165 réponses à ce sujet

[omphaloskepsis]

The Valiant Knight wrote...

As a trained writer, yes his introduction to the story is quite poor. The way he explains things is also very poor, as many have said more eloquently before me. The entire Crucible could have been handled better in my opinion as it comes of as far too convenient.

However, I don't outright dislike the character or his appearance in the story, he just wasn't well implemented. Likewise his explanations could have been much more thorough. We might disagree with his overall assessment but the simple fact is that the 'organics vs synthetics' angle has been heavily lamp-posted throughout the entire series. The idea of cycles etc. etc. are everywhere from main quests to side quests. I'm honestly shocked that anybody didn't already think that this was the ultimate goal.

I didn't mind the Catalyst, I can't call it the star child, because that's not even close to what he really represents. His logic is quite sound, if poorly voiced. I find it odd that everyone always assumes that the Catalyst sees synthetic life as the problem, and not Organic life. I've always understood it to be purely the stupidity of organic life which causes the cycle.

A simple example would be iRobot, a distillation of a greater work no doubt but still a valid example most are familiar with. The AI decides that organic life is simply too primitive to understand the universe, destroying them for their own protection.

No matter how we spin it in our Utopian ideals, organic life will always resent Synthetic life, we will never see them as 'like us'. The logical outcome of this is that organics will attempt to destroy synthetics. Synthetic life stands the best chance of winning such a conflict, a point the synthetics can ultimately predict down to a very accurate equation.

I also don't understand why people believe the Catalyst was created by Organics, we have after all seen that Synthetics are capable of understanding the value in organic life. Can we not assume then that the Catalyst was simply the first synthetic race who chose to save the first organics rather than eliminate them. Once again, saving them from their own primitive emotional stupidity. A common theme in a lot of Science Fiction is about synthetic life caring more about organic life than organics do. Perhaps this was just the ultimate conclusion such an AI came to.

Sorry, that went on a bit...

Like everyone who tries to rationalize the ending, you are doing a whole lot of work and making a lot of assumptions that should have been demonstrated in the game.  You're a writer, so you should be familiar with "Show, don't tell".

And, umm, "saving them from their own emotional stupidity" according to the immensely intelligent AI god in the game means killing them.  You don't think that's hilariously awful writing?  That an AI god can't come up with reasonable logic and a viable solution?

Actually, back tracking to the start of the same paragraph, you think the Catalyst was spontaneously generated?  If the Catalyst was the first synthetic race, where did it come from if not organics?

Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but all of the posts I've seen that try to rationalize the ending seem to either skip or embrace and extend the gaping plot holes created by the ending. 

[KingNothing125]

Master Che wrote...

I see little reasoning behind deus ex machina or "bad writing".

You're not seeing hard enough. It has been posted many, many times over the several weeks that ME3 has been out.

[clarkusdarkus]

Laurencio wrote...

Where to begin.

1. He turns the reapers into toys, instead of menacing unfathomable machines from deep space.

2. He is essentially a deus ex machina, presenting you with a logic that could easily be argued against, and the logic behind his existence is never at any point explained or even given a second of thought or deliberation. He simply exists, and that's that.

3.He gives you three options you would never in good conscious have accepted in the previous games, options you can not argue against or refuse. Personally I'm not too hot on that one, but I believe it's a poignant point for the hatred.

4. His appearance is never really explained. The shape this VI has supposedly taken does not have any logical reasoning behind it, unless you readily accept that the owner of the reapers has invaded your mind and yet you are willing to follow its orders.

5. The method of introducing him is also highly controversial. He supposedly lived in the citadel, and you can only see him as you are brought up by a floating platform after you've sort of fainted?

6. He is the representation of the "artistic integrity" argument, in that his appearance appears to be mostly, if not exclusively an artistic and metaphorical representation of symbolism, rather than you know, logical. (that sentence got away from me, hope you understood it regardless).

this

[Johcande XX]

For me, it was the fact that Shep went through the entire series, terrible sacrifices and all; and at the end of all things StarJar decides to LET Shepard win, like it's some kind of favor.

Like fighting your way out of Hell, just to have to ask the Devil to open the door for you at the end.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The catalyst's logic was flawed. The one time Shepard did challenge it, the catalyst said "you cannot" because I said so. That's the catalyst's answer to everything. "Because I said so." These are your three choices: door #1; door #2; or door #3. One is blue, two is green, and three is red.

