive Man is. The REAPERS are the main bad guys of the series...I mean, hey, they want to destroy everything and eat your souls and make you into blue neon zombies (actually I can think of far worse fates than being stuck as a neon blue zombie forever, but that's another discussion for another time)...but throughout the ENTIRE GAME the Reapers are really just there--like the weather. The writers sort of kind of tried to hint at a personal struggle with the dream sequence, and it felt forced and phony because, up until that point, there had been NO SIGNS of a personal struggle between Shepard and the Reapers. Mass Effect 1 is really Shepard versus Sovereign--the reapers are mentioned as controlling Shepard, so everyone blames the reapers, but when you're playing through all of Mass Effect 1, all you care about it stopping Sovereign. And you do.

Mass Effect 2 introduces The Illusive Man, who uses you to defeat the Collectors--but that's the thing: YES, the collectors are working for the reapers. But in Mass Effect 2, when at all do you fight the reapers? You don't! You fight the collectors! Regardless of what the game says their associated acts are, you are doing everything in your power to take down the collectors.

In Mass Effect 3, the reapers are there--yes...but let's be honest--as portrayed by the 'final battle', it can be argued that the antagonist is The Illusive Man--not Harbinger. Harbinger is the leader of the bad guys...it doesn't mean he's the main antagonist...and he's not.

I think there's a ton of evidence to argue that the Illusive Man is the primary antagonist of ME3 and that The Reapers aren't necessarily the main antagonist. In a way, the Reapers are really more of a round-about plot device...they're like a dark cloud looming over all of the galaxy---you always know that they're there, and it's what you're ultimately working at to combat against in the endgame--and although you do take down more than your fair share of reapers, there is no conflict between Shepard and the reapers on an internal level. I mean, there is--the reapers are destroying Shepard's race: but even then that is never truly exploited by the writers. It's just "oh yeah the reapers killed this kid and now I can't stop having these dreams where I run around the forest and follow him until he burns on fire and I hold him...and for some reason the damn sprint button won't work". Whenever Shepard has a character-to-character struggle it's with Cerberus; not the reapers. The closest you get is that Reaper on the  Quarian homeworld, when he talks to you for a bit. But you really just get to ask him a few questions that, if you're smart, you probably can guess at all of the answers anyways.

So while the reapers are definitely the main evil villains plotting to destroy the galaxy, it is actually The Illusive Man, NOT Harbinger, that serves as the primary antagonist. And that is why, to me, Having The Illusive Man in the final fight and NOT Harbinger is acceptable.

Now, onto my second point, which discusses the happy vs sad endings. I have come to the belief that no story-driven video game that lasts more than one game (unless the game is like 80 hours, like the witcher) should ever have a sad ending, and here's why:

In story driven games, specifically the Mass Effect Series, we know that gamers take the term 'addiction' to a whole new level. Players around the globe will sacrifice their social lives as well as their sexual lives for countless hours upon hours to do everything that is within their power to end the game with the BEST ENDING POSSIBLE. I've never seen a Mass Effect player who races through the game their first time through, gets a bad ending result, and says, "you know what? I'm not even going to bother playing the game again to try and get a better ending". Nobody does that in this series. If you get a crappy ending, you either reload from the last sensible save file or you start over again and try to get the best ending possible. I can't even tell you how many times I've played through Mass Effect 2 with different genders, love interests, quest decisions and final-level-team-selections to get as many enjoyable endings as possible.

When people as dedicated as gamers spend countless hours of their lives playing a story-driven game, if they like the series, chances are they really like the story too. Talking to your crew mates and gaining their loyalty no longer just becomes about statistics: it becomes fun. You WANT to talk to Garrus and learn about his past on Omega, maybe throw in a couple of funny lines--you WANT to get to know about Asari culture from this curious new crewmate named Liara--you WANT to talk to Mordin and see if he was in a musical back in his Salarian Broadway days. Not only do you sacrifice countless hours playing a video game--you sacrifice countless hours so you can learn to appreciate, like, and love the endless amount of phenomenal characters that story-driven games such as this tend to create. This is one of the reasons why bioware rpgs are so fantastic--the party members add a HUGE dynamic to the way that the stories in their game unfold. 

