299 réponses à ce sujet

[satunnainen]

Joccaren wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

You forgot to open those new threads, the rest you seem to have done.

He does have a point, however.

When you hand in an essay that has no intro, no conclusion and no evidence to support your claims, its not that you're teacher thinks you're wrong whilst its your essay so really you're right, its that you have written a technically incorrect essay. It does not follow the proper writing conventions for an essay, and thus your teacher will mark it down.

Stories have writing conventions too. There is a style and flow that stories should follow, and certain things they should stear away from. A DEM is one of these things. No matter whether you think it is or not, a DEM is technically bad writting. Its pulling a solution out of your ass as you're too lazy to come up with a proper one. Its the opposite of "Rocks fall, everyone dies". Its "Rocks fall, everyone wins".

Whilst the writers may not be "Wrong" in how they've written their story, their story does not follow proper conventions and it can be criticised for this if the story does not work. The story doesn't work. We are criticising this. Are the writers wrong? No. Did they write a good story? Technically, no.

Well, the problem is that you people keep repeating the same phrases over and over. Technically those are opinions, not some kind of universal facts or laws of nature. Deus ex machina is bad writing, full stop. No explanation needed and anyone who dares to ask why is stupid and probably a Bioware fanboy? These things have been repeated so often here and usually the amount of people repeating them in some thread removes any need to explain any of them. When you ask why are Biowares writers incompetent you always get those same explanations.

As you said, there is not a single one correct way to tell a story, and in my opinion, stating that the story is bad just because of some plot device is both lazy thinking and stupid. Atleast try to analyze a bit or you just sound like some bandwagoner who is seeking excuses for the story/writer/Bioware bashing.

[Joccaren]

fchopin wrote...

There would not have been a citadel fleet a few thousand years ago to stop him.
 
The reapers can start the harvesting any time they like, they don’t have to wait 50,000 years.

Actually, there would have been a Citadel Fleet. Would there have been a Citadel Fleet before the Asari found the Citadel?
Well, no, but Civilization at that point hadn't reached a level at which harvesting them would be viable. It would be like picking fruit just after the flower has changed, when their still small and barely formed.

The Reapers don't just harvest everything anytime anywhere. That's not their purpose. Before there was a Citadel fleet, there was no point in harvesting. After there was a Citadel fleet, there was no way to harvest. The Reapers were outsmarted by the Prothean's last move. Its not a matter of them being idiots, its a matter of the Protheans acknowledging the patterns they followed, and setting a trap they wouldn't see until it was too late.

[Eain]

satunnainen wrote...

Well, the problem is that you people keep repeating the same phrases over and over. Technically those are opinions, not some kind of universal facts or laws of nature. Deus ex machina is bad writing, full stop. No explanation needed and anyone who dares to ask why is stupid and probably a Bioware fanboy? These things have been repeated so often here and usually the amount of people repeating them in some thread removes any need to explain any of them. When you ask why are Biowares writers incompetent you always get those same explanations.

As you said, there is not a single one correct way to tell a story, and in my opinion, stating that the story is bad just because of some plot device is both lazy thinking and stupid. Atleast try to analyze a bit or you just sound like some bandwagoner who is seeking excuses for the story/writer/Bioware bashing.

I can tell you why a deus ex machina is technically bad writing, we all can. The reason we can repeating these same things over and over is because they're true, and they're the points to attack the ME trilogy's writing team on.

What I cannot tell you, however, is whether or not a DEM should bother you. If it doesn't, great! If you can read stories written amateuristically and sloppily and you can still get a great amount of entertainment and satisfaction from them then more power to you. For me the market is smaller than it is for a person who has no narrative standard, as I would not bother with anything known to be written badly.

The main reason anyone has problems with bad writing is because it inherently challenges your suspension of disbelief. But some people are capable of suspending this infinitely. They are never challenged. If you do not feel that the Catalyst is a bothersome story element, and if you do not feel that the Crucible is a plot crutch, then nothing I can factually state about these things will appeal to you.

