299 réponses à ce sujet

[Joccaren]

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.

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.

Well, it technically fits the criteria. It never states "Must appear at the last 5 minutes", only that it is contrived, sudden, abrupt and unexpected. Playing ME1 and 2, tell me that the Crucible at the start of ME3 was not Contrived, Abrupt, sudden and unexpected. It was nothing but those things.

[satunnainen]

Joccaren wrote...

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.

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.

Well, it technically fits the criteria. It never states "Must appear at the last 5 minutes", only that it is contrived, sudden, abrupt and unexpected. Playing ME1 and 2, tell me that the Crucible at the start of ME3 was not Contrived, Abrupt, sudden and unexpected. It was nothing but those things.

I am not sure any more what I was expecting when I started the playthrough of me3 first time. Something along the lines of: destroying reapers one by one will be very difficult if they all get in to the galaxy and start their harvesting attacks. So we will need either a weak spot, superweapon (tech, killswitch, whatever), or possibly the whole galaxys leaders have come to their senses and started speed manufacturing very big and strong ships that can fight reapers one on one...

It turned out to be a superweapon/gadget, and I cannot say that I was very surpriced. Ofcourse plugging that thing on citadel and still not knowing what it does felt a "bit" stupid.

The spacekid in the end didnt surprice too much, although with the dlc it is better. It was clearly just an AI with a stupid orders. If you want to call it DEM, feel free, I still am not sure it is one. Technically the crucible was the device that solved the problem, and since we spent most of ME3 building it, it shouldnt have been that big a surprice in the end. Spacekid was just the user interface of the reaper leader/ai

Modifié par satunnainen, 09 juillet 2012 - 01:11 .

[ZLurps]

Wulfram wrote...

Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.

Mass Effect at it's best was never really about the Reapers, it was about how people reacted to them. By surrendering, by denial or by standing against the inevitable. But none of these stories would have worked the same way if this was a threat.

But this is a video game. Ultimately we want to win video games. "Sorry, all your efforts were pointless, indeed doomed from the start" is not a satisfactory conclusion

Personally, I wouldn't have had the Reapers invade. At least, not for a good while longer. Keep them acting through proxies and lone vanguards like Sovereign or the Collectors, which you can defeat without devaluing the overall threat.

...snip...

Yes, though I'm fine with most of ME3's confrontation with "Gods". Ending is totally different matter, but enemy that would have been beatable with just huge space fleet, would been dissapointing. I think it had been corny and something we have seen in 99% of games already.

ME saga tried to do something different, and for most parts, it IMO was succesful. Ending(s) suck, but journey was good for the most parts of it.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Eain wrote...

Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible just to give the writer an opportunity to resolve the conflict with a deus ex machina?

People keep saying "we can't beat the Reapers in conventional warfare, we need some sort of superweapon."

Why should that be the premise of a story? Even if you strongly feel that we cannot beat the Reapers conventionally, does it at least not feel like rather childish storytelling?

Just curious.

Well some stories that make enemies invincible do an excellent job; I remember when Kefka became invincible in FF VI and literally ruled the world for a while until players found a way to defeat him. The only thing I felt was disappointing about this is that the previou games had literally suggested that Shepard could find a way to defeat the Reapers, from the prevention of Saren from activating the Citadel relay to bring in the Reapers, to the destruction of the Collectors and the Human Reaper, to the destruction of the Alpha Relay, etc. Then we get into 3 and it's almost like none of these accomplishments really mean anything since all they did essentially was forestall the galaxy's destruction.

[Urdnot Amenark]

ZLurps wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.

Mass Effect at it's best was never really about the Reapers, it was about how people reacted to them. By surrendering, by denial or by standing against the inevitable. But none of these stories would have worked the same way if this was a threat.

But this is a video game. Ultimately we want to win video games. "Sorry, all your efforts were pointless, indeed doomed from the start" is not a satisfactory conclusion

Personally, I wouldn't have had the Reapers invade. At least, not for a good while longer. Keep them acting through proxies and lone vanguards like Sovereign or the Collectors, which you can defeat without devaluing the overall threat.

...snip...

Yes, though I'm fine with most of ME3's confrontation with "Gods". Ending is totally different matter, but enemy that would have been beatable with just huge space fleet, would been dissapointing. I think it had been corny and something we have seen in 99% of games already.

ME saga tried to do something different, and for most parts, it IMO was succesful. Ending(s) suck, but journey was good for the most parts of it.

I think this situation would be far different though. A conventional victory would require more than simply space battles, and as we see, it wasn't the typical "humans magically overcome a daunting enemy by sheer will and pyrotechnics" premise. Shepard would literally have united an entire galaxy and used multiple resources in order to overcome them, as well as seen sacrifices that mattered for once. They wouldn't be hollow and generic like in the average action blockbuster. In essence that would've given the game an emotional authenticity.

[savionen]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.

Mass Effect at it's best was never really about the Reapers, it was about how people reacted to them. By surrendering, by denial or by standing against the inevitable. But none of these stories would have worked the same way if this was a threat.

But this is a video game. Ultimately we want to win video games. "Sorry, all your efforts were pointless, indeed doomed from the start" is not a satisfactory conclusion

Personally, I wouldn't have had the Reapers invade. At least, not for a good while longer. Keep them acting through proxies and lone vanguards like Sovereign or the Collectors, which you can defeat without devaluing the overall threat.

...snip...

Yes, though I'm fine with most of ME3's confrontation with "Gods". Ending is totally different matter, but enemy that would have been beatable with just huge space fleet, would been dissapointing. I think it had been corny and something we have seen in 99% of games already.

ME saga tried to do something different, and for most parts, it IMO was succesful. Ending(s) suck, but journey was good for the most parts of it.

I think this situation would be far different though. A conventional victory would require more than simply space battles, and as we see, it wasn't the typical "humans magically overcome a daunting enemy by sheer will and pyrotechnics" premise. Shepard would literally have united an entire galaxy and used multiple resources in order to overcome them, as well as seen sacrifices that mattered for once. They wouldn't be hollow and generic like in the average action blockbuster. In essence that would've given the game an emotional authenticity.

I agree with this. Uniting the galaxy is exactly what Shepard was supposed to do. The Crucible made victory completely hollow. Uniting everybody didn't really matter. Who lived or died, who was sacrificed didn't really matter. You didn't need an army. You didn't even need a squad. Hell, Shepard didn't even really matter. All that really mattered was that humans eventually built the Crucible, and they practically could have done it themselves.

[Jayleia]

Eain wrote...

Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible just to give the writer an opportunity to resolve the conflict with a deus ex machina?

People keep saying "we can't beat the Reapers in conventional warfare, