299 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

avenging_teabag wrote...

Wrong. You said it yourself (I think it was you) that a DEM is used to answer a dramatic question and to resolve the primary narrative - and it does that in a way that is arbitrary and contrived, and defies the previously established rules of the given universe. That is the primary characteristic of a DEM, not the time of its introduction. Usually, it is introduced at the final part of a story, yes, however, it doesn't have to be. Not by a long shot.

Eain wrote...

Incorrect. Likewise, if the introduction of a thing right before the resolution of a problem makes it DEM, then it would appear as though no amount of in-universe justification there exists for it, this thing would be a DEM.

Again I will state, I have no interest in discussing the narrative merit of the Crucible itself. I am discussing what does and more importantly does not constitute deus ex machina. Therefore, I will ignore any commentary directed to the narrative merit of the Crucible.

Hyperbole aside in either of these counter-arguments, yes it is the case deus ex machina has the clear connotation it is a plot device introduced and used near or during the story's climax. The term itself dates back to the early days of Greek tragedy, when deities were introduced into the narrative during the tragedy's climax to resolve the dramatic question. The term originates from criticism of Euripedes and Aeschylus for doing precisely such. This precise phenomenon, and the terminology describing it, continues straight through to today.

To wit, this precise use of plot device is definitionally distinct from others identical or quite similar to it but for its position in the narrative structure, such as the eucatastrophe, Chekhov's gun or MacGuffin, as I already illustrated. All three of which examples can be equally 'contrived' yet not considered deus ex machina for their placement in narrative structure.

An example bar excellence of this, if you're the type to like example, is from the film Signs. While the film itself is intended to be a deconstruction of the deus ex machina, the film's first and second halves establishing a series of Chekhov's guns that are fired in rapid succession in the film's climax to be interpreted as divine intervention yet with extensive foreshadowing. The 'contrivance' is found not in the climax itself (which does follow logically from what preceeded it), but rather the establishment and nature of these plot devices throughout the film (which break suspension of disbelief).

As to whether such a plot device is 'contrived', is entirely subjective. To say something is contrived is to make a statement of opinion, in this case being the gamer felt their suspension of disbelief was broken. If the plot device in question -- the Crucible -- broke your suspension of disbelief, that is your subjective opinion opposed to objective truth. And by extension, both of your definitions hinge upon the contrivance of the plot device in question opposed to its place in the narrative structure; as such, any arguments whether or not the Crucible is deus ex machina stemming from that definition are matters of opinion and not objective truth.

Modifié par humes spork, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:21 .

[Eain]

humes spork wrote...
Again I will state, I have no interest in discussing the narrative merit of the Crucible itself.

Too bad, I am. Therefore I will ignore any commentary not directed at the narrative merit of the Crucible.

Which is everything you wrote.

You want to discuss the concept of deus ex machina in isolation, without citing examples or discussing particular stories. Then you cite the old spiel of greek tragedy and whatnot. I've heard this all a million times in language less coated in pretense. So I'll pass. That's Dean out, that's you out. Anyone else?

Actually, nevermind.

Modifié par Eain, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:26 .

[humes spork]

Eain wrote...

Too bad, I am. Therefore I will ignore any commentary not directed at the narrative merit of the Crucible.

In other words, you're merely interested in pushing an anti-ending narrative without actually discussing the veracity of your premises. Glad we got that out.

And in fact, since I happened to think of it and you're apparently an "examples" kind of guy I'll go one further: deus ex machina is not synonymous to a bad ending, nor is it definitionally a pejorative. It's a specific plot device, and can be well done and befit a work of fiction.

Case in point, The Stand by Stephen King (Disclaimer: I actually don't like Stephen King nor the novel, but that's merely my opinion and I can acknowledge its quality apart from that). Enormously well-received by critics and readers, and a success by any metric; it's not one of King's best works, but up there. The Stand ends quite literally and figuratively with deus ex machina, and it's done quite well, fitting with the established themes, presumptions, and ongoing narrative structure of the novel itself (the only "new" element in the ending being direct divine intervention, in contrast to previous establishment of only indirect divine intervention).