[yukon fire]

I actually thought this post was gonna be about not being able to beat K.L. on Thessia

[fchopin]

Joccaren wrote...

fchopin wrote...

There would not have been a citadel fleet a few thousand years ago to stop him.
 
The reapers can start the harvesting any time they like, they don’t have to wait 50,000 years.

Actually, there would have been a Citadel Fleet. Would there have been a Citadel Fleet before the Asari found the Citadel?
Well, no, but Civilization at that point hadn't reached a level at which harvesting them would be viable. It would be like picking fruit just after the flower has changed, when their still small and barely formed.

The Reapers don't just harvest everything anytime anywhere. That's not their purpose. Before there was a Citadel fleet, there was no point in harvesting. After there was a Citadel fleet, there was no way to harvest. The Reapers were outsmarted by the Prothean's last move. Its not a matter of them being idiots, its a matter of the Protheans acknowledging the patterns they followed, and setting a trap they wouldn't see until it was too late.

Why did they not fix the citadel after the prothean wars, why did they not check everything?
They are supposed to save the essence of the races by harvesting them so they should know everything a particular race learned so where is all this knowledge kept. They should have known all the problem and fixed them not wait 50,000 years and then start thinking what to do.

[AlexMBrennan]

kicked Darkspawn ass then killed the Archdemon controlling the Darkspawn. What is unconventional about that?

Because you're not fighting the darkspawn because you cannot fight the darkspawn. That's how the dwarfs died. That's how you lost the capital to the darkspawn. Face it - you were only able to win because the death of the Archdemon made all the darkspawn go away. This is what's technically known as a keystone army.

We gather a conventional army to fight his whilst Frodo takes the Ring that can end his undeath and destroys it.

An army that distracts Mordor's armies whilst you drop the ring into a volcano, taking out all of Mordors forces. Again, keystone army.

They fly a bomber up to the Deathstar, and bomb it in its weak point to kill it. How is that not conventional?

Imperial forces vastly outnumber the rebels - they have more infantry, more tanks, etc. The only way you won is because the Death Star had a massive weakness that allowed a rebel bomber to take it out. A weakness that the heroes spend one movie looking for.

In each case, you rely on some kind of plot device to allow the heroes to take out an otherwise invincible foe. Now, this plot device could be well done - like in Lord of the Rings - but Bioware had artistic integrity. I'm not saying that the Catalyst was well done.

What I am saying is that it is hardly unusual to have an otherwise infincible foe brought down via a convenient plot device. I am saying that it is quite possible to pull this off and get a good story. It's the execution that doomed this, not premise.

If the deus ex machina used to defeat the Reapers was a revelation that they're actually controlled by Harbinger, and that killing him would stop all Reapers, then premise would have remained unchanged. The Reapers would still have posed an insurmountable threat in ME1. Yet you would not be complaining. That's my point.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:20 .

[satunnainen]

I wonder if there is anyone in this thread who can explain to me why would just adding DEM in a story make it a bad story, or atleast bad writing. And please try to explain it, like one of the previous posters tried to tell, I am apparently too dumb to accept that universal truth just because plenty of people keep repeating it. Few people have tried so far, but they seem to repeat the same opinions over and over as explanations, because in their opinion, those are true.

Modifié par satunnainen, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:22 .

[Joccaren]

satunnainen wrote...
Well, the problem is that you people keep repeating the same phrases over and over. Technically those are opinions, not some kind of universal facts or laws of nature. Deus ex machina is bad writing, full stop. No explanation needed and anyone who dares to ask why is stupid and probably a Bioware fanboy? These things have been repeated so often here and usually the amount of people repeating them in some thread removes any need to explain any of them. When you ask why are Biowares writers incompetent you always get those same explanations.

As you said, there is not a single one correct way to tell a story, and in my opinion, stating that the story is bad just because of some plot device is both lazy thinking and stupid. Atleast try to analyze a bit or you just sound like some bandwagoner who is seeking excuses for the story/writer/Bioware bashing.

