299 réponses à ce sujet

[Gold Dragon]

Jamie9 wrote...
Synthesis can supposedly solve all your problems, and is never even so much as alluded to beforehand.

Wrong, actually.


"The Strengths of both, the weaknesses of NEITHER!"  Saren, ME 1.

[Tealjaker94]

Jamie9 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

I still don't think the Crucible qualifies as a Deus Ex Machina because after Lazarus Project, mind control being a biotic ability, and the Thorian/Indoctrinantion I think that Mass Effect is Science Fantasy and the dark energy device that releases a burst of energy through the relay networks is perfectly acceptable.

The Crucible itself isn't a DEM, but the functions it enables are, I think. The option of Synthesis especially. Control and Destroy were both foreshadowed right at the beginning - at Mars.

Synthesis can supposedly solve all your problems, and is never even so much as alluded to beforehand.

Mass Effect has always been Science Fiction to me with Fantastical elements given Sci-Fi explanations. Things like the Lazarus Project are clearly Fantasy elements, yet they are explained in a Sci-Fi manner. It's a subtle difference, though.

I'm not sure if synthesis qualifies as the problem it solves is introduced at the same time. That was just stupid.

[Jamie9]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Wrong, actually.

"The Strengths of both, the weaknesses of NEITHER!"  Saren, ME 1.

Naw, Saren wanted subservience, not synthesis.

[Demadrio]

Eain wrote...

zambot wrote...

Eain wrote...

zambot wrote...

Whether or not you consider the crucible to be a Deus Ex Machima is dependent on whether you believe introducing it at the beginning of ME3 is sufficiently far from the climax.

The time at which a DEM is introduced has nothing to do with whether or it not is one, actually. It is entirely possible to write a story and introduce the DEM in the very first chapter.

I disagree.  I use this definition of a DEM:

 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. 

If the crucible were introduced along with the reapers in ME1, then it would certainly not be a DEM.  The story would have been about building the cruicible over 3 games perhaps, and not have been a sudden or abrupt solution.

Except your definition never states when this intervention is supposed to happen. If I create a fantasy world in which noone has magical powers and the premise is that the evil dark lord is going to destroy the peaceful people of the forest, then the challenge for them is to overcome their lack of magic and win, somehow. But if I were to start chapter one with the introduction of Bob the Caster who teleports around galaxies to find worlds in need of protection and has the talent to fling fireballs the size of the sun he would be present throughout the entire story but would have no logical presence in the setting and the plot. He would still a convenient arrival designed to make the protagonist race win when all seemed doomed.

A deus ex machina is an ending trope, so it always happens at the end of a story. Both the term and the plot device come from the theatres in ancient Rome: many plays would build to a climax that none of the characters could seem to resolve, so a god would come down and resolve it for them, and the play would be over. Since the actor playing the god would descend in a machine that lowered him onto the stage, that particualr type of ending became known as "the god from the machine" — or, in Latin, "deus ex machina".

But here's the thing: the god never appears before then. If he does, he's just another character in the play, the audience would expect his participation in the climax, and the trope would not stand. Bob the Caster would only count as a deus ex machina if he never appears in the story until the climax where the dark lord is about to slaughter all the forest people.

To put it in a Star Trek way: "The Squire of Gothos" has a deus ex machina ending: Trelaine's parents, never before seen or alluded to in the episode, suddenly appear and take him home. "Errand of Mercy" does not: the Organians repeatedly tell Kirk they don't need Federation protection, and repeatedly warn both the UFP and the Klingon Empire to avoid going to war, so when they finally intervene with their mighty powers, you already knew something was up with them.

Vigil does not count as a DEM, because it neither appears at the climax (Sovereign's attempt to activate the Citadel) nor solves the conflict for Shepard. The Catalist, on the other hand, does qualify, more or less — it appears right at the climax, and presents four resolutions for Shapard to choose from. (However, I really like the setup that everyone's pitching in to build the Crucible, but nobody knows exactly what it'll do; when they plug it in, it turns out to be the machine that summons the god.)

[Baa Baa]

Indeed

[RenegonSQ]

julio77777 wrote...

It happens quite often. But how is that more "childish" than "let's all be friends and unite together against the big bad meanie" story that most people here wanted apparently ?

