288 réponses à ce sujet

[Jenonax]

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Deus Ex Machina->

Major misconception.  The 3 choices for the ending are the product of the Crucible, not the Catalyst.  We are told the entire game that the Crucible is designed to work with the catalyst.  In fact, we are told it cannot work unless it is with the Catalyst.  We meet the Catalyst, he tells us "The crucible changed me".  The catalyst being a machine intelligence, we know that being "changed" must mean an alteration to code programming.  The Catalyst is allowing Sheaprd to make this decision even though we know he cannot be a big fan of at least 2 of the choices, and 1 of them he straight up tells us he does not agree with.  The only way to make sense of all of these facts is if the crucible has reprogrammed the catalyst to implement it's capabilities.  In other words, the Catalyst has been defeated and is being forced into this situation.  Calling it a deus ex machina does not really fit. 

Even if you do not agree with my interpretation, what my view shows us is that whether or not it is a deus ex machina is largely based on one's interpretation.  There are some people that believe (and with some interesting evidence to back it up) that the entire thing is in Shepard's head.  Still others think it's real, but actually some kind of elaborate failsafe trap.  With these interpretations deus ex machina does not really fit either.

Another point is that the key component of a deus ex machina is that it's unexpected.  We are told ahead of time that there is a reaper master.  Meeting him was not unexpected.  The ending is just a twist on information we already had... that the reaper master is what we've been looking for all game.

Forgive me, I like a good debate on plot devices 

Its an interesting view point and one I've been pondering a lot today.  My conclusion on whether or not the Catalyst is a Deus Ex or not is based on whether you consider Mass Effect 3 a stand alone story or not.

If you do then no he isn't as the Crucible is established very early on as is the Catalyst.

However, if you take Mass Effect 3 as merely the third act in a complete story including ME 1 and 2 then yes he is.  The Crucible is a massive Deus Ex Machina.  It comes in very late in the story to sort out the problem of what to do with the Reapers.  It is never alluded to or foreshadowed.  It irritates me because it could have been included very, very early.  I mean, we find the information on Mars!  Its right next door!  

I'm not sure I agree about the Reaper controller bit or not.  Was it ever mentioned before Mass Effect 3?  This poses the same problems as above so I won't repeat it.  I liked the idea that the Reapers were unknowable and above all independant.  Having a controller of any sort demeans them.  Harbinger I understood as I find its better to have a face to the enemy something to ground them and make them sonewhat relatable.

Any way thats my two cents.  Taboo, congrats on another great thread, my friend.

[Kunari801]

IReuven wrote...

... they want to have a easy start for a sequel or MMORPG in ME universe...  

You just made me  with the thought of a ME MMO... 

[pistolols]

Jenonax wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Deus Ex Machina->

Major misconception. The 3 choices for the ending are the product of the Crucible, not the Catalyst. We are told the entire game that the Crucible is designed to work with the catalyst. In fact, we are told it cannot work unless it is with the Catalyst. We meet the Catalyst, he tells us "The crucible changed me". The catalyst being a machine intelligence, we know that being "changed" must mean an alteration to code programming. The Catalyst is allowing Sheaprd to make this decision even though we know he cannot be a big fan of at least 2 of the choices, and 1 of them he straight up tells us he does not agree with. The only way to make sense of all of these facts is if the crucible has reprogrammed the catalyst to implement it's capabilities. In other words, the Catalyst has been defeated and is being forced into this situation. Calling it a deus ex machina does not really fit.

Even if you do not agree with my interpretation, what my view shows us is that whether or not it is a deus ex machina is largely based on one's interpretation. There are some people that believe (and with some interesting evidence to back it up) that the entire thing is in Shepard's head. Still others think it's real, but actually some kind of elaborate failsafe trap. With these interpretations deus ex machina does not really fit either.

Another point is that the key component of a deus ex machina is that it's unexpected. We are told ahead of time that there is a reaper master. Meeting him was not unexpected. The ending is just a twist on information we already had... that the reaper master is what we've been looking for all game.