Phrases are repeated over and over partially because of bandwagoners, but also because they are true.
A Deus Ex Machina is a poor writing technique. Some people find them acceptable, however considered technically they are not.
A Deus Ex Machina: "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."
Now, a basic understanding of good writing will show numerous flaws in using one instantly, however lets just go through a couple.
1. It is contrived. It is created purely to solve this problem, rather than arising as a natural part of the story. It doesn't exist because the story flowed that way, it exists because the writers needed a way out of some situation, and they invented a means to that. Its like seeing an artistic sculpture, but its covered in duct tape to keep it together. The duct tape is not a natural part of the sculpture, its just there because the artist needed a way to keep the parts of it together. Whether it fits or not is up to the viewer, however a good contrived solution can disguise itself as natural, such as using superglue to hold the sculpture together rather than duct tape.
2. "Sudden and Upbruptly... unexpected intervention". A twist, in other words, though a bad twist. For examples of a good twist, see "Would you Kindly" from Bioshock. It is hinted at throughout the whole game, and when you reach that point you are left thinking "Wow. I can see how that works" rather than "Wait... What the hell?". Deus Ex Machina generally come straight out of left field with no forshadowing or introduction. They're just suddenly there. This confuses the audience, and makes the device appear even more contrived, whilst when you're telling your story you want to make it seem natural.

From these you can tell that a Deus Ex Machina is bad because it does not fit with the story [It does not feel natural], and it can leave your audience questioning where the hell it came from.
It also leaves the audience feeling cheated - rather than being given a well thought out, logical solution to a problem, the story takes a turn of "Magic happens, you win!". As I have said many times previously, I liken it to going up against the world master SC2 player, then activating God Mode and winning the match. Its a victory, but its an empty one.

I could go on explaining in other words how they feel forced, cheap and confusing, but hopefully you get the picture. They can sometimes be successfully implemented, provided the feel natural, but for a 170+ hour series to introduce something in the last 28 hours, and then only explain it in the last 10 minutes... Its not to hard to see where the criticism arises from.

[Joccaren]

fchopin wrote...

Why did they not fix the citadel after the prothean wars, why did they not check everything?
They are supposed to save the essence of the races by harvesting them so they should know everything a particular race learned so where is all this knowledge kept. They should have known all the problem and fixed them not wait 50,000 years and then start thinking what to do.

Because the Citadel was sabotaged AFTER the Prothean wars. The Reapers had already left the Galaxy.

I'm going to ask here and now: Have you played ME1?

When you reach Ilos Vigil clearly explains that the Protheans there entered stasis, and were awoken once all Reapers [Bar Sovereign] had left the Galaxy. They then took the Conduit to the Citadel, installed the virus, died, and were cleaned up by the Keepers.

The Reapers never knew that there was a problem until Sovereign tried to activate the Citadel 1000 or more years prior to ME1.

They harvest races by processing them into Grey Goo, then pumping that to make a Reaper. Any memories you had - gone.
In addition, Ilos was top secret, off the Records dark facility. It wasn't in the Citadel database - where the Reapers check for all known colonies and life signs, and fleets, in the Galaxy. The Protheans wanted Ilos to be a secret.
Thanks to this, few people would have even known about Ilos other than those working there. It was a forgotten colony that managed to survive the Reaper attack with 5 or so survivors. Those 5 survivors then sabotaged the Crucible.

[avenging_teabag]

satunnainen wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

You forgot to open those new threads, the rest you seem to have done.

He does have a point, however.

When you hand in an essay that has no intro, no conclusion and no evidence to support your claims, its not that you're teacher thinks you're wrong whilst its your essay so really you're right, its that you have written a technically incorrect essay. It does not follow the proper writing conventions for an essay, and thus your teacher will mark it down.

Stories have writing conventions too. There is a style and flow that stories should follow, and certain things they should stear away from. A DEM is one of these things. No matter whether you think it is or not, a DEM is technically bad writting. Its pulling a solution out of your ass as you're too lazy to come up with a proper one. Its the opposite of "Rocks fall, everyone dies". Its "Rocks fall, everyone wins".

