157 réponses à ce sujet

[Ratharos]

I thought the game was very well made up until the end (surprising I know...) I don't think people have a problem with it being a sad ending, but rather that it's full of plot holes and inconsistencies and it just feels out of place with the game themes.
That and Bioware made the capital crime of denying the player closure in the form of a showdown with the main bad guy. Hell it doesn't even need to be a fight, a good dialog with Harbringer would have been enough. Look at the witcher 2 (spoilers) at the end I didn't choose to fight Letho because the dialog he shared with Geralt was good enough to bring a sense of closure to the game.
That part when you are running towards Harbringer, to me was the absolute peak of the climax and then it just suddenly dropped vertically at the God child..
Of the 3 games ME3 had the best gameplay but ME1 was the only one that managed to perfectly execute a story arc from beginning to end. The only one that actually managed to provide a sense of closure. ME3 on the other hand doesn't end, it just kind of stops.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is 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.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

The Crucible isn't the DEM. The Catalyst is.

[Tallin Harperson]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

The problem is that points like this have been brought up many times, yet people still insist on calling it a DEM. It's not. You could call the it an info dump, but since it is only the last part in what you have been seeking the whole game (and in a larger sense, the whole series), it is certainly not a DEM. A deus ex machina is something that popped up without any build up. Just not knowing what something is is not enough to make it a DEM. You are told multiple times that it is not sure what form you can expect the final piece to take, so a surprise is foreshadowed. It is not a DEM.

*sigh* See, I was getting into it again, but I doubt it will do any good.

The problem seems to be that people feel they have to legitimize their dislike (or hatred) of the ending by making it objectively bad. Thus they make assumptions that create plotholes or blow minor inconsistencies out of proportion. Truth is, there is nothing illegitimate about disliking the ending simply because you didn't like the way it ended, it's just that then they can't tell other people they are idiots for liking or even not hating the ending.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 12:50 .

[mauro2222]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is 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.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

Catalyst, not Crucible.

[Newnation]

I loved the game and it is my favorite one of the three. That being said, I didn't love the ending but I didn't hate it either. My whole reaction to the ending was"....um...okay?" My only gripe about it is that there was no closure....and how certain squadmates ended up in the Normandy. I really looking forward to the EC.

[Tallin Harperson]

mauro2222 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is 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.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

Catalyst, not Crucible.

The Catalyst is the final part of the Crucible, and is mentioned and  foreshadowed to be something unexpected. It is therefore not a DEM. A DEM has no mention or foreshadowing prior to its appearance. A surprise when a surprise is foreshadowed doesn't fall under the definition.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 01:00 .

[Siegdrifa]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is 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.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

It's still a deus ex machina because this is the only way to solve the plot, the characters can't otherwise.
" Hey Shep ! i found a blue print to build a weapon to destroy the reapers " ... woooww.. what a luck .
Doesn't matter if it is introduced at the begining, Liara state early by "a prothean device to destroy reapers" and all the questions about the characters concerne have no impact, because ME don't propose any alternative to fixe the plot, and the war will be lost otherwise.

When Joker says after the genophage mission "now we need a gun that fire thresher maw", it's not as dumb as it seems, because at least he try to figure a solution from things he witnessed during the game. The crucible is given, nobody suggested anything to try to stop the reapers on their own and nobody won't since they already have a plan to follow... IMO, thinking about how sovereign was defeated would have been a first step, because it led to uncover a critical weakness on the reapers, and the players would have felt THEY come up with the idea, because it was already established in ME1.

If we look at what we know in the games that can defeat a reaper:
-sovereign taking control of Saren corps when it was destroyed.
-old mass accelerator (IFF mission), concured by VIGIL, reapers aren't indestructible, that why they use the citadel to close all mass relay, because isolation reduce organics chance to react and organise.
What other "tools" was can use:
- Biotic field
- eezo
- dark energy (data recovered from ME2)
- indoctrination (study of the process itself + subject still alive, like Shiala)
- mass relay
- citadel
- genetics
- reapers assuming control
I think there is enough pieces for a writter to shape a coherent story on how to find a reaper weakness with all this.
It also would have been a good way to developpe some lore and explain some mystery that last with 3 games, the players would have felt totaly catched by those discory, leading to a bigger discovery, leading to a way defeat the reapers.

At the end, it could have been the crucible with the exact same endings, but the player would have felt it's their work, their idea, their discovery, using their experience and knowledge gathered from the 3 games to come up with a coherent plan. It's a lot more satisfyng than " Oh ! i looted a reaper gun killer schematic LOLz ".