[Meltemph]

an invincable enemy is easier to write then political intrigue and an putting an interesting twist on a defeatable enemy. It is why BW did "reapers" instead of doing a type of galactic war. Big evil creatures are just easier to write properly. It will be a long time in the making until games see, Game of Thrones, quality writing.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 juillet 2012 - 04:29 .

[Tigerman123]

The Reapers were childish in the first place; the premise of death robots scourging the galaxy every 50,000 years is inherently silly, which is why I was never very interested in Sovereign and am not sent into paroxysms of fury by the ending, the writers made the best of a poor hand

[Bill Casey]

Jamie9 wrote...

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Wrong, actually.

"The Strengths of both, the weaknesses of NEITHER!"  Saren, ME 1.

Naw, Saren wanted subservience, not synthesis.

Saren wanted others to be subserviant to him...
He was using Sovereign as a means for control...

He believed he and Sovereign were allies, and was studying the effects of indoctrination specifically so he WOULDN'T become a servant...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 09 juillet 2012 - 04:34 .

[Andy the Black]

Demadrio wrote...

However, I really like the setup that everyone's pitching in to build the Crucible, but nobody knows exactly what it'll do; when they plug it in, it turns out to be the machine that summons the god.

Interesting. Don't know why it took me till now to realize that (maybe I'm just thick ). But the Catalyst is the "god from the machine" almost in the most literal sense. I think now that maybe the deus ex machinas of the Crucible and the Catalyst wasn't a reaction from BioWare writing themselves into a corner but might have been on the carts from day one...

Modifié par Andy the Black, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:03 .

[iamweaver]

Bill Casey wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Wrong, actually.

"The Strengths of both, the weaknesses of NEITHER!"  Saren, ME 1.

Naw, Saren wanted subservience, not synthesis.

Saren wanted others to be subserviant to him...
He was using Sovereign as a means for control...

He believed he and Sovereign were allies, and was studying the effects of indoctrination specifically so he WOULDN'T become a servant...

Actually, Saren was pretty clear on this point.  His whole hope was that he could be useful to Sovereign - useful enough no to be purged.  This was never implied to be a meeting of equals.  His hope was to be an independent servant - but a servant nonetheless.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think the problem was that in ME1 Sovereign was already overpowered. What to do with a whole fleet of them? Well, in ME2 the writers probably thought it was better to fight against the collectors instead. But in ME3 the reapers couldn't be avoided anymore, although they still remained overpowered. What's worse is that we didn't want a reaper-off switch and we were promised we wouldn't get an ABC-ending. Yet, we got both. I leave the interpretation of what I think about that to the reader.

[Whimper]

1. Plot armor is acceptable under certain circumstances. I'm fine with only being able to beat Sovereign during his Citadel assault sequence, and not by just ordering fleets to shoot at him. I'm not fine with Kai Leng having infinite shields and taunting me, only to escape when I beat him fair and square.

2. The best order to watch the Star Wars saga is: New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Return of the Jedi. Luke and Leia lose their adoptive families and are pitted against the Empire, Luke trains to become a Jedi and learns his father had a dark side, <flashback> Anakin trains as a Jedi and succumbs to his dark side, <flashback> Palpatine and Anakin destroy the Jedi and create the Empire, <flash forward> Luke confronts Palpatine, and Vader is redeemed by helping his son overthrow the evil Empire. The Phantom Menace is available for viewing on another occasion, as extra bonus material not necessary for the story.

[Galbrant]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think the problem was that in ME1 Sovereign was already overpowered. What to do with a whole fleet of them? Well, in ME2 the writers probably thought it was better to fight against the collectors instead. But in ME3 the reapers couldn't be avoided anymore, although they still remained overpowered. What's worse is that we didn't want a reaper-off switch and we were promised we wouldn't get an ABC-ending. Yet, we got both. I leave the interpretation of what I think about that to the reader.

Its the Peter Molyneux virus....  Now I bid you good. night. But first I must check under my bed for Rachni... My father told me they eat bad  Krogans quads,

[Shadow Shep]

Eain wrote...

Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible...?

I can do you one better.  I can tell you a universe consisting of many different worlds with invincible enemies.  It's called the Marvel Universe.

[spockjedi]

OP:
Have you seen this?
Power of the Reapers: Fear of deus ex machina
Created about 1 year ago

[Heeden]

DJCubed wrote...