Whilst the writers may not be "Wrong" in how they've written their story, their story does not follow proper conventions and it can be criticised for this if the story does not work. The story doesn't work. We are criticising this. Are the writers wrong? No. Did they write a good story? Technically, no.

Well, the problem is that you people keep repeating the same phrases over and over. Technically those are opinions, not some kind of universal facts or laws of nature. Deus ex machina is bad writing, full stop. No explanation needed and anyone who dares to ask why is stupid and probably a Bioware fanboy? These things have been repeated so often here and usually the amount of people repeating them in some thread removes any need to explain any of them. When you ask why are Biowares writers incompetent you always get those same explanations.

As you said, there is not a single one correct way to tell a story, and in my opinion, stating that the story is bad just because of some plot device is both lazy thinking and stupid. Atleast try to analyze a bit or you just sound like some bandwagoner who is seeking excuses for the story/writer/Bioware bashing.

The reason DEM is considered bad writing is simple - it doesn't follow the internal logic of the story. It's frequently the only way to resolve the central conflict if the writers don't know how (or don't want to) take pains to invent a more logical solution. Or if the writers get caught up in the beginning and the middle of their story and forget that it has also have an ending.

It's not opinion - what a hilarious thing to say, it's basics of creative writing. If it doesnt' bother you, fine, as I said, you're a lucky one, in a sense. But a DEM is the very definition of bad writing because it breaks the narrative logic. Even writers infinitely more skilled than Walters&Co fall to it from time to time - see the ending of King's The Stand for a textbook example. The difference is, King is good enough in his craft, and the ending of The Stand is a single bad spot in an otherwise excellent novel.  Walters&Co are not writers of King's calber, and the DEM that they pulled poisoned the entire game, possibly the entire trilogy.

Of course, storytelling is not exact science, it is maybe possible for a writer to be skilled enough to pull a DEM in his/her story and make it work, but the Bioware writers are not in that league, sorry. And if you don't have the chops to subvert the writing canons, you damn well better stick with what works - or, in our case, avoid what doesn't work.

[Joccaren]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
snip

I can see where you're coming from, though a keystone army is a bit different from a DEM, and a conventional fight is still required to reach the Keystone and destroy it. The Reapers mostly become a keystone army in ME3 after the Catalyst is revealed to be Citadel, however the MacGuffin/Magic Bullet/DEM/Whatever you want to label it that is the Crucible is still there as an issue.

Agreed, however that it is largely an execution issue. I believe I mentioned about writing a contrived device to feel natural. That is good execution, and can sometimes work to make a DEM palatable.
At the same time, a Keystone army is far more preferable to a DEM in a video game for the simple reason that it gives a final conflict that can satisfy the player and make them feel like they earned their victory, rather than just pressing a "Win" button. They themselves had to fight to get there, and thus it feels satisfying. With the Crucible, we don't fight to get it anywhere. We just see it flying along, and reaching its destination. We run for a beam, but for the entire buttle for Earth to rest on Shepards ability to figuratively press a button, as opposed to fight the enemy, feels quite cheap. Having the player personally escort the Crucible piloting the Normandy may have helped with this, though it wouldn't have fit in well with the rest of the game and would likely feel contrived.

Modifié par Joccaren, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:41 .

[avenging_teabag]

satunnainen wrote...

I wonder if there is anyone in this thread who can explain to me why would just adding DEM in a story make it a bad story, or atleast bad writing. And please try to explain it, like one of the previous posters tried to tell, I am apparently too dumb to accept that universal truth just because plenty of people keep repeating it. Few people have tried so far, but they seem to repeat the same opinions over and over as explanations, because in their opinion, those are true.

See above. Several people already tried to explain why a DEM is bad for a story. All you answer with is: "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man!"

But at least people on these here forums seem to have accepted that the Crucible is, in fact, a blatant Deus Ex Machina - that's a start, I guess.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:47 .