Never heard of "Corneillian problem" in literrature ? from the author who gave his name (nearly 4 centuries ago).
Pierre Corneille was reputed to write complex plot that had NO solution, doesn't matter the angle you look at them, but he solved them without deus ex machina or other "divine" interventation or character. It's only a matter of smart writting and logical outcome that make sens, one after another.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 09 mai 2012 - 01:39 .

[DHG Hypnosis]

I hope ME3 ending is good because I have been a hardcore fan for about 2 months and I really like it. The road ahead looks foggy...

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...

It's still a deus ex machina because this is the only way to solve the plot, the characters can't otherwise.
" Hey Shep ! i found a blue print to build a weapon to destroy the reapers " ... woooww.. what a luck .
Doesn't matter if it is introduced at the begining...

Actually it does matter, since the nature of a deus ex machina requires that it have no mention or foreshadowing, which is why it's a bad plot device. Having only one solution is not a symptom of a bad plot. In fact, in any other medium, it is fully expected that to you have one solution. And yes, there are other ways they could have gone if they chose to write it that way, they just chose to use the Crucible.

[Siegdrifa]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

It's still a deus ex machina because this is the only way to solve the plot, the characters can't otherwise.
" Hey Shep ! i found a blue print to build a weapon to destroy the reapers " ... woooww.. what a luck .
Doesn't matter if it is introduced at the begining...

Actually it does matter, since the nature of a deus ex machina requires that it have no mention or foreshadowing, which is why it's a bad plot device. Having only one solution is not a symptom of a bad plot. In fact, in any other medium, it is fully expected that to you have one solution. And yes, there are other ways they could have gone if they chose to write it that way, they just chose to use the Crucible.

Following one plot is not bad, following one plot fallen from the sky is not awesome witting
" Damn, we are in the middle of a reapper menace... we are screwed ! "
"what's this paper on the ground commander ?"
" hum ? .... reapers switch off device schematics ... we are saved ! "

It is usualy more smart to use what was etablished by the writer as pointers. You don't introduce a solution out of nowhere and appearing in front of your eyes.

The problem is not foreshadowing, it's using an atefact with divine power to solve a problem. This is relayng on "deus" power, because we poor human, can't find a solution on our own, so we ask god to solve it for us.

Like i said, Corneillian problem are unsolvable problems that get solved only with logic without betrayng characters or plot in place. And if a guy born in 1606 could do it, i don't see why the writters of 2012 couldn't.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 09 mai 2012 - 02:03 .

[deuce985]

Glad you liked.

One of my favorite games this gen. Probably one of the more personal games I've played in a long time...

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Following one plot is not bad, following on plot fallen from the sky is not awesome witting
" Damn, we are in the middle of a reapper menace... we are screwed ! "
"what's this paper on the ground commender ?"
" hum ? .... reapers switch off device schematics ... we are saved ! "

It is usualy more smart to use what was etablished by the writter as pointers. You don't introduce a solution out of nowhere and appearing in front of your eyes.

Like i said, Corneillian problem are unsolvable problems that get solved only with logic without betrayng characters or plot in place. And if a guy born in 1606 could do it, i don't see why the writters of 2012 couldn't.

I doesn't appear out of nowhere, it appears at the beginning of the game from a source of information on the Reapers established in previous games (the Protheans) by way of a previously established expert on said source: Liara. I also notice you switched from arguing DEM to arguing a more all-encompassing "bad writing."

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[soldo9149]

Talin please stop trying to twist things around so you sound right and now have a good day.

Modifié par soldo9149, 09 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[Tallin Harperson]

soldo9149 wrote...

Talin please stop trying to twist things around so you sound right and now have a good day.

Um... huh? Feel free to refute me or ignore me, but if you are going to accuse me of twisting things, please provide some examples.

For the record, I'm not trying to make people like the ending or saying people are wrong for not liking the ending, I'm just trying to refute the points that people put out there which suggest the ending is objectively bad and which are used to marginalize those that actually like it.

[Siegdrifa]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Following one plot is not bad, following on plot fallen from the sky is not awesome witting
" Damn, we are in the middle of a reapper menace... we are screwed ! "
"what's this paper on the ground commender ?"
" hum ? .... reapers switch off device schematics ... we are saved ! "

It is usualy more smart to use what was etablished by the writter as pointers. You don't introduce a solution out of nowhere and appearing in front of your eyes.