Modifié par humes spork, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:05 .

[avenging_teabag]

[quote]humes spork wrote...

[quote]avenging_teabag wrote...

Wrong. You said it yourself (I think it was you) that a DEM is used to answer a dramatic question and to resolve the primary narrative - and it does that in a way that is arbitrary and contrived, and defies the previously established rules of the given universe. That is the primary characteristic of a DEM, not the time of its introduction. Usually, it is introduced at the final part of a story, yes, however, it doesn't have to be. Not by a long shot.[/quote]

[quote]Eain wrote...

Incorrect. Likewise, if the introduction of a thing right before the resolution of a problem makes it DEM, then it would appear as though no amount of in-universe justification there exists for it, this thing would be a DEM.[/quote]
Again I will state, I have no interest in discussing the narrative merit of the Crucible itself. I am discussing what does and more importantly does not constitute deus ex machina. Therefore, I will ignore any commentary directed to the narrative merit of the Crucible.

Hyperbole aside in either of these counter-arguments, yes it is the case deus ex machina has the clear connotation it is a plot device introduced and used near or during the story's climax. The term itself dates back to the early days of Greek tragedy, when deities were introduced into the narrative during the tragedy's climax to resolve the dramatic question. The term originates from criticism of Euripedes and Aeschylus for doing precisely such. This precise phenomenon, and the terminology describing it, continues straight through to today.

[/quote]
Here, I dug it up for you (from this very thread):


[quote]DEUS EX MACHINA (from Greek theos apo mechanes): An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonists or resolve the story's conflict. 


http://web.cn.edu/kw...t_terms_D.html 
Dr. Kip Wheeler, Carson-Newman College[/quote]

[quote]deus ex machina  (ˈdeɪʊs ɛks ˈmækɪnə)  — n1. (in ancient Greek and Roman drama) a god introduced into a play to resolve the plot

http://dictionary.re... machinaCollins English Dictionary[/quote]

[quote]Definition of DEUS EX MACHINA
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
http://www.merriam-w...Merriam-Webster Dictionary[/quote]

 
[/quote]


I can provide you with five more, if you want. And in none of those definitions is there any connotation that a DEM should absolutely be introduced near or at the story's climax. Yes, usually it is, but it doesn't have to be. The key feature of a DEM is that it resolves or solves a seemingly unresolvable plot difficulty. The Crucible does exactly that - it resolves the main conflict of the ME trilogy. How early or late in the story it does that, has no relevance at all. And yes, it does so in a contrived and arbitrary way (that, if you noticed, is also mentioned in all the definitions I cited - unlike the timing), meaning, by breaking the story's internal logic. You may cry "but that's not objective!" all you want - there's no objective truth in storytelling. The story's internal logic is no more or less objective than the definition of a "climax" or "dramatic question" or any other term we're throwing around here. 

The fact that so many people are pissed off at the ME3 narrative (even not fully understanding what is it that they're so pissed at) is proof that there's something deeply wrong with ME3 plot. The Deus Ex Machina is what's wrong.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:23 .

[humes spork]

avenging_teabag wrote...

I can provide you with five more, if you want. And in none of those definitions is there any connotation that a DEM should absolutely be introduced near or at the story's climax. Yes, usually it is, but it doesn't have to be. The key feature of a DEM is that it resolves or solves a seemingly unresolvable plot difficulty. The Crucible does exactly that - it resolves the main conflict of the ME trilogy. How early or late in the story it does that, has no relevance at all.

I'll refer you to my original post on this topic, in which I explicitly stated deus ex machina has the connotation of being introduced near or during the climax in order to resolve the dramatic question. And with that said, going from that what makes it definitionally distinct from other plot devices, namely eucatastrophes, Chekhov's guns, and MacGuffins?

And, moreover, I'll draw attention to one other word that's present in two of the three definitions you yourself posited: unexpected. The only exposited point regarding the Crucible is that it is a device that can stop the Reapers. That definitively sets the expectation that using the Crucible will stop the Reapers. Using the Crucible stops the Reapers, fulfilling the expectation set for it at the beginning of the game.