[avenging_teabag]

Joccaren wrote...

In addition, Ilos was top secret, off the Records dark facility. It wasn't in the Citadel database - where the Reapers check for all known colonies and life signs, and fleets, in the Galaxy. The Protheans wanted Ilos to be a secret.
Thanks to this, few people would have even known about Ilos other than those working there. It was a forgotten colony that managed to survive the Reaper attack with 5 or so survivors. Those 5 survivors then sabotaged the Crucible.

I remember Vigil saying that they just basically lucked out - all the records regarding Ilos were destroyed in the initial Citadel attack. They weren't off the records to begin with, but cut all communications and went dark after the reaper strike. Not that it changes a whole lot, just thought to point it out.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:51 .

[Mike 9987]

What do you mean? I can see the reapers fine. They are not invincible. This thread makes no sense.

[Femlob]

avenging_teabag wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

In addition, Ilos was top secret, off the Records dark facility. It wasn't in the Citadel database - where the Reapers check for all known colonies and life signs, and fleets, in the Galaxy. The Protheans wanted Ilos to be a secret.
Thanks to this, few people would have even known about Ilos other than those working there. It was a forgotten colony that managed to survive the Reaper attack with 5 or so survivors. Those 5 survivors then sabotaged the Crucible.

I remember Vigil saying that they just basically lucked out - all the records regarding Ilos were destroyed in the initial Citadel attack. They weren't off the records to begin with, but cut all communications and went dark after the reaper strike. Not that it changes a whole lot, just thought to point it out.

It's just dumb luck, yeah. The explanation is sound and the event is obviously necessary to give the universe a fighting chance, but it could easily have gone the other way - both with the records and the surviving scientists.

[humes spork]

An army that distracts Mordor's armies whilst you drop the ring into a volcano, taking out all of Mordors forces. Again, keystone army.

It's firmly my opinion that anyone who uses Tolkein as examples of "good writing without plot devices" or whatever anti-ending point they're trying to make are foolish and should be taken with a heaping spoonful of salt. That is because of one word: eucatastrophe.

It's a plot device Tolkein identified, the name of which he coined, in which the fate of a story's protagonists are reversed from the direst of circumstances to the best outside the flow of a story's natural progression. It's virtually identical to deus ex machina in form, but for the fact deus ex machina resolve the dramatic question and/or climax and eucatastrophes resolve the falling action. It was a plot device Tolkein relied upon multiple times (usually about twice, one in the closing of the first act and again in the falling action) per story, and absolutely cannot be ignored when discussing Tolkein, his narrative structure, and contributions to contemporary fiction...especially when you're going to use it to criticize the use of plot device in other works of fiction.

[satunnainen]

Joccaren wrote...

satunnainen wrote...
Well, the problem is that you people keep repeating the same phrases over and over. Technically those are opinions, not some kind of universal facts or laws of nature. Deus ex machina is bad writing, full stop. No explanation needed and anyone who dares to ask why is stupid and probably a Bioware fanboy? These things have been repeated so often here and usually the amount of people repeating them in some thread removes any need to explain any of them. When you ask why are Biowares writers incompetent you always get those same explanations.

As you said, there is not a single one correct way to tell a story, and in my opinion, stating that the story is bad just because of some plot device is both lazy thinking and stupid. Atleast try to analyze a bit or you just sound like some bandwagoner who is seeking excuses for the story/writer/Bioware bashing.