"If you choose blue, you can control us, but you will die." But he leaves out the part about all the mass relays being destroyed, even though they are.
"If you choose green. you can join with us, but you will die. All the mass relays will be destroyed."
"If you choose red you will destroy us..., and the Geth, and all the mass relays, and you will die."

"So basically you're f***ed no matter which one you choose. Now pick one" is what he's telling you. So you get to "win" but by winning you lose and by losing you win. Now that's what I call fun (sarcasm).

Why bother being a paragon? Why bother making the tough choices during the story? Everyone is f***ed anyway. This is why all the hate.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 06 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[NM_Che56]

HawkOfMay wrote...

Master Che wrote...
 Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing".  Explain WHY.  I'm not the President of the star brat fan club, but I see little reasoning behind  what now just looks like mindless mob mentality.

I don't understand you reasoning.    A  "plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. " 
is pretty universally agreed upon as bad writing.    If ME3 was a story written for a university professor; then the writers would be marked down heavily for resorting to the 'god-child' in the closing paragraphs.

You just gave the definition.  The definition does not impose value.  It merely defines.  It wasn't written for a university professor.  It was written for you.  What do YOU think?  I don't understand justifying your feelings based on a subjective consensus (i.e., because they said it's bad writing to impose an unexpected twist in the end to solve a problem).

[NM_Che56]

Johcande XX wrote...

For me, it was the fact that Shep went through the entire series, terrible sacrifices and all; and at the end of all things StarJar decides to LET Shepard win, like it's some kind of favor.

Like fighting your way out of Hell, just to have to ask the Devil to open the door for you at the end.

THREE doors...

The question is "where do they really go"...

[Claym0re]

I hate the Star Child because of what he represents and what he doesnt:

[NM_Che56]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The catalyst's logic was flawed. The one time Shepard did challenge it, the catalyst said "you cannot" because I said so. That's the catalyst's answer to everything. "Because I said so." These are your three choices: door #1; door #2; or door #3. One is blue, two is green, and three is red.

"If you choose blue, you can control us, but you will die." But he leaves out the part about all the mass relays being destroyed, even though they are.
"If you choose green. you can join with us, but you will die. All the mass relays will be destroyed."
"If you choose red you will destroy us..., and the Geth, and all the mass relays, and you will die."

"So basically you're f***ed no matter which one you choose. Now pick one" is what he's telling you. So you get to "win" but by winning you lose and by losing you win. Now that's what I call fun (sarcasm).

Why bother being a paragon? Why bother making the tough choices during the story? Everyone is f***ed anyway. This is why all the hate.

This I understand...except that if you get a high enough EMS you don't seem to be dead...

[NM_Che56]

KingNothing125 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

I see little reasoning behind deus ex machina or "bad writing".

You're not seeing hard enough. It has been posted many, many times over the several weeks that ME3 has been out.

I can't see the needles in the haystack.  You're right.

[NM_Che56]

Let me state this:

Good and Bad are subjective terms. Definitions seldom use value laden terms given that values are subjective.  Definitions try to be objective.

To state the ending is bad because it implements deus ex machina (which, incidentally, some I've read have made good arguments as to why this isn't the case) is like saying pizza is bad because it's a dish made typically of flattened bread dough spread with a savory mixture usually including tomatoes and cheese and often other toppings and baked! DUH!! Can't you see why it's bad food?!

Modifié par Master Che, 06 avril 2012 - 06:07 .

[RIGELVINTO]

Master Che wrote...

RIGELVINTO wrote...

The way he says "but you have to choose" is really annoying

Besides, the biggest bad ass ever existed in the entire Universe presents itself like an innocent child, and a explain his actions with no logic at all and Shepard even believes him, CMON

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

Indeed. But at least a chance to tell him go to hell, i will destroy you or something like that.
In fact how he/it looks is not the point, the issue is that makes little sense to me that this AI controlling the reapers or reaper mastermind always lived in the citadel, in fact he states the citadel is part of him, and seems to never have done anything for the reapers before. i.e. how could he not know the plan to build the crucible and warn the reapers himself, because the IM did.