Forgive me, I like a good debate on plot devices

Its an interesting view point and one I've been pondering a lot today. My conclusion on whether or not the Catalyst is a Deus Ex or not is based on whether you consider Mass Effect 3 a stand alone story or not.

If you do then no he isn't as the Crucible is established very early on as is the Catalyst.

However, if you take Mass Effect 3 as merely the third act in a complete story including ME 1 and 2 then yes he is. The Crucible is a massive Deus Ex Machina. It comes in very late in the story to sort out the problem of what to do with the Reapers. It is never alluded to or foreshadowed. It irritates me because it could have been included very, very early. I mean, we find the information on Mars! Its right next door!

I'm not sure I agree about the Reaper controller bit or not. Was it ever mentioned before Mass Effect 3? This poses the same problems as above so I won't repeat it. I liked the idea that the Reapers were unknowable and above all independant. Having a controller of any sort demeans them. Harbinger I understood as I find its better to have a face to the enemy something to ground them and make them sonewhat relatable.

Any way thats my two cents. Taboo, congrats on another great thread, my friend.

Yeah i actually agree with you. If anything is a deus ex machina, it is the crucible. As a fan I am much more sympathetic to people that have a problem with the entire game due to the crucible concept, rather than those that are making the distinction between the ending and the rest of the game and just saying "the ending sucked" etc. To me the ending is really the best part of the game because of the twist it puts on this lackluster Crucible thing. But obviously I would have preferred a Mass Effect 3 that employed a successful conventional strategy for defeating the reapers over the Crucible.

That said, at least the Crucible is tied in with the lore in the sense that it's been designed progressively by every previous cycle fighting the reapers.  We've always known there have been previous cycles.. in a way the crucible has given those cycles a voice in the narrative that hasn't really existed before except for the Protheans.

Modifié par pistolols, 02 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[Peranor]

Kunari801 wrote...

IReuven wrote...

... they want to have a easy start for a sequel or MMORPG in ME universe...  

You just made me  with the thought of a ME MMO... 

Yeah, I second that.
Though I don't think that BioWare will start up another major MMORPG project as long as SWTOR is up and running.

Dear BioWare. Pretty please focus on the single player games. There are enough multiplayer/MMORPG's out there already.
What I love about ME (and DA) is the characters. Not so much the character you play. But the characters you meet. And even though they did a pretty good job with your companions SWTOR it doesn't come close to ME. You just can't do it as good in a MMORPG as you can in a single player game.

So please BioWare. Focus on your fantastic characters. Keep doing what you do best and focus less on multiplayer.

Modifié par anorling, 02 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[Mriswith911]

Awesome post Taboo.  Very true and very to the point.

Honestly, I think the ending is just symptomatic of the change in lead writers, which caused a change in emphasis.  Lead Writer A thinks the dark matter storyline is cool and has implemented it in ME 1 and 2, albeit in a very subtle manner.  Lead Writer B comes in, thinks a more traditional story of synthetics vs. organics would be better, and attempts to alter the flow of the game to support this.  Basically, we were building toward a series-wide climax based on information X, but then 2/3 of the way through, information Y is introduced and supposedly supplants X even though the two aren't really compatible.

This is why the point that if you look at ME3 as a standalone game it's great actually works.  ME1 and 2 were based on one storyline.  ME3 mostly follows along with that but makes plenty of obvious changes.  The end flows with ME3 by itself (even though I would still argue that it's bad), but is complete and utter crap when you take the other games into account.

I think in the end it was rushed (like you've said) and they realized that they didn't really have a good handle on how to wrap it up because the whole synthetics vs. organics storyline wasn't very good.  The "Yo dawg, we heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics" storyline just can't really measure up to "We realized dark matter would be a problem so, as a stop gap measure until we could find a solution, we decided to prevent galactic society from evolving too much while preserving their essence in immortal Reaper shells."  How much of a twist would it have been for the galaxy to run out of time and you find yourself actually working alongside the Reapers in the end to prevent everything from being wiped out?  Plenty of different ways to go with that.  Organics vs. synthetics...eh...probably not so much.

[Karimloo]

They can insult me all they want. Just tightens the straps, buckles and chains on my wallet more.. and more.. and more...