What is also exposited multiple times from multiple different characters is that how it will work is unknown. Therefore, the player has no established expectation of how the Crucible will stop the Reapers. The player can infer it will destroy the Reapers (which is, indeed, a potential choice in the final decision, fulfilling expectations generated from that inference), but it is not positively exposited the Crucible will destroy the Reapers.

Modifié par humes spork, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:20 .

[avenging_teabag]

humes spork wrote...

avenging_teabag wrote...

I can provide you with five more, if you want. And in none of those definitions is there any connotation that a DEM should absolutely be introduced near or at the story's climax. Yes, usually it is, but it doesn't have to be. The key feature of a DEM is that it resolves or solves a seemingly unresolvable plot difficulty. The Crucible does exactly that - it resolves the main conflict of the ME trilogy. How early or late in the story it does that, has no relevance at all.

I'll refer you to my original post on this topic, in which I explicitly stated deus ex machina has the connotation of being introduced near or during the climax in order to resolve the dramatic question.

It has no such connotation, at least not at the present time. And even if it had, the Crucible IS introduced pretty near the climax of the main ME storyline (killing the reapers). "Near" is a subjective term anyway, is it not? How "near" does it have to be to qualify, exactly?

Yes, the Crucible is very unexpected. It's introduced at the very beginning of the Mars mission as a surefire reaper-off button out of freaking nowhere. There's no buildup at all (unlike, say, with the conduit and the omega4 relay), it just gets dropped at the protagonist's lap in defiance of everything that was previously established throughout the story. So yes, it's freaking unexpected.

The rest of your post has no relevance to the point being discussed.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:36 .

[humes spork]

avenging_teabag wrote...

It has no such connotation, at least not at the present time [...] The rest of your post has no relevance to the point being discussed.

No such connotation that would, for example, make it definitionally distinct from other, similar plot devices that you oh so conveniently disregard as irrelevant. Funny, that.

And even if it had, the Crucible IS introduced pretty near the climax of the main ME storyline (killing the reapers). "Near" is a subjective term anyway, is it not? How "near" does it have to be to qualify, exactly? [...] 

There's no buildup at all (unlike, say, with the conduit and the omega4 relay)...

Apparently "nearer" than the primary plot devices of ME1 and 2 (the Conduit and the Omega-4 relay) to the respective resolutions of their story arcs, which was at the end of each game's first act. When was the Crucible introduced?

Yes, the Crucible is very unexpected. It's introduced at the very beginning of the Mars mission as a surefire reaper-off button out of freaking nowhere. 

Hey it was introduced at the end of ME3's first act! Funny, that. Also funny is that expectations about what the Crucible would do, and what it did, are strangely irrelevant to this conversation.

[avenging_teabag]

humes spork wrote...

avenging_teabag wrote...

It has no such connotation, at least not at the present time [...] The rest of your post has no relevance to the point being discussed.

No such connotation that would, for example, make it definitionally distinct from other, similar plot devices that you oh so conveniently disregard as irrelevant. Funny, that.

Are you talking about Toklien's eucatastrophe? The primary distinction between an eucatastrophe and a DEM is that the former is rooted in the logic of the respective fictional universe, while the latter is not. So eagles carrying Frodo from the Mt. Doom is an eucatastrophe, while the Crucible is a DEM. There's not many other plot devices that are similar to a DEM out here. Or are you going to quote tvtropes to me?

PS. Sorry, have to run home, but this is a very interesting conversation. I'll reply to the rest of your post when i have time.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:09 .

[Vilegrim]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You can't beat them conventionally because it isn't a conventional war.

When was the last time a war only ended when the other side is absolutely obliterated? Never. In conventional war the side that does the most damage to the other wins. In the Reaper war even if you managed to wipe out 75% of the Reaper forces, the other 25% will still be relentless.

This isn't a war fought over territory or power. It's about survival.