So now, after 3 years (I think) of Mass Effect games coming out, millions of gamers have dedicated countless hours over the past 3 years wasting time on the game, making decisions to help stop the reapers, and ALSO, and at least for me, this was the more important of the two, but ALSO building an appreciation for the wonderful party characters that this game has to offer. So when Mass Effect 3 ends, it was like Bioware taking a giant dumb on everyone who just wasted essentially 3 years of dedicated gaming: It's not even about the lack of game-affecting decisions--it's the fact that the relationships that you've built, both in-game and in real life, over the better part of 3 years (which is a pretty long time, let's be honest) essentially goes down the toilet. No happy ending...why did we even bother talking to Garrus about all of that crap if he's just going to get stranded on some random tropical planet? Why bother discussing Asari culture and killing the shadow broker with liara? Why bother standing by Joker for a good 15 minutes just to see that one random audio clip where he's jacking off to porn? What's the point if, in the end, it was just a giant waste of time?

in a movie, tragic endings can work exceptionally well, because you're not spending 3 years growing to love the characters involved in the tragedy. At most, you'd be spending 2 hours, 2 and a half hours tops. Black Swan had a tragic ending (sort of, lol), but if we had spent 3 YEARS watching and talking and thinking about Black Swan and all of a sudden 3 years of dedication and enthusiasm go down the drain because she just dies--that would leave a crap ton of people really unhappy...it wouldn't have mattered how pretty the ending was, because in the end, every single human being who was a fan of that movie just had 3 years of their lives go down as wasted. 

Do you realize how much ass I would have scored by now if I hadn't been re-playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 since 2010? Probably none, but that's not the point--the point is that I could've gone out and TRIED! I could have TRIED, DAMNIT!

PS: Sorry for the long post---I guess screenwriters just do that

[memorysquid]

This is a thread I hope the Bioware writers look at. I have no clue what they are going to shoehorn into the game as closing exposition, but the OP and many posters throughout are really spot on about why the ending feels so lacking.

[Eternalsteelfan]

shinder wrote...

 So I, too, am a screenwriter (well, more like screenwriter-in-training...I'm entering my 4th year at NYU's Goldberg Department of Dramatic Writing) and this thread is fantastic. I do have some comments about a few of your notes, though...well, actually, only two of them.

In regards to The Illusive Man becoming the bad guy--I'm totally okay with that. Lots of Bioware RPG's have layers and layers of bad guys. The first two Bioware RPGs that I ever played, KOTOR 1 and KOTOR 2, both always had at least two end-game bad guys (and the second one had 3, as we all know--or 4, if you want to count Atris) and Dragon Age: Origins had unlimited main bad guys (the arch-demon, arl howe, and Teyrn Loghain can all be considered bad guys--at the very least, they're all antagonists)...

Even then, I legitimately believe that throughout the series, The Illusive Man is far more established as a primary bad guy than Harbinger is, and here's why:

Harbinger and Shepard almost never interact. At all. There is very little dialogue, there is no conflict on a personal level (in fact, I'd argue that there is barely any character-to-character conflict at all) and Harbinger is barely mentioned at all. The Illusive Man, on the other hand, lied and manipulated to Shepard, all after saving his life (which several characters in the story misinterpret as giving the two men a bond of some sorts), used him as his own personal weapon, and throughout both Mass Effect 2 AND Mass Effect 3, has TONS of head-butting arguments with Shepard on just about EVERYTHING (this is doubly so if you play as a paragon shepard). 

Harbinger isn't the main antagonist (and, as you know, when I say antagonist, I don't mean bad guy but actually the guy who is the most active in stopping everything that Shepard is working towards)--The Illusive Man is. The REAPERS are the main bad guys of the series...I mean, hey, they want to destroy everything and eat your souls and make you into blue neon zombies (actually I can think of far worse fates than being stuck as a neon blue zombie forever, but that's another discussion for another time)...but throughout the ENTIRE GAME the Reapers are really just there--like the weather. The writers sort of kind of tried to hint at a personal struggle with the dream sequence, and it felt forced and phony because, up until that point, there had been NO SIGNS of a personal struggle between Shepard and the Reapers. Mass Effect 1 is really Shepard versus Sovereign--the reapers are mentioned as controlling Shepard, so everyone blames the reapers, but when you're playing through all of Mass Effect 1, all you care about it stopping Sovereign. And you do.