Like i said, Corneillian problem are unsolvable problems that get solved only with logic without betrayng characters or plot in place. And if a guy born in 1606 could do it, i don't see why the writters of 2012 couldn't.

I doesn't appear out of nowhere, it appears at the beginning of the game from a source of information on the Reapers established in previous games (the Protheans) by way of a previously established expert on said source: Liara. I also notice you switched from arguing DEM to arguing a more all-encompassing "bad writing."

I made en edit:
Like i said the problem of deus ex is not about foreshadowing, this is just dodging why it make it a lazy writting.
It's relayng on a divine power (often through an artefact) to fix a problem for us because we can't save ourself on our own.
And yes, the blue print come from nowhere, until we find it at the very begining of ME3, there is no knowledge about it in ME games, it could have been discovered on any protheans ruins or device.
You play ME and ME 2 you wonder how to win this was, you start ME3, hey ! i found a weapon solving reapers problem device !  yhea ! lucky day.

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I made en edit:
Like i said the problem of deus ex is not about foreshadowing, this is just dodging why it make it a lazy writting.
It's relayng on a divine power (often through an artefact) to fix a problem for us because we can't save ourself on our own.
And yes, the blue print come from nowhere, until we find it at the very begining of ME3, there is no knowledge about it in ME games, it could have been discovered on any protheans ruins or device.
You play ME and ME 2 you wonder how to win this was, you start ME3, hey ! i found a weapon solving reapers problem device !  yhea ! lucky day.

There is no reason three seperate stories have to foreshadow each other, even in a trilogy. Each game contains its own plot. I don't hear you crying that the Collectors and their base were not foreshadowed in the first game, or that the solution was to secure a piece of technology previously unmentioned which allowed them to make a jump into a location believed to be unreachable.

[Tallin Harperson]

Siegdrifa wrote...
The problem is not foreshadowing, it's using an atefact with divine power to solve a problem. This is relayng on "deus" power, because we poor human, can't find a solution on our own, so we ask god to solve it for us.

The Crucible is a tool, developed by mortals, built by the combined forces of the galaxy and used by Shepard to solve their problem. It is not asking a god to solve their problem. The Catalyst provides information necessary to make a choice and functions as the power source, but Shepard built the solution throughout the game and enacts it at the end. That a being that is seemingly extremely powerful exists and speaks to Shep is actually a pretty common occurance within the genre and the presence of a god-like being (or deus, as you put it) does not indicate a deus ex machina, as that is far too literal a definition. Plenty of excellent fiction includes god-like beings, and doing so is not a bad plot device. The idea that there was a creator of the Reapers is actually brought up by Sovereign in the first game when he denies that there is one, and the question of the true reason for the Reapers was brought up from the same source. These are questions that have been hanging there the entire series and are answered (to a degree) in the third game...

[Siegdrifa]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

I made en edit:
Like i said the problem of deus ex is not about foreshadowing, this is just dodging why it make it a lazy writting.
It's relayng on a divine power (often through an artefact) to fix a problem for us because we can't save ourself on our own.
And yes, the blue print come from nowhere, until we find it at the very begining of ME3, there is no knowledge about it in ME games, it could have been discovered on any protheans ruins or device.
You play ME and ME 2 you wonder how to win this was, you start ME3, hey ! i found a weapon solving reapers problem device !  yhea ! lucky day.

There is no reason three seperate stories have to foreshadow each other, even in a trilogy. Each game contains its own plot. I don't hear you crying that the Collectors and their base were not foreshadowed in the first game, or that the solution was to secure a piece of technology previously unmentioned which allowed them to make a jump into a location believed to be unreachable.

ME franchise was about surviving agains the reapers threat., not about the collectors. Their base is totaly reachable, because the collector can acces it, if it was unreachable, by definition, no one would reach it, the problem is how or what could achieve the same as collector ship ...  that's... logic ... you know.
They choose IFF, wich make sens in a way, it's reaper code origin, wich is what was used partialy to creat EDI, in charge of decrypting it.


I was argumenting only on the crucible and the way it is introduced, and i sumurise quickly in my original post they could have accomplished the same crucible for the same ending but relayng on ME lore and expending it a little.