Every war in the bible is fought for the utter annihilation of the non-jewish target people (Seriously read Deutoronomy and Leviticus) , also the Eastern Front in World War 2 was looking that way, at least to start, some colonial conflicts (for instance Congo) where fought to totally enslave the local population, work them to death then replace them.  Wars of annihialtion are more common than people like to think about.

[satunnainen]

avenging_teabag wrote...

I can provide you with five more, if you want. And in none of those definitions is there any connotation that a DEM should absolutely be introduced near or at the story's climax. Yes, usually it is, but it doesn't have to be. The key feature of a DEM is that it resolves or solves a seemingly unresolvable plot difficulty. The Crucible does exactly that - it resolves the main conflict of the ME trilogy. How early or late in the story it does that, has no relevance at all.

With that open definition you might as well call Shepard a DEM, since he/she is introduced quite suddenly in the beginning, and you surely cannot finish the game without him/her

[humes spork]

avenging_teabag wrote...

...rooted in the logic of the respective fictional universe...

How then would you qualify the ending of War of the Worlds? The Martians' death by contagion is entirely internally consistent, despite being wholly unexpected, unforeshadowed, and strains credibility in that a spacefaring species would certainly be capable of detecting and protecting themselves from terrestrial atmosphere and contaminants even if they lacked immunity.

Or, as I mentioned earlier, The Stand. Wholly unexpected and unforeshadowed, and contradicted previous notions of divine interference in the universe, but still rooted in internal logic.

The irony here is the Eagles and their respective use in Tolkien's legendarium is a topic on which even Tolkien himself punted, as was the case in Letter 210, in an attempt to justify them as eucatastrophic agents opposed to deus ex machina. It is in this regard in which Tolkien's lore does in fact heavily contradict itself, especially in contrast to the question of why did the Eagles simply not usher Frodo to Mount Doom themselves.

Modifié par humes spork, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:54 .

[Shade of Wolf]

RiouHotaru wrote...

By that logic, Dragon Age ruined it's story by claiming the only way to end the Blight was for someone to die (a sacrifice that can be instantly negated by Awakening, no less)

Don't forget Morrigan's ritual! Give Shepard the same choice with I don't know, Aria? Doctor Chakwas? Whoever, and you'd have half less unhappy fans lol.

[Archereon]

The point of the Crucible was that BioWare didn't want to "nerf" the reapers, which they built up as unstoppable, and didn't want to change genres;

without the Crucible or a reaper nerf, Mass Effect would've gone from science fiction to cosmic horror.

[Lord Stark]

They should have made conventional victory possible. Instead they shoved down our throats how conventional victory was impossible, even when their story has them being fought against and defeated.  Not to mention I absolutely loathe Deus Ex Machinas.  

Modifié par Councilor Oraka , 10 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[PinkysPain]

Archereon wrote...
The point of the Crucible was that BioWare didn't want to "nerf" the reapers, which they built up as unstoppable, and didn't want to change genres

If you can't BS a way to make a winnable war believable with say 10 years from ME2 to ME3 (Arrival was basically Mac setting the stage for Diabolus Ex Machina) then you have a very poor imagination.

Also even if you use a MacGuffin there is no reason to hand that MacGuffin to the enemy and let them say "you know what ... we'll do this slightly differently this time, you pick a colour". They could have just let the MacGuffin weaken the reapers, we could have had our alliance building mean a damn and shot harbinger out of the sky ... and everyone would have been happy.

[DadeLeviathan]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

That's exactly what I think, They ruined the whole story by doing that.

This. 

Overall, the overall story of ME3 will forever put it as a lesser game compared to the first two. Some of the sub-plots (such as the genophage) are incredibly well done, but the overarching plot feels like the Sci-Fi Channel original movie. Which is a real pity. ME3 could have been the game to end all games (and should have been, given the hype it had). Instead, ME3 will probably be remembered as one of the largest let-downs of 2012 for the simple facts of not living up to hype, and the whole ending debacle. 

There's just too many overall shifts in tone within ME3. When looked at as a single game, it's fine  -- fantastic even. but when looked as a piece of the larger whole (ME franchise) it looks glaringly out of place, having essentially done away with many of the themes introduced in the first two games. 