[Kunari801]

anorling wrote...
So please BioWare. Focus on your fantastic characters. Keep doing what you do best and focus less on multiplayer.

That picture speaks truth   

Yes, BW please.  I'd rather have more SP adventures in the ME universe.  I'd prefer more adventures with my Shepard and crew, I know that's not possible, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have adventures with a new crew.   I'd love to take after Daddy Shepard's footsteps as his/her Son or Daughter with a new crew. 

I like SWTOR well enough for a MMO but it's boring after the "class" story is over and the companions are very flat compared to my ME crew. 

Modifié par Kunari801, 02 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[Jenonax]

pistolols wrote...

Yeah i actually agree with you. If anything is a deus ex machina, it is the crucible. As a fan I am much more sympathetic to people that have a problem with the entire game due to the crucible concept, rather than those that are making the distinction between the ending and the rest of the game and just saying "the ending sucked" etc. To me the ending is really the best part of the game because of the twist it puts on this lackluster Crucible thing. But obviously I would have preferred a Mass Effect 3 that employed a successful conventional strategy for defeating the reapers over the Crucible.

That said, at least the Crucible is tied in with the lore in the sense that it's been designed progressively by every previous cycle fighting the reapers.  We've always known there have been previous cycles.. in a way the crucible has given those cycles a voice in the narrative that hasn't really existed before except for the Protheans.

I'm sympathetic to both to be honest.

I study narrative.  I write for a living and the plot to Mass Effect 3 bothers me a great deal.  Its riddled with problems.  Very little of it works, the notable exceptions being Tuchunka and Rannoch.  

Therefore, can't agree with the sentiment of the "twist" in the ending being a good thing.  A plot device such as the Catalyst which is at least a borderline DEM being used to rescue another DEM in the Crucible is just pathetic.  Nothing about the ending works.

I agree completely about the conventional strategy being employed.  I thought that had been the whole point of the 1 and 2.  Succeeding against impossible odds.  But apparantly no, it was all about the conflict between synthetics and organics, which I solved two to three hours ago by this point.  

I cannot stress enough how convoluted the whole idea of the Crucible being built across the ages seems to me.  But it boils down to one point, if we didn't know what it did, why did we build it?  It could have been a trap, in fact I was waiting for it to be a trap the whole game and was disappointed when it wasn't.  It could have destroyed Earth it could have called the Reapers, it could have sat there dead in the water and we would have wasted time, people and resources that we should have spent fighting.  

[ReXspec]

In all honesty, I'm wondering how Bioware, EA or whoever can be both sympathetic to fans, and have sneering condescension.

All I felt from the "official" statement of the DLC was their willingness to meet US half way because, why, it's our fault that the ending is bad?

I want to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt, but I do whole-heartedly agree that they need to restart their PR apparatus from the ground up.

[Taboo]

 A deus ex machina is introduced to fix the problem because they introduce a Lovecraftina horror in the first two games. The Reapers were originally supposed to be beyond our comprehension, something that could not be readily understood, something that could not easily be defeated. In about ten minutes the introduction of the star child they are neutered. A literal god machine comes in a says that they are his creation and his solution and then presents Shepard with fourteen lines of dialouge. This is not an apporpriate postition to put the character in and diminishes both Shepard AND the Reapers at the same time. There is LITERALLY a god in the crucible.

As for the Catalyst being introduced as something that Shepard is hallucinating.........bull****. That's utter nonsense. The dreams are syptoms of PTSD and the child is symbolic of the people that Shepard cannot save. The Catalyst takes said form to build a connection between it and Shepard. A projection of a form palatable to him. It very much exists and is an incredibly poorly written implementation of symbolism.

The cutscenes are similar, with variances based upon your EMS. The problem is not the color of the explosion but the lack of variance in the outcome. They are all similar with only minor variations leading up to the scene on the jungle planet. In a game with over a hundred hours plus content do you really think it was acceptable to end there?

The endings in their current format are unacceptable because they do not provide a proper amount of reflection on past actions. This was not a wise descision on Bioware's part. Information was deliberatly withheld.