Mass Effect 2 introduces The Illusive Man, who uses you to defeat the Collectors--but that's the thing: YES, the collectors are working for the reapers. But in Mass Effect 2, when at all do you fight the reapers? You don't! You fight the collectors! Regardless of what the game says their associated acts are, you are doing everything in your power to take down the collectors.

In Mass Effect 3, the reapers are there--yes...but let's be honest--as portrayed by the 'final battle', it can be argued that the antagonist is The Illusive Man--not Harbinger. Harbinger is the leader of the bad guys...it doesn't mean he's the main antagonist...and he's not.

I think there's a ton of evidence to argue that the Illusive Man is the primary antagonist of ME3 and that The Reapers aren't necessarily the main antagonist. In a way, the Reapers are really more of a round-about plot device...they're like a dark cloud looming over all of the galaxy---you always know that they're there, and it's what you're ultimately working at to combat against in the endgame--and although you do take down more than your fair share of reapers, there is no conflict between Shepard and the reapers on an internal level. I mean, there is--the reapers are destroying Shepard's race: but even then that is never truly exploited by the writers. It's just "oh yeah the reapers killed this kid and now I can't stop having these dreams where I run around the forest and follow him until he burns on fire and I hold him...and for some reason the damn sprint button won't work". Whenever Shepard has a character-to-character struggle it's with Cerberus; not the reapers. The closest you get is that Reaper on the  Quarian homeworld, when he talks to you for a bit. But you really just get to ask him a few questions that, if you're smart, you probably can guess at all of the answers anyways.

So while the reapers are definitely the main evil villains plotting to destroy the galaxy, it is actually The Illusive Man, NOT Harbinger, that serves as the primary antagonist. And that is why, to me, Having The Illusive Man in the final fight and NOT Harbinger is acceptable.

Now, onto my second point, which discusses the happy vs sad endings. I have come to the belief that no story-driven video game that lasts more than one game (unless the game is like 80 hours, like the witcher) should ever have a sad ending, and here's why:

In story driven games, specifically the Mass Effect Series, we know that gamers take the term 'addiction' to a whole new level. Players around the globe will sacrifice their social lives as well as their sexual lives for countless hours upon hours to do everything that is within their power to end the game with the BEST ENDING POSSIBLE. I've never seen a Mass Effect player who races through the game their first time through, gets a bad ending result, and says, "you know what? I'm not even going to bother playing the game again to try and get a better ending". Nobody does that in this series. If you get a crappy ending, you either reload from the last sensible save file or you start over again and try to get the best ending possible. I can't even tell you how many times I've played through Mass Effect 2 with different genders, love interests, quest decisions and final-level-team-selections to get as many enjoyable endings as possible.

When people as dedicated as gamers spend countless hours of their lives playing a story-driven game, if they like the series, chances are they really like the story too. Talking to your crew mates and gaining their loyalty no longer just becomes about statistics: it becomes fun. You WANT to talk to Garrus and learn about his past on Omega, maybe throw in a couple of funny lines--you WANT to get to know about Asari culture from this curious new crewmate named Liara--you WANT to talk to Mordin and see if he was in a musical back in his Salarian Broadway days. Not only do you sacrifice countless hours playing a video game--you sacrifice countless hours so you can learn to appreciate, like, and love the endless amount of phenomenal characters that story-driven games such as this tend to create. This is one of the reasons why bioware rpgs are so fantastic--the party members add a HUGE dynamic to the way that the stories in their game unfold. 

So now, after 3 years (I think) of Mass Effect games coming out, millions of gamers have dedicated countless hours over the past 3 years wasting time on the game, making decisions to help stop the reapers, and ALSO, and at least for me, this was the more important of the two, but ALSO building an appreciation for the wonderful party characters that this game has to offer. So when Mass Effect 3 ends, it was like Bioware taking a giant dumb on everyone who just wasted essentially 3 years of dedicated gaming: It's not even about the lack of game-affecting decisions--it's the fact that the relationships that you've built, both in-game and in real life, over the better part of 3 years (which is a pretty long time, let's be honest) essentially goes down the toilet. No happy ending...why did we even bother talking to Garrus about all of that crap if he's just going to get stranded on some random tropical planet? Why bother discussing Asari culture and killing the shadow broker with liara? Why bother standing by Joker for a good 15 minutes just to see that one random audio clip where he's jacking off to porn? What's the point if, in the end, it was just a giant waste of time?

in a movie, tragic endings can work exceptionally well, because you're not spending 3 years growing to love the characters involved in the tragedy. At most, you'd be spending 2 hours, 2 and a half hours tops. Black Swan had a tragic ending (sort of, lol), but if we had spent 3 YEARS watching and talking and thinking about Black Swan and all of a sudden 3 years of dedication and enthusiasm go down the drain because she just dies--that would leave a crap ton of people really unhappy...it wouldn't have mattered how pretty the ending was, because in the end, every single human being who was a fan of that movie just had 3 years of their lives go down as wasted. 