Phrases are repeated over and over partially because of bandwagoners, but also because they are true.
A Deus Ex Machina is a poor writing technique. Some people find them acceptable, however considered technically they are not.
A Deus Ex Machina: "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."
Now, a basic understanding of good writing will show numerous flaws in using one instantly, however lets just go through a couple.
1. It is contrived. It is created purely to solve this problem, rather than arising as a natural part of the story. It doesn't exist because the story flowed that way, it exists because the writers needed a way out of some situation, and they invented a means to that. Its like seeing an artistic sculpture, but its covered in duct tape to keep it together. The duct tape is not a natural part of the sculpture, its just there because the artist needed a way to keep the parts of it together. Whether it fits or not is up to the viewer, however a good contrived solution can disguise itself as natural, such as using superglue to hold the sculpture together rather than duct tape.
2. "Sudden and Upbruptly... unexpected intervention". A twist, in other words, though a bad twist. For examples of a good twist, see "Would you Kindly" from Bioshock. It is hinted at throughout the whole game, and when you reach that point you are left thinking "Wow. I can see how that works" rather than "Wait... What the hell?". Deus Ex Machina generally come straight out of left field with no forshadowing or introduction. They're just suddenly there. This confuses the audience, and makes the device appear even more contrived, whilst when you're telling your story you want to make it seem natural.

From these you can tell that a Deus Ex Machina is bad because it does not fit with the story [It does not feel natural], and it can leave your audience questioning where the hell it came from.
It also leaves the audience feeling cheated - rather than being given a well thought out, logical solution to a problem, the story takes a turn of "Magic happens, you win!". As I have said many times previously, I liken it to going up against the world master SC2 player, then activating God Mode and winning the match. Its a victory, but its an empty one.

I could go on explaining in other words how they feel forced, cheap and confusing, but hopefully you get the picture. They can sometimes be successfully implemented, provided the feel natural, but for a 170+ hour series to introduce something in the last 28 hours, and then only explain it in the last 10 minutes... Its not to hard to see where the criticism arises from.

Thanks for the explanation anyway, although I still cannot see it as an universal truth. My point is that people keep using "it has DEM" as and explanation for why the story of ME3 is badly written and writers incompetent. Question is: can you prove that it is impossible to write a good story with a DEM in it. And no "bad stories have DEM, therefore any story that has DEM is bad" kind of circular logic. I dont think that you can since we all know that a very good writer can break these so called rules of writing and still make a good story. If you cannot prove that, then you should atleast try to use some other explanation for your opinion of ME3 story than just "it has DEM".

As for the people repeating stuff, and that stuff becoming truth. It has happened a lot longer than the history of internet. It is one of the key elements of propaganda, among other things. People (generally, not necessarily individually) are quite gullible in surpricing ways.

[fchopin]

Joccaren wrote...

I'm going to ask here and now: Have you played ME1?

 
Yes i have played ME1 about 19 times.
 
It does not matter if the reapers left, it is logical that at least one reaper will remain to keep an eye on things and would notice any changes. If the reapers are not capable of keeping an eye out then they would be stupid and unintelligent.
 
And also explain to me why they allowed the protheans to become so advanced and it took the reapers over 100 years to stop them even with a surprise attack? It seems to me that reapers should have been defeated millions of years ago because they are so illogical and stupid they do not start harvesting at the correct time.

[Joccaren]

avenging_teabag wrote...
I remember Vigil saying that they just basically lucked out - all the records regarding Ilos were destroyed in the initial Citadel attack. They weren't off the records to begin with, but cut all communications and went dark after the reaper strike. Not that it changes a whole lot, just thought to point it out.

Eh, my bad then. I remember them purposefully being wiped from the Citadel Records, though I thought that was prior to the Citadel attack. I'll re-watch that convo some other time and double check.

[Eain]

For anyone wondering why a Deus Ex Machina is bad, I have for you an excerpt from a book that states it far more aptly than I ever could. It's hilarious and humorous and demonstrates the problem exceptionally well.