I can do you one better.  I can tell you a universe consisting of many different worlds with invincible enemies.  It's called the Marvel Universe.

There is no "the Marvel Universe", the Marvelverse is a multi-verse, it therefore contains many universes most of which have many worlds with unbeatable enemies.

[grey_wind]

Until ME3, there was no proof that the Reapers were invincible. They claimed to be, but the story could have gone in any direction to prove they`re not, and thus to find a way to use that to our advantage to win the war.
ME3 goes to ludicrous lenghts to ensure that the Reaper threat is presented in such a manner that the only solution to solving it is a Deus ex Machina.

[satunnainen]

Reapers are not invincible, they are just very difficult to win with "normal" weaponry and tactics. Actually when you think about the reapers, they are not at all as advanced as you would think a 100 million to billion years older technology would be. Just think about earth, 100 million year ago the dinosaurs where the thing, No technology whatsoever, so they had to do everything with whatever bodyparts, claws, teeth was attached. Compare that to the modern tanks, missiles, flying drones, satellites, etc and think how good would the dinosaurs do against humans in a war? Current technology has developed in a relatively short time, few million years since fire/sticks/monolith was teaching use of tools... well maybe not the monolith...

If you are looking at any modern war(ish) conflict, you will notice that either party would be more than happy to arrange things so that they dont have any risk while they are trying to achieve whatever they are trying to achieve. And that is relatively similar technical development level.

Modifié par satunnainen, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:00 .

[Kataphrut94]

There have been plenty of invincible villains in fiction. There is a certain satisfaction to be gained in stopping an enemy no one thought stoppable, since it usually requires a fair bit of outside the box thinking and pluckiness.

The Reapers were pretty effective as invincible villains IMO. They were set up as this race of unstoppable killer god-machines in 1, and in 3 they definately made good on that reputation. even if the method in which they were pacified was contrived, it doesn't diminish the impact they had.

[vixvicco]

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)

I did the dark ritual..but I see your point.

[The Angry One]

Jamie9 wrote...

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Wrong, actually.

"The Strengths of both, the weaknesses of NEITHER!"  Saren, ME 1.

Naw, Saren wanted subservience, not synthesis.

Synthesis is subservience.

[Seboist]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

If you would consider the Crucible to be a DEM, then the file you get from Vigil would be a DEM. I would say the Catalyst is Macguffin more than Deus Ex Machine, we know we need the catalyst but it could be the citadel, a lost power orb, or a pink pony. The Crucible is a plot ticket if anything

Vigil is a DEM. He just spews out exposition. It's awesome, because of the music and the awe of the Protheans. But it's still a DEM.

I'd agree that the Catalyst is a Macguffin. It's what you're after, what you're trying to find.

I still don't think the Crucible qualifies as a Deus Ex Machina because after Lazarus Project, mind control being a biotic ability, and the Thorian/Indoctrinantion I think that Mass Effect is Science Fantasy and the dark energy device that releases a burst of energy through the relay networks is perfectly acceptable.

No.

Mass Effect is sci-fi. It just so happens to strike the right balance. Star Wars is too fantasy focused which makes it unrealistic. Star Trek is too science focused which makes it boring. Mass Effect combined the best of both. The only problem arises is when it goes off into one direction and that being fantasy come ME3.

ME is Ed Wood level schlock as evidenced by the likes of Lazarus,Crucible and Reaper plots.

[Indylavi]

Well from what Vigil told us in ME1. They weren't thought to be invincible. During their periods of hibernation he said they were vulnerable. I thought the Arrival DLC or even the entire ME2 storyline.

Should have been about going to the relay in dark space that is connected to the Citadel and blowing that relay up. Thus killing numerous Reapers in the supernova while they slept. Plus, slowing them down by denying a relay to them. But instead we got the Collectors and Batarians

That would've laid the ground work for being able to kill the Reapers conventionally. Since, the biggest weapon they have is surprise.

Modifié par Indylavi, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:47 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Well **** me. I guess you are the god of writing and know how people should write their villains. The Reapers being basically invincible is part of the story of Mass Effect. It makes the eventual triumph over them even sweeter.

How it makes it "sweeter"? Did you really expect ME ending in us not being able to beat them?
I mean, you pretty much can be sure that they will be ultimately defeated right from the start of the trilogy. The only thing you really want to know, how, and hoping that it will be interesting and enjoyable.