I've been very supportive of the Extended Cut because I know that such errors can be fixed and given enough time the lesser flaws will be less glaring. The ending is poorly done, unfortunately the error is so grievous it has caused over sixty thousand people to get angry about it.

[eddieoctane]

OP, excellent points. I don't think anyone over at BioWare actually understands that much about art. Just being totally off the wall doesn't qualify something as artistic.

Unrelated question: how the hell is the Catalyst not a deus ex machina? If you consider ME3 as part of an ongoing story, it's a sudden and totally not foreshadowed solution to the problem. If you look at it as just a game, then a more literal interpretation of the phrase still applies.

[Taboo]

eddieoctane wrote...

OP, excellent points. I don't think anyone over at BioWare actually understands that much about art. Just being totally off the wall doesn't qualify something as artistic.

Unrelated question: how the hell is the Catalyst not a deus ex machina? If you consider ME3 as part of an ongoing story, it's a sudden and totally not foreshadowed solution to the problem. If you look at it as just a game, then a more literal interpretation of the phrase still applies.

There is literally a being of unknown power in the crucible and it takes the form of a being of light.

A GOD IN THE MACHINE.

[Jenonax]

Taboo-XX wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

OP, excellent points. I don't think anyone over at BioWare actually understands that much about art. Just being totally off the wall doesn't qualify something as artistic.

Unrelated question: how the hell is the Catalyst not a deus ex machina? If you consider ME3 as part of an ongoing story, it's a sudden and totally not foreshadowed solution to the problem. If you look at it as just a game, then a more literal interpretation of the phrase still applies.

There is literally a being of unknown power in the crucible and it takes the form of a being of light.

A GOD IN THE MACHINE.

Yes, that crafty little bugger 

[Isichar]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 A deus ex machina is introduced to fix the problem because they introduce a Lovecraftina horror in the first two games. The Reapers were originally supposed to be beyond our comprehension, something that could not be readily understood, something that could not easily be defeated. In about ten minutes the introduction of the star child they are neutered. A literal god machine comes in a says that they are his creation and his solution and then presents Shepard with fourteen lines of dialouge. This is not an apporpriate postition to put the character in and diminishes both Shepard AND the Reapers at the same time. There is LITERALLY a god in the crucible.

As for the Catalyst being introduced as something that Shepard is hallucinating.........bull****. That's utter nonsense. The dreams are syptoms of PTSD and the child is symbolic of the people that Shepard cannot save. The Catalyst takes said form to build a connection between it and Shepard. A projection of a form palatable to him. It very much exists and is an incredibly poorly written implementation of symbolism.

The cutscenes are similar, with variances based upon your EMS. The problem is not the color of the explosion but the lack of variance in the outcome. They are all similar with only minor variations leading up to the scene on the jungle planet. In a game with over a hundred hours plus content do you really think it was acceptable to end there?

The endings in their current format are unacceptable because they do not provide a proper amount of reflection on past actions. This was not a wise descision on Bioware's part. Information was deliberatly withheld.

I've been very supportive of the Extended Cut because I know that such errors can be fixed and given enough time the lesser flaws will be less glaring. The ending is poorly done, unfortunately the error is so grievous it has caused over sixty thousand people to get angry about it.

The deax ex machina ending can be interesting when done right, it really did not feel right for mass effect though. Having some higher power that controls/can effect the reapers really takes away from what made the reapers so amazing to begin with. The reapers themselves basically were Gods and thats what made fighting them so amazing, it was basically an impossible task.

[Taboo]

I'm still in awe that they decided to have this ending.......

I mean we could have just had the crucible fire and had a different outcome based on your EMS.

So much work went into this and it failed so miserably. No one would have said anything if they had done this.

I'm still in awe of this miscalculation. What happened?

[Jenonax]

Isichar wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 A deus ex machina is introduced to fix the problem because they introduce a Lovecraftina horror in the first two games. The Reapers were originally supposed to be beyond our comprehension, something that could not be readily understood, something that could not easily be defeated. In about ten minutes the introduction of the star child they are neutered. A literal god machine comes in a says that they are his creation and his solution and then presents Shepard with fourteen lines of dialouge. This is not an apporpriate postition to put the character in and diminishes both Shepard AND the Reapers at the same time. There is LITERALLY a god in the crucible.

As for the Catalyst being introduced as something that Shepard is hallucinating.........bull****. That's utter nonsense. The dreams are syptoms of PTSD and the child is symbolic of the people that Shepard cannot save. The Catalyst takes said form to build a connection between it and Shepard. A projection of a form palatable to him. It very much exists and is an incredibly poorly written implementation of symbolism.

The cutscenes are similar, with variances based upon your EMS. The problem is not the color of the explosion but the lack of variance in the outcome. They are all similar with only minor variations leading up to the scene on the jungle planet. In a game with over a hundred hours plus content do you really think it was acceptable to end there?

The endings in their current format are unacceptable because they do not provide a proper amount of reflection on past actions. This was not a wise descision on Bioware's part. Information was deliberatly withheld.

I've been very supportive of the Extended Cut because I know that such errors can be fixed and given enough time the lesser flaws will be less glaring. The ending is poorly done, unfortunately the error is so grievous it has caused over sixty thousand people to get angry about it.

The deax ex machina ending can be interesting when done right, it really did not feel right for mass effect though. Having some higher power that controls/can effect the reapers really takes away from what made the reapers so amazing to begin with. The reapers themselves basically were Gods and thats what made fighting them so amazing, it was basically an impossible task.

Not trying to be funny but if you have an example of where this has ever worked I would love to hear it.

[Klijpope]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 A deus ex machina is introduced to fix the problem because they introduce a Lovecraftina horror in the first two games. 

Thing about Lovecraftian horror, though, is the only possible ending is insanity or death. Shepard was always going to have to find a magic sword of dragonslaying or suchlike to hope for anything better than total defeat.

But we should have learned about it in ME2.

Maybe alongside the EC DLC they should go back and release a replacement for Arrival, which could introduce the Crucible and Kai Leng, show the Illusive Man going proper bad, exploring 'control' a little, and hint at a creator to the pattern, along with some VS action on top. Shep could still've ended up in custody due to working with a terrorist organisation. It's not like they did anything at all with the blowing up of the Alpha relay  anyway - didn't even feature in the guilt trip dreams. And it wouldn't be as confusing when the relays get hit with the space magic.

That's even stranger considering ME3 would already be in production when they released Arrival. They should have at least had an idea what they needed to include in any bridging DLC.

[Taboo]

Klijpope wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 A deus ex machina is introduced to fix the problem because they introduce a Lovecraftina horror in the first two games. 

Thing about Lovecraftian horror, though, is the only possible ending is insanity or death. Shepard was always going to have to find a magic sword of dragonslaying or suchlike to hope for anything better than total defeat.

But we should have learned about it in ME2.

Maybe alongside the EC DLC they should go back and release a replacement for Arrival, which could introduce the Crucible and Kai Leng, show the Illusive Man going proper bad, exploring 'control' a little, and hint at a creator to the pattern, along with some VS action on top. Shep could still've ended up in custody due to working with a terrorist organisation. It's not like they did anything at all with the blowing up of the Alpha relay  anyway - didn't even feature in the guilt trip dreams. And it wouldn't be as confusing when the relays get hit with the space magic.

That's even stranger considering ME3 would already be in production when they released Arrival. They should have at least had an idea what they needed to include in any bridging DLC.

That's why the Catalyst/Crucible is a deus ex machina. Anything less would be impossible. They could however introduced something a little less ridiculous. A computer or something.........like HAL. I think it would have been easier to take at face value. Gamble just said on Twitter that the EC will answer questions but they will not explain or defend the reasoning for the ending. 

That screams that they can't justify it to me. I've seen this before...............when artists have no idea what the **** they did.

That's fine with me, so as long whatever comes afterwords make SOME bit of sense.

I mean it's bad people are still here almost two months later.........

Awe inspiring.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 02 mai 2012 - 09:38 .

[Klijpope]

Maybe the Catalyst is like HAL. We just don't have enough to go on. Which again, is frustrating.

There's good in with the bad in the ongoing 'discussion'. I don't think there's ever been a game narrative deconstructed as painstakingly as this. And in among the rants and flamewars, there's also some proper academic study going on, and not just on message boards and forums. There's positive in that. There's also the hope that devs will will take their stories more seriously seeing how deeply connected ME fans were to the narrative and how they empathised with the characters. Is that wildly optimistic?

[Taboo]

Klijpope wrote...

Maybe the Catalyst is like HAL. We just don't have enough to go on. Which again, is frustrating.

There's good in with the bad in the ongoing 'discussion'. I don't think there's ever been a game narrative deconstructed as painstakingly as this. And in among the rants and flamewars, there's also some proper academic study going on, and not just on message boards and forums. There's positive in that. There's also the hope that devs will will take their stories more seriously seeing how deeply connected ME fans were to the narrative and how they empathised with the characters. Is that wildly optimistic?

At least HAL offered Bowman some advice.

Seriously though, they could mix him about and make him less...................lame. You can even reskin the model to make it something more palatable.

[Klijpope]

Yeah, I'd have preferred an avuncular old man. Maybe Buzz Aldrin should have done that instead of the Stargazer...

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 A deus ex machina is introduced to fix the problem because they introduce a Lovecraftina horror in the first two games. 

Thing about Lovecraftian horror, though, is the only possible ending is insanity or death. Shepard was always going to have to find a magic sword of dragonslaying or suchlike to hope for anything better than total defeat.

But we should have learned about it in ME2.

Maybe alongside the EC DLC they should go back and release a replacement for Arrival, which could introduce the Crucible and Kai Leng, show the Illusive Man going proper bad, exploring 'control' a little, and hint at a creator to the pattern, along with some VS action on top. Shep could still've ended up in custody due to working with a terrorist organisation. It's not like they did anything at all with the blowing up of the Alpha relay  anyway - didn't even feature in the guilt trip dreams. And it wouldn't be as confusing when the relays get hit with the space magic.

That's even stranger considering ME3 would already be in production when they released Arrival. They should have at least had an idea what they needed to include in any bridging DLC.

That's why the Catalyst/Crucible is a deus ex machina. Anything less would be impossible. They could however introduced something a little less ridiculous. A computer or something.........like HAL. I think it would have been easier to take at face value. Gamble just said on Twitter that the EC will answer questions but they will not explain or defend the reasoning for the ending. 

That screams that they can't justify it to me. I've seen this before...............when artists have no idea what the **** they did.

That's fine with me, so as long whatever comes afterwords make SOME bit of sense.

I mean it's bad people are still here almost two months later.........

Awe inspiring

You would prefer one sentient AI over the other?  Or do you think the starchild is an organic?  Honestly, it seems more like a VI to me.

Arent there artist who refuse to answer questions from the fans?  There are fanbases that thrive on that sort of thing.  I don't think Gene Wolfe fans would be happy if he came out and was like, this is exactly what I meant....etc.

You can make the argument that this isn't the fanbase for that type of thing, but I wonder if it was the fanbase bioware originally wanted.

I wrote a post about the ambigous questions posed in the first and 2nd game:

http://social.biowar.../index/11780899

I feel like you can make a strong argument for the first game, and the 2nd game started out strong in that regard but then I think fell really flat.  Honestly, I have yet to play ME2 from this perspective so maybe I will see something I didn't before, but I doubt it.  I almost feel like the entire series was rushed, and if they had more of a half life or starcraft dev time it could have been awesome.  Maybe BW needs to get better at crafting 'filler' games like portal and L4D (not necessarily the same genre, but just good, shorter games with more fun and less content) so they can spend more time crafting on their flagships.

[Taboo]

Klijpope wrote...

Yeah, I'd have preferred an avuncular old man. Maybe Buzz Aldrin should have done that instead of the Stargazer...

As I've stated before I don't care about the ending choices or the starchild I just want closure for Shepard and Co and I'd be a happy camper.

Nothing is ever really perfect but very few things have something so bizarre ruin an entire franchise for people.

Amazing sociological implications though..........should be interesting to study about later.