Do you realize how much ass I would have scored by now if I hadn't been re-playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 since 2010? Probably none, but that's not the point--the point is that I could've gone out and TRIED! I could have TRIED, DAMNIT!

PS: Sorry for the long post---I guess screenwriters just do that

Thanks for taking the time, it's a good read.

I think the argument can be made that the Illusive Man is the primary antagonist, but I personally find the Reapers to be the larger antagonistic force. Cerberus plays a minimal part in the first game and TIM isn't even mentioned if I recall correctly; it's typically in the first act that the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist is revealed and the trilogy is really just the three act structure writ large. In the second game he's the protagonist ally and it's not until the finale that he turns coat. Even TIM's indoctrination is a result of the Reapers play. I believe in the third game, as an individual story rather than part of a trilogy, TIM is the antagonist, but in the scope of the series it's the Reapers.

[Helios969]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Well, literary conventions aside, isn't the real issue with the crucible the speed at which it was built. I mean...could you build the Death Star in 3-6 months? Even with unlimited resources and manpower?

i cant speak for you but for me, the 5 or 6 lines they devoted to this very issue was enough for me. they basically state its amazingly complex and amazingly elegant in its simplicity

Lol, you're right.  It thoroughly clarifies the matter.  I retract my statement:)

[Grimwick]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Well, literary conventions aside, isn't the real issue with the crucible the speed at which it was built. I mean...could you build the Death Star in 3-6 months? Even with unlimited resources and manpower?

i cant speak for you but for me, the 5 or 6 lines they devoted to this very issue was enough for me. they basically state its amazingly complex and amazingly elegant in its simplicity

Yeah I agree. Although I really dislike the Crucible as a plot device full stop, the fact that it was built so fast never bothered me for the same reason.

The game does make great pains to get that point across.

[shinder]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Thanks for taking the time, it's a good read.

I think the argument can be made that the Illusive Man is the primary antagonist, but I personally find the Reapers to be the larger antagonistic force. Cerberus plays a minimal part in the first game and TIM isn't even mentioned if I recall correctly; it's typically in the first act that the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist is revealed and the trilogy is really just the three act structure writ large. In the second game he's the protagonist ally and it's not until the finale that he turns coat. Even TIM's indoctrination is a result of the Reapers play. I believe in the third game, as an individual story rather than part of a trilogy, TIM is the antagonist, but in the scope of the series it's the Reapers.

In regards to ME 1, the reapers are barely mentioned there, as well--they're sort of just mentioned as being this terrible curse, and we see them in the final battle--but Saren is still the antagonist. The REAPERS themselves could be seen as being an antagonistic force--but not Harbinger as an individual. That is why, at least to me, TIM is the antagonist.

Although you are sort of right--any good writer shouldn't reveal a primary antagonist so late in a piece of writing that essentially just follows the basic structure three act structure. It's one thing if you want to make it into a plot twist at the end, sort of like a "Oh my goodness, so YOU'VE been behind it all along!" but, they didn't do that. Maybe you're right in the sense that TIM is the antagonist of ME3 and The Reapers are the antagonist of the series--but the writers shouldn't have done that. Regardless, I think it's pretty apparent no matter what your opinion of how well written the endgame was that TIM has a very strong case for being considered the main antagonist of ME3--and that is why the final battle is with him, not Harbinger.

Modifié par shinder, 17 juin 2012 - 03:49 .

[Eternalsteelfan]

shinder wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Thanks for taking the time, it's a good read.

I think the argument can be made that the Illusive Man is the primary antagonist, but I personally find the Reapers to be the larger antagonistic force. Cerberus plays a minimal part in the first game and TIM isn't even mentioned if I recall correctly; it's typically in the first act that the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist is revealed and the trilogy is really just the three act structure writ large. In the second game he's the protagonist ally and it's not until the finale that he turns coat. Even TIM's indoctrination is a result of the Reapers play. I believe in the third game, as an individual story rather than part of a trilogy, TIM is the antagonist, but in the scope of the series it's the Reapers.

In regards to ME 1, the reapers are barely mentioned there, as well--they're sort of just mentioned as being this terrible curse, and we see them in the final battle--but Saren is still the antagonist. The REAPERS themselves could be seen as being an antagonistic force--but not Harbinger as an individual. That is why, at least to me, TIM is the antagonist.

Although you are sort of right--any good writer shouldn't reveal a primary antagonist so late in a piece of writing that essentially just follows the basic structure three act structure. It's one thing if you want to make it into a plot twist at the end, sort of like a "Oh my goodness, so YOU'VE been behind it all along!" but, they didn't do that. Maybe you're right in the sense that TIM is the antagonist of ME3 and The Reapers are the antagonist of the series--but the writers shouldn't have done that. Regardless, I think it's pretty apparent no matter what your opinion of how well written the endgame was that TIM has a very strong case for being considered the main antagonist of ME3--and that is why the final battle is with him, not Harbinger.

In many regards, ME3 as a standalone story is strong, it's when you view it as part of a trilogy that it falters.

[avenging_teabag]

Helios969 wrote...

Relwyn wrote...

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

The Crucible isn't an example of deus ex machina. Again, we know all along that the Crucible's function is to stop the Reapers, it's introduced at the beginning of the story, it's importance is reinforced throughout, and it's function during the climax is in line with what is expected. An example of Mass Effect ending with deus ex machina would be: the Reapers win the battle of Earth and are seemingly unstoppable, suddenly, and with no previous justification, an even more advanced race emerges from deep space and destroys the Reapers, saving Earth. The difference is obvious; one is a clearly defined plot device, the other is a magical fix with no precedent in the story.

Assuming nobody's brought this up before (chances are that they have)... but it is a deus ex machina. The beginning of the Story starts with the hunt for Saren Arterius in ME1 and Sovereign's attack on Eden Prime, not with Shepard finding the plans to a doomsday weapon on Mars at the beginning of ME3. This is further reinforced by the fact that Bioware has been droning on that ME3 is a trilogy and that the story supposedly hangs together. (Not sure what use the Collector base was in the story thanks be to ME3's wonderful ambiguity about damn near everything but there it is...)

I think...though I may be wrong, that the use of deus ex machina is a sudden contrivance, whereas the crucible is introduced at the beginning of the 3rd act and continually reinforced.  Hackett orders you to get him people to build it and you are regularly updated on its progress.

If the crucible had been a deus ex machina mechanism, it would have been introduced just prior to Priority: Earth after all alliances and war assets had been gathered.  You would have been in your conversation with Hackett and he would have said:  Oh, and Sheppard, I've got a surprise for you...  Shows holo of lights coming on to reveal crucible. (I'm not saying I think it's a great plot device as there were a couple instances where I was like...I don't know about this...  I also wouldn't say it's terrible either.)

Perhaps, the literary people can confirm or deny...clarify.

de·us ex ma·chi·na noun
\\ˈdā-əs-ˌeks-ˈmä-ki-nə, -ˈma-, -ˌnä; -mə-ˈshē-nə\\
1
: a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome
2
: a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty

There's nothing in the definition of the term that says thet DEM has to be a last minute development. Fairly late, yes, but not necessarily in the literal eleventh hour. Generally, DEM is a person, event, development or object introduced without any foreshadowing or narrative build-up to resolve an otherwise un-resolvable plot situation. As such, Crucible is an obvious Deus ex machina, in fact, a textbook example. Consider this: The main plot of the ME trilogy is fight against the Reapers, it covers all three games. There are many other sideplots, but this one is what the trilogy hinges upon. The Reapers were build up to be vastly superior to the galactic civilization, so the central problem is: how do we defeat the reapers if they're so much more powerful than we are?  In the last 1/3 of this overarching plot we are introduced to the device that's supposed to solve that central conflict, that was never mentioned before and in fact, directly contradicts the previous lore of the game. If ME3 was a standalone game with a self-contained plot, the Crucible would've be merely a plot device (still terribly awkward, but not a DEM). As it is however, the Crucible is a clear-cut Deus Ex Machina, and a horribly written one to boot.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 18 juin 2012 - 06:56 .