The book is How Not to Write a Novel by Sandra Newman and Howard Mittelmark. Here we go:

What if, despite all your best efforts, your story begins with an exciting premise and gathers momentum through purposeful and surprising scenes? Don't worry, it's still possible to drive away editors by writing an implausible, irrelevant ending. Here are some of our favourites:

But a Meteor Could Land There, Right?
It had all come down to this.
Thirteen short weeks ago, Rafael had been just another Adjunct Professor of Symbolology hoping for nothing more than to publish enough papers on his specialty, symbologolonics, to get on a tenure track and start thinking about retirement.
Then he had met Fafnir, the beautiful and exotic stranger who claimed to have proof of a secret society that had guarded a symbolologicolonical secret for two decades. The secret had taken them breathlessly across three continents, and they had been tested by many life-threatening situations, while each had discovered now facets of him- or herself, and also fell in love, though they had not yet "done it".
But now, here they were, cornered at the edge of a cliff with no possible route of escape from the deadly oncoming Thing from which they could not possibly escape, though they still had a few last moments to discuss the hopelessness of their situation and kiss each other goodbye.
Suddenly they heard the thwack-thwack-thwack sound of a helicopter overhead.
"Look," said Fafnir, pointing up.
The scrambled up the rope ladder that was lowered to them, narrowly escaping the Thing that was menacing them so menacingly. Once they were in the passenger cabin, they stared with surprise at the wealthy industrialist, who appraised them with a quirked brow.
"So you're the pair who have been causing all the trouble, eh?"
"Who are you?" Rafael asked, awed by his fancy clothes.
"I am Barrington Hewcott, richest man in the world, and I have decided that this has gone on for long enough. Now you two just sit back, and I'll have you home in a jiff."

------

Endings are the last refuge of the implausible, or so it would seem from all the climactic moments that come from so far beyond left field that they make left field look like right field. The reader is invested in seeing the hero resolve his problems himself, and feels disappointed when he doesn't. Further, by introducing a previously unmentioned element to resolve a situation, the author is suddenly changing the rules of his fictional world. This is as much fun as when somebody suddenly and unilaterally changes the rules of a game you are playing. It is as if the author had said, "oh, I just realised my plot doesn't work, so I'm going to add something from outside of my plot, ok?"

Okay! And we're going to add a manuscript to the paper shredder.

This particular blunder is known as a deus ex machina, which is French for "are you ****ing kidding me?".

If this doesn't make it clear, I'm not sure what does.

Modifié par Eain, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:11 .

[Joccaren]

satunnainen wrote...

Thanks for the explanation anyway, although I still cannot see it as an universal truth.

Its the same as saying an Essay without an introduction or conclusion is not universally a bad essay. It is. Whether the individual reading it minds or not is subjective, however whether it is bad writting or not: Going by the conventions that are accepted for writting, it is.

My point is that people keep using "it has DEM" as and explanation for why the story of ME3 is badly written and writers incompetent. Question is: can you prove that it is impossible to write a good story with a DEM in it.

No, but that is because it is an unfalsifiable statement. "There are no good stories with a DEM", "There just hasn't been one written yet". In 1 million years, if no good story with a DEM has been written, the situation is still the same "There are no good stories with a DEM", "There just hasn't been one written yet".
Theoretically it might be possible. A DEM is a bad story telling technique, however it can be successfully implemented if it is well thought out and written in a way that makes it seem natural and non contrived.

And no "bad stories have DEM, therefore any story that has DEM is bad" kind of circular logic.

Agreed. Moreso it is along these lines:
A story with DEM has a contrived and unexpected plot element.
This means that the Story has an element that feels out of place and confusing.
This is unsatisfactory for the reader.
Therefore, a story with a DEM in it is bad.
Is it theoretically possible to circumvent these problems? Yeah, and I don't doubt its probably been done a few times. Probably closer to 90% of DEMs used however are poorly implemented and manage to be unsavoury for the reader. Sadly, ME3s was poorly implemented, and that opens up a number of problems.

I dont think that you can since we all know that a very good writer can break these so called rules of writing and still make a good story. If you cannot prove that, then you should atleast try to use some other explanation for your opinion of ME3 story than just "it has DEM".