The Whole point of playing up the idea of the galaxy working together was to make sure that they could have a chance of beating the reapers. This was the whole point of trying to unite the galaxy and stop the reapers throughout ME1 and 2. It was the whole underlying underpinnings of the assault upon the collectors within ME2. To turn around and then say that the only way to beat them is to essentially use the fleets as a diversion so that someone can fire off some magical macguffin is not only lazy writing, but it's also a betrayal of many of the themes of galactic unity presented in the first 2 games (and many parts of the third). 

Overall, ME3 is still a great game. A fantastic game. but compared to the first two games it's quite dissapointing. Which is sad. Maybe Bioware really is, as many of my now ex-bioware fan friends say, losing their edge. We'll see with the subsequent DLC for ME3 and the impending release of DA3 (whenever that is) whether or not the 'bioware magic' is indeed gone, or if DA2 and the problems with ME3 were just flukes that had bad enough luck to coincide with each other. 

[Demadrio]

humes spork wrote...

How then would you qualify the ending of War of the Worlds? The Martians' death by contagion is entirely internally consistent, despite being wholly unexpected, unforeshadowed, and strains credibility in that a spacefaring species would certainly be capable of detecting and protecting themselves from terrestrial atmosphere and contaminants even if they lacked immunity.

Or, as I mentioned earlier, The Stand. Wholly unexpected and unforeshadowed, and contradicted previous notions of divine interference in the universe, but still rooted in internal logic.

Ooh, ooh, I got one: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Literary masterpiece. Utter DEM at the end.

(To wit: Huck and the runaway slave Jim become very close friends over the course of the book as they both travel the Mississippi River in their quest for freedom. When Jim is recaptured, Huck and Tom Sawyer hatch a plot to break him out. The plan goes awry, everyone's caught, Tom takes a bullet, and the story's about to go to hell when Tom starts a dialogue paraphrased here:

Tom: Oh hey, didn't I mention? Jim's already a free man. Miss Watson died a while back and set him free in her will.

Huck: Dude, seriously? You couldn't have mentioned this before your ridiculous scheme to steal Jim?

Tom: Yolo.

Huck. Whatever, dude. I've outgrown you.)

[Wayning_Star]

but, apparently, the reapers weren't invincible, as they are defeated, one way or another, in the MEU.

[satunnainen]

Naerivar wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

I just would like to add that the galaxy is a very big place. The reapers are not going through even all the planets, atleast not very througly. That is proven by the fact that they left plenty of protean tech lying around. For example mars archives, thessia temple, whole ilos, and so on. The plans can be passed on even if the next cycle doesnt find the cache, some later cycle can still find it. You have to remember that the cycles have continued maybe 20 000 times now or more. Also who else would find some ancient tech from ruins than archaeologist. Ok, anyone, but atleast they do explore the ruins constantly

True, the galaxy is a very large place, that works two ways.

In ME1 Liara tells us how little actual information there is about the protheans. Now, here at earth we didn't have actual civilisations 50,000 years ago (atleast, I don't think so), but look at Pompei. The little town near the Etna that was completely caught in a lava/mud stream. Ages later they found pretty much everything, but color, preserved. From the little amount of information we got from that, they were able to reconstruct some aspects of their lives.

Extrapolating this would mean that we only need about a single preserved city on a prothean planet to reconstruct some of their civilisation. (This idea is reinforced by Javik telling us all Protheans pretty much lived the same, thought the same and fought the same.) However, Liara clearly tells us there hasn't been found such a place.

Due to the trap the Reapers set, they know just about every colony the Citadel species (of that cycle) have, and as such they can easily eradicate them. The chances of one planet (even if newly discovered) slipping under their radar isn't very large. This means they can pretty much destroy any things left by the protheans (and they did, says Liara).

This is actually a little contradictory with the game, where indeed prothean tech is just about lying around. Until you take into account that the Reapers want the species to develop along a certain path, and probably left a lot of the ME tech lying around.