If you want to compare, the genophage cure is brillant and well made, because it use mostly what was etablished in ME lore, expending it a little, and when you need a way to repend the cure quickly if you choose to, they introduce new lore that fit perfectly on what we know about salarian & krogan history.
The cure for the genophage is not a deus ex and contain no divine power to achieve an outstanding objective, just science from scientiste (Mordin, Moellon, STG), subject from experiment (eve, krogan femal corps), data from researcher  (see ME2 & 3 for update) etc.

The crucible on the other end, nobody come up with, it fall from the sky without relayng on any lore or sub plot met in ME franchise, nobody know what it will do exactly but it is known to be a weapon able to destroy the reapers, and the schematic requiere his most important pieces in order to work, being something not known ? ... W T FFFFFF designing a schematic from an unknow pieces with unknown attribute to achieve an unknown effect ... it's a little too big to eat for me.
So yhea, Joker idea to make a gun fire thresher maw is not THAT stupid because in fact it's just lacking the most important componont that nobody know what it is , but once it is found, it will fire thresher maw   : ))
Then the crucible use an superior unknown power to solve your problem as fast as snaping your fingers, and "no it's not a divine power out of the device" ... it's "deus ex machina", not "prompto deus ex machina" we are talking about.
Struggle all you want about "forshawoned" being the seal of approuval for deus ex machina, it's not why it make lazy writting. What make it lazy is using superior power to solve magicaly your problem because you can't find a coherent solution, so you push the "i win button".

[Tallin Harperson]

And yet the struggle is established throughout the game as getting to the point where they can use the Crucible to defeat the Reapers, not about how the Crucible solves the problem. That is the journey of our hero. It's also why an item with divine powers does not make a deus ex machina. A deus ex machina would be if they came up with a different plan that didn't succeed and after their failure someone came in at the end and said: "Hey, I've got this big Reaper-killing gun!" See the difference? That is what the Greek plays the plot device came from did. The hero failed, but an impressive-looking god came in on the machine made from pulleys and such and saved the day.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[AlanC9]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is 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.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

QFT. My god, how could anyone not expect some kind of wacky space magic after hearing what we heard? I don't see how Bio could have foreshadowed this any more than they did.

[Tallin Harperson]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Really, slyguy? Me and that other guy answered similar questions in that other thread, and you're acting like no one answers? That's pretty cheap.

Yup, and me and that other guy (or maybe a different other guy) answered his questions in this thread. Though, admittedly, after he posted that...

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 09 mai 2012 - 03:31 .

[Siegdrifa]

Tallin Harperson wrote...

And yet the struggle is established throughout the game as getting to the point where they can use the Crucible to defeat the Reapers, not about how the Crucible solves the problem. That is the journey of our hero. It's also why an item with divine powers does not make a deus ex machina.

It does. an artefact that unleash an amount of power far beyond what is knows in the univers where the story take place, is by definition deus (god / divine), ex (from) machina (device / artefact / object).

If, for exemple, they used the lore to find a way through a better understanding of indoctrination, dark energy, eezo and all other source of energy already known or somewhat knwon, or already met, we are not talking anymore about a power from unknown sources. Wich would make the crucible as belivable as the genophage cure or FTL stealth system.

My problem is not the crucible and his repercution itself, it's his introduction and production, wich are totaly given.
The Me lore is rich enough to shape a solution for itself, and IMO understanding why sovereign was left nearly innactive after saren body was destroyed under sovereign's control was a pointer to a reaper fatal weakness.
If they had put those knowledge together with the crucible it wouldn't have been a deus ex, because we would have used knwoledge already etablished in ME to exploit a weakness we already witnessed, and the player would have felt more satisfied because it would have requiere a better understanding and exploiting our experience learned from the previous game and reapers encounter.

Like i said, the genophage cure do it really well, it's a shame the crucible wasn't as convincing.

[Father_Jerusalem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

@meatsack
A deus ex machina is 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.
It's latin and its the reason the ending is complete rubbish

One fatal flaw in the deus ex machina assertion is that ME 3 is loaded foreshadowing, beginning with the blueprints found on Mars for the device, and it did not come out of the blue. What the device does is a complete unknown and there are multiple conversations having concerns about what it actually does. The only thing they know about it is that it is extremely powerful and are willing to risk it for the sheer fact that conventional means aren't likely to defeat the reapers.

QFT. My god, how could anyone not expect some kind of wacky space magic after hearing what we heard? I don't see how Bio could have foreshadowed this any more than they did.

Maybe if in your dreams the kid was playing with a cat and had a shopping list? Or something? A giant blinking neon sign saying "Wonky Stuff Ahead, Ahoy Mateys!"?