A very good writer has an ok chance of breaking the rules of writing and making a good story, but generally that chance still isn't great. It will all depend on how well written the rest of the story is, and how far from the rules of writing the author deviates. You will find that close to 95% or more of successful stories will follow these rules quite closely. Generally some of the more successful ones will deviate slightly from them, which makes them feel unique and interesting, but the difference between them and other stories that deviate and are unsuccessful is the extent to which they deviate. Even the best writer could not break all the rules of writing and have a good, or even coherant, story. The rules are based off what makes a story coherant and pleasant to read, hence why breaking them is generally seen as bad - you are writing in a way that is not pleasant to read.

[Joccaren]

fchopin wrote...

It does not matter if the reapers left, it is logical that at least one reaper will remain to keep an eye on things and would notice any changes. If the reapers are not capable of keeping an eye out then they would be stupid and unintelligent.

Reapers are capable of keeping an eye out. Hence why Sovereign would usher in the next invasion whenever it was needed. Reapers, however, are not omniscient. They do not want their existence to be known - as they are not invincible and a fleet could kill one without too much difficulty, which by Sovereigns death it would either lend the galaxy time to prepare a force that would defeat them, or force them to harvest too early, not harvesting enough to create a Sovereign class Reaper, maybe not even enough for a Destroyer.

What you are suggesting, however, is that they should know everything that is happening everywhere at every single time, that something that to you would seem like 4 insects inside your car should be noticed by them whilst they're asleep at night, or in the office working. Its not logical to even attempt to do that. The energy requirements vs possible gain are rediculous. Massive amounts of energy wasted to find out things were exactly as they were. Instead, they follow patterns. Wipe out all advanced organic life, check Citadel to make sure everything is Ok, go to Darkspace. It wastes no energy, and gives a reasonable assurance that the Citadel will be fine. The Protheans noticed this, however, and managed to manipulate their patterns against them.

Just because something is immensely strong and intelligent does not make it infallible.
 

And also explain to me why they allowed the protheans to become so advanced and it took the reapers over 100 years to stop them even with a surprise attack? It seems to me that reapers should have been defeated millions of years ago because they are so illogical and stupid they do not start harvesting at the correct time.

Because there was a galaxy of 100 billion stars, each of which likely held 9 planets for them to empty out?
Sure, not all of them were inhabited, but you know what, with limited numbers fighting an armed resistance across the entire galaxy, 100 years isn't bad. I'm not going to guess at how many colonies there were during the Prothean cycle, each of which would have tried to remain hidden, but I'm going to guess a lot. Hell, in ME3 it takes them 6 months to not even fully harvest Earth, or Palaven, or Thessia. Each is still putting up a resistance. Each will likely still put up a resistance for years to come. They haven't even gotten to hunting down every last tiny colony and space station humanity ever had and wiping it out, searching for hidden Cerberus or other black ops cell bases that don't appear on records, or ships that hid themselves in space. They have a galaxy to search. It will take time.

The Reapers do harvest at the right time for every cycle up until ours. Ours they were unable to because of Prothean interference. That is why we feel they should be defeatable this cycle: They weren't able to harvest at the right time for the first time in a billion years, we've had years to prepare, we're using their own technology against them, and various other reasons.

The Reapers aren't as stupid in ME1 as they are in ME3. In ME3 they are absolute idiots. In ME1 there are reasonable explanations for why everything has happened the way it has.

[Dean_the_Young]

This is an amusing thread, not least for all the people calling the Crucible or even the Catalyst a deus ex machina.

The Star Child? You could make that claim, but the Star Child was an exposition device, not the solution. It only explained what long-established devices would do, it didn't provide them out of nowhere.

[Joccaren]

Mike 9987 wrote...

What do you mean? I can see the reapers fine. They are not invincible. This thread makes no sense.

Umm. I think you have the wrong word.

The word you are thinking of is invisible.

Definition of invisible:  "not visible; not perceptible by the eye"
Definition of invincible: "
incapable of being conquered, defeated, or subdued"

[avenging_teabag]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This is an amusing thread, not least for all the people calling the Crucible or even the Catalyst a deus ex machina.

It is (the Crucible), but by all means, continue to be amused.

Reaper Boy, however, is not.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 09 juillet 2012 - 12:34 .