It's of course always possible that inside some of the tech they don't destroy, the plans for the crucible are kept. But for this to happen every single cycle? Very unlikely. To just give a numerical example. Every single cycle has a chance p to NOT pass on the plans for the crucible (We take an average p, I'm sure that not every cycle hsa the same chance to pass along the information. Note that this makes the calculations easier, and the end result even LARGER. Because sevral cycles with 100% chance to pass it on and one cycle with 0.0000001% still give a high average, but a very low actual chance).
So, chance for one cycle NOT to pass on information: p
chance for twenty thousand cycles to consecutively NOT pass on the information (I'm guessing the actual amount of times it skipped a cycle is low). p to the power 20,000.
Chance for the 20,001 th cycle to actually get the plans, (1-p) 20,000. Now, lets see what happens. Lets say that each cycle has a 95% chance to pass the crucible plans along (p=0.05). Actual chance to get to the 20,001th cycle would be 0.95 20,000 = 3 10 to the power -446. This is so incredibly small, that things with such a chance don't happen in our universe, unless they are forced. (e.g any particular order in a deck of cards has a very small chance, but actually have A order isn't a chance at all.)

Note that a chance of p=0.05 is a very low chance of not giving on the information, because it's still information about a device that didn't help their, nor the previous cycles. anyway, see my previous post about that.

Yes, the chance is not zero, so it may actually have happened that way. I won't deny that. But the chance is so incredibly small that I can't even make up events that have the same order of magnetide. And I study physics...


For some reason the capital 6 sign doesn't wok on this forum. Implications, unpleasant.

I dont think that calculating the chance of one set of plans to stay hidden for 20000 rounds and then be found is the correct way to estimate that chance Explanation: chance of one set of plans to be passed on: 95%
If you take that to the power of 20000 (num. of cycles) you are calculating the chance of that single set to stay hidden.

You should consider that every cycle has a chance to find the plans from previous cycle. Also those cycles that found the plans, possibly tried building it and saved their own set of plans (which should reset your calculation back to 95% ? ). Anyway I would make some simple simulation where I could change the numbers to see how it goes but I am too lazy and I dont really like propability math

Also you should consider that these plans are supposed to be hidden so well, and in so many places that it should be nearly sure to have atleast few plans around during the next cycles. There is no reason to save for example just 10 caches while you might as well save 1 000 000 caches since your civilisation is about to be destroyed anyway.

Modifié par satunnainen, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:01 .

[Demadrio]

Naerivar wrote...

klarabella wrote...

So, according to Naerivar, finding the Crucible plans might as well have been due to divine intervention.

I'm actually going with the idea that it is a Reaper tactic. That if, perchance, the cycle survives the initial assault, or if it takes a whole lot longer for the Reapers to eradicate the cycle, the species find a supposed superweapon. If they'd pour all the resources in it, it's less resources to combat the Reapers, less Reapers destroyed, more life preserved (in the mind of the Catalyst). It's just one more thing the Reapers use to force us along a certain path. That's what we found out in ME1 wasn't it? The possibility alone that we're again forced on a path should stop us from using the crucible.

That it actually turned out as a 'working' weapon that could solve the whole problem of the Reapers is a missed opportunity.

The impression I got was that it was not simply a Reaper tactic, but a Reaper contingency plan. Like I said, I've not seen the original endings, so I don't know if this is unique to the EC, but when I played the final mission and met the Catalyst, one of the first things he said was (this is paraphrased, but not very much), "You are the first organic being who has ever come here and interfaced with me. This tells me that my Reaper 'solution' isn't working anymore and a new solution is required."

This suggests to me that whoever created the Reapers — or at least the Catalyst — also realized that the cycle of harvest might not be the correct answer forever, and so sowed the seeds of the Crucible, which the Reapers allowed to be passed down from cycle to cycle until somewhere, sometime, somebody was actually able to build it correctly and use it. This would also explain why the Reapers didn't go all out to destroy the Crucible while it ever-so-slowly docked with the Citadel.

I mean, we're only told that it's a weapon by the militarily minded characters who assume it's one. But even they couldn't know that for sure.