[NM_Che56]

RIGELVINTO wrote...

Master Che wrote...

RIGELVINTO wrote...

The way he says "but you have to choose" is really annoying

Besides, the biggest bad ass ever existed in the entire Universe presents itself like an innocent child, and a explain his actions with no logic at all and Shepard even believes him, CMON

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

Indeed. But at least a chance to tell him go to hell, i will destroy you or something like that.
In fact how he/it looks is not the point, the issue is that makes little sense to me that this AI controlling the reapers or reaper mastermind always lived in the citadel, in fact he states the citadel is part of him, and seems to never have done anything for the reapers before. i.e. how could he not know the plan to build the crucible and warn the reapers himself, because the IM did.

I can be rather terse when tired.  I'll give you that.  But I think that's why it chose the image of the child (which the developers assumed you'd sympathize with...fail?  But it's clear the developers want the child in the beginning to have an emotional impact on Shepard).

TIM was indoctrinated by the Reapers.  The Reapers that are controlled by the Catalyst.  So the knew the plan, hence they got the drop on Shep.  Also, it's been done before given that this crucible is a perpetual work in progress and has been pieced together over several cycles.  Maybe this is how they get the fish in the boat.  Maybe all cycles ended this way.

[RIGELVINTO]

Master Che wrote...

RIGELVINTO wrote...

Master Che wrote...

RIGELVINTO wrote...

The way he says "but you have to choose" is really annoying

Besides, the biggest bad ass ever existed in the entire Universe presents itself like an innocent child, and a explain his actions with no logic at all and Shepard even believes him, CMON

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

Indeed. But at least a chance to tell him go to hell, i will destroy you or something like that.
In fact how he/it looks is not the point, the issue is that makes little sense to me that this AI controlling the reapers or reaper mastermind always lived in the citadel, in fact he states the citadel is part of him, and seems to never have done anything for the reapers before. i.e. how could he not know the plan to build the crucible and warn the reapers himself, because the IM did.

I can be rather terse when tired.  I'll give you that.  But I think that's why it chose the image of the child (which the developers assumed you'd sympathize with...fail?  But it's clear the developers want the child in the beginning to have an emotional impact on Shepard).

TIM was indoctrinated by the Reapers.  The Reapers that are controlled by the Catalyst.  So the knew the plan, hence they got the drop on Shep.  Also, it's been done before given that this crucible is a perpetual work in progress and has been pieced together over several cycles.  Maybe this is how they get the fish in the boat.  Maybe all cycles ended this way.

I think this is the first cycle when the crucible is complete (by attaching it to the catalyst/citadel)

The catalyst , that controls the reapers and i remember he refers to himself as a reaper in one sentence, sounds very different to any other reaper we talked to before ( and i dont mean the voice of course xd), but i believe the explanation is the crucible, that somehow changes the catalyst programming , i remember he said that the crucible gave him new options or something like that. Maybe if whe knew better  how the crucible works the child would make more sense.

[glacier1701]

Joeyv wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...


 Because the main tenet of the Star Child's reason to be is based on a LIE. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who plays ME3 regardless of what else they may have done - played or not played ME1 and/or ME2, done a full paragon or full renegade, saved or killed whoever or anything else in between - gets the same statement touted as fact but which in reality is a LIE and cannot call the Star Child on that lie.  What is that statement? 


                             THE CREATED WILL ALWAYS REBEL AGAINST THE CREATORS!!



 Why is this a lie? The Star Child created the Reapers - they have NOT rebelled thus the statement is a lie. In other words the people who came up with that piece of the ending are using a LIE to end the game one which many people are not happy with yet they cannot be bothered to defend it other than by the use of 'artistic integrity'.

One simple thing. The reapers are not true AI. They originate from organics, and thus they indirectly don't know how they came to be. The game states the risk of uprising AI's is there because AI's know how and by who they were created. I agree it's a stretch, but the game states it this way.

 Where in that statement does it mention AI? All the statement says is that the created will rebel. It does not talk about AI or Synthetics just 'created'. Besides the Geth are not AI either until they get the boost from the Reaper code when suddenly they are now true AI. In fact that suggests that the Reapers are true AI if code from them can turn a collective machine intelligence into an AI. So as far as I can see the statement still stands regardless of how you regard the Reapers simply because they are created and thus fall under the general nature of the Star Child's statement.

Modifié par glacier1701, 06 avril 2012 - 06:58 .

[omphaloskepsis]

Master Che wrote...

Let me state this:

Good and Bad are subjective terms. Definitions seldom use value laden terms given that values are subjective.  Definitions try to be objective.

To state the ending is bad because it implements deus ex machina (which, incidentally, some I've read have made good arguments as to why this isn't the case) is like saying pizza is bad because it's a dish made typically of flattened bread dough spread with a savory mixture usually including tomatoes and cheese and often other toppings and baked! DUH!! Can't you see why it's bad food?!

You're right that terms like good and bad are subjective, but your analogy is off.

Saying Deus Ex Machinas are bad is like saying that using a plot device that has been widely considered lazy and amateur for several hundred years is bad.  In medieval literature, it was perfectly fine to write a story where a character develops a ton of problems, and then to finish that story with "god fixed it, the end".  Over time sensibilities changed, and readers expected more explanation (and, ahem, agency) than that. 

These days, a story in a movie, novel, or short story will almost certainly get disparaged for a Deus Ex Machina--unless there's some huge, incredibly clever, and unique twist involved.  Maybe video games should have lower standards.  But in other media, a DEM is usually viewed as "the writer didn't have an ending, so they threw in something last minute".  (Which is an interesting reflection of the whole dark energy ending that got tossed.)

[NM_Che56]

drewelow wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Let me state this:

Good and Bad are subjective terms. Definitions seldom use value laden terms given that values are subjective.  Definitions try to be objective.

To state the ending is bad because it implements deus ex machina (which, incidentally, some I've read have made good arguments as to why this isn't the case) is like saying pizza is bad because it's a dish made typically of flattened bread dough spread with a savory mixture usually including tomatoes and cheese and often other toppings and baked! DUH!! Can't you see why it's bad food?!

You're right that terms like good and bad are subjective, but your analogy is off.

Saying Deus Ex Machinas are bad is like saying that using a plot device that has been widely considered lazy and amateur for several hundred years is bad.  In medieval literature, it was perfectly fine to write a story where a character develops a ton of problems, and then to finish that story with "god fixed it, the end".  Over time sensibilities changed, and readers expected more explanation (and, ahem, agency) than that. 

These days, a story in a movie, novel, or short story will almost certainly get disparaged for a Deus Ex Machina--unless there's some huge, incredibly clever, and unique twist involved.  Maybe video games should have lower standards.  But in other media, a DEM is usually viewed as "the writer didn't have an ending, so they threw in something last minute".  (Which is an interesting reflection of the whole dark energy ending that got tossed.)

Society's acceptance of Deus Ex Machina has changed; hence it is subjective.  The analogy holds.

Explanation:
People are using the definition of DEM to justify why it's bad just like I used the definition of pizza to justfy why pizza is bad.

Illustration:
DEM:  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
Typical BSN argument:
"Deus Ex Machina is bad because it is [insert definition]"

My example:

Definition of pizza: a dish made typically of flattened bread dough spread with a savory mixture usually including tomatoes and cheese and often other toppings and baked

Analogous BSN argument

"Pizza is bad because it is [insert definition]"

Modifié par Master Che, 06 avril 2012 - 07:22 .

[Patson259]

Because they could of used any other avatar, why use the stupid kid that Shep saw for like 10 seconds in real life. Why not be a fallen squad member, why not be harbinger. Why does this all powerful maker of the reapers have to be a little vent rat. And his voice is stupid, I know its mixed with two others but his voice is dumb.

[january42]

I don't entirely hate the StarChild.  Just the way it was done. The notion that reapers are puppets of a hidden power actuall fits with previous games.  In ME1 and 2 the Geth and Collectors were puppets of the Reapers. It's also mentioned that the Rachni were puppets of the reapers during their war.   So having the Reapers being puppers of the Citadel AI could have been neat.

One could even explain the dreams by saying the Reapers arrival woke the AI up.  And it had some sort of connection t Shepard(due to, say, the Eden Prime beacon. Or his Cerberus implants. Not hard to explain the dreams if you wanted.)

No, the problem with the Star Child was that he just suddently appeared, spouted some nonsense and then presents a false dilemma to the player.


Over time,  Deus Ex Machina has come to represent any story element suddenly introduced at the end that radicly changes everything.   The fact that Bioware used a DEM to introduce BAD endings makes it even worse and feels like a FU to the fans.

Modifié par january42, 06 avril 2012 - 07:38 .

[omphaloskepsis]

Master Che wrote...
Society's acceptance of Deus Ex Machina has changed; hence it is subjective.  The analogy holds.

Explanation:
People are using the definition of DEM to justify why it's bad just like I used the definition of pizza to justfy why pizza is bad.

Illustration:
DEM:  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

Yes, it's a subjective.  Everything is subjective, if you want to be pedantic.

A heart attack is bad because [insert reason here]
A plague is bad because [insert reason here]

People just saying a plague is bad doesn't prove anything.  Can you prove that a plague is bad?

Anyway, your posted definition provides the answer that you're (supposedly) seeking.  If you consider contrivance and last minute spin a viable story-telling technique, fine.  The part that I don't get is being surprised that that's a problem for other people.

[RIGELVINTO]

Patson259 wrote...

Because they could of used any other avatar, why use the stupid kid that Shep saw for like 10 seconds in real life. Why not be a fallen squad member, why not be harbinger. Why does this all powerful maker of the reapers have to be a little vent rat. And his voice is stupid, I know its mixed with two others but his voice is dumb.

Xdd you really sound like a krogan

[NM_Che56]

drewelow wrote...

Master Che wrote...
Society's acceptance of Deus Ex Machina has changed; hence it is subjective.  The analogy holds.

Explanation:
People are using the definition of DEM to justify why it's bad just like I used the definition of pizza to justfy why pizza is bad.

Illustration:
DEM:  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

Yes, it's a subjective.  Everything is subjective, if you want to be pedantic.

A heart attack is bad because [insert reason here]
A plague is bad because [insert reason here]

People just saying a plague is bad doesn't prove anything.  Can you prove that a plague is bad?

Anyway, your posted definition provides the answer that you're (supposedly) seeking.  If you consider contrivance and last minute spin a viable story-telling technique, fine.  The part that I don't get is being surprised that that's a problem for other people.

I'm not surprised, I just cannot accept the "it's bad because it's bad" reasoning.

This hardly is a threat to life or limb (heart attack, plague, etc).  Plague is bad because people get sick and or die which has negative consequences to the person experiencing it and their loved ones.

DEM doesn't hurt anyone accept for one's sensibilities which are...subjective.

Death and illness are not subjective. 

Modifié par Master Che, 06 avril 2012 - 07:57 .

[omphaloskepsis]

My point was that everything is subjective, and good or bad are always ultimately either personal or societal values. And that includes plague, heart attack, and DEM. But I don't want to derail here.

The reasoning isn't "it's bad because it's bad", rather it's: it's bad because it's contrived and arbitrary (and doesn't fit with the logic and rules developed throughout the story).

There's a general rule in story-telling, "show, don't tell". The idea is that the writer needs to work to develop the framework of the story, and this is usually a good approach because it enhances drama and invests the reader. The use of a DEM bypasses that process, and thus feels cheap and like cheating (or even lying) to the reader.

[FamilyManFirst]

Master Che wrote...
I'm not surprised, I just cannot accept the "it's bad because it's bad" reasoning.

This hardly is a threat to life or limb (heart attack, plague, etc).  Plague is bad because people get sick and or die which has negative consequences to the person experiencing it and their loved ones.

DEM doesn't hurt anyone accept for one's sensibilities which are...subjective.

Death and illness are not subjective. 

Okay, how about this:

It's bad because, over the centuries, writers have found that a large majority of audiences are unsatisfied with Deus Ex Machina-type endings.  While this is a subjective evaluation by the audiences, it has been shown to be very consistent.  Explanations for the subjective evaluation have been advanced (lack of empathy for a DEM, lack of closure for a satisfying resolution to conflict), but the bottom line is, DEMs almost never get a generally positive reaction from an audience.  Since a positive reaction from an audience is the goal of good writing, DEMs are a failure of good writing, or in other words, are bad writing.

[The Charnel Expanse]

He's an exposition fairy that fails at exposition.