[nos_astra]

satunnainen wrote...
I dont think that calculating the chance of one set of plans to stay hidden for 20000 rounds and then be found is
the correct way to estimate that chance Explanation: chance of one set of plans to be passed on: 95%
If you take that to the power of 20000 (num. of cycles) you are calculating the chance of that single set to stay hidden.

You should consider that every cycle has a chance to find the plans from previous cycle. Also those cycles that found the plans, possibly tried building it and saved their own set of plans (which should reset your calculation back to 95% ? ). Anyway I would make some simple simulation where I could change the numbers to see how it goes but I am too lazy
and I dont really like propability math

Also you should consider that these plans are supposed to be hidden so well, and in so many places that it should be nearly sure to have atleast few plans around during the next cycles. There is no reason to save for example just 10 caches while you might as well save 1 000 000 caches since your civilisation is about to be destroyed anyway.

In all cycles the plans would have to be found, decrypted, improved upon (how?) and hidden again only AFTER the Reapers had revealed themselves by attacking the Citadel and shutting down the relays.

How exactly did they hide them so well?

Modifié par klarabella, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:22 .

[PoisonMushroom]

I would have liked to have seen them go a completely different way with this whole thing. This cycle had some interesting and valid advantages over other cycles and I think that should have remained the focus.

The Keepers no longer receive the Reaper signal and Sovereign was dead so the Reapers couldn't use their traditional surprise tactics. The galaxy was also united in an unprecedented way.

I always viewed it as being that if we don't win this time then we're not only dooming this cycle, we're dooming all the cycles. We have more of an advantage than other cycle has had but all these advantages are now known by the Reapers and they'll be taken care of by the time the next cycle rolls around.

Every time a cycle fails, the Reapers' process gets better and less fallible. They're getting ever closer to being invincible but they're not there yet. It's now or never.

What is weird though is that I swear it was only in ME3 that the Reapers were portrayed as being invincible. They were always really strong, but it was only in ME3 that everyone started talking about how they couldn't be defeated conventionally. The crucible wasn't the solution to a problem they'd created at the start of the trilogy. It was as if they came up with the concept of the crucible and then they needed to big up how important it was by making the Reapers extra powerful.

[Demadrio]

I think they meant that the Reapers as a collective fleet could not be defeated conventionally. Individual Reapers could — cf Priorities: Rannoch, Tuchanka — though this was very difficult and required either a crapton of ships all attacking at once, or the queen mother of thresher maws.

But if you require that much firepower to take down a single Reaper, what happens when five of its buddies show up? Or ten? And how would you get the hundreds of Reapers off Palaven, or Thessia...or Earth?

[Patchwork]

Demadrio wrote...

I think they meant that the Reapers as a collective fleet could not be defeated conventionally. Individual Reapers could — cf Priorities: Rannoch, Tuchanka — though this was very difficult and required either a crapton of ships all attacking at once, or the queen mother of thresher maws.

But if you require that much firepower to take down a single Reaper, what happens when five of its buddies show up? Or ten? And how would you get the hundreds of Reapers off Palaven, or Thessia...or Earth?

Hand out M-920 Cains?

[humes spork]

In re: What is and is not deus ex machina, and whether deus ex machina are inherently bad.

Let's not forget, to bring in film, the Indiana Jones series as well...

The Ark of the Covenant turned out to be a convenient "****-Killing and Escaping from Certain Death" card, suddenly and unexpectedly wrapping up every loose plot thread in a single move during the climax.

The Sankara stones' Evil-Killing Powers activated when a white guy who wasn't even Hindu turned them on, causing them to turn against the Thuggee cult ruler who to that point was using them for his own ends completely without problem, so said white guy could escape.

The Grail perfectly healed Henry, Sr., who then left the Temple completely without problem despite the express admonishment by the Grail Knight to not do that.

I heard there was a fourth one about aliens, but I have yet to see or hear any empirical evidence of this unsubstantiated, slanderous rumor. As far as I know, it's just hearsay, like the Matrix trilogy or a Highlander sequel. If it ever comes out, I just hope it doesn't involve anything stupid like getting nuked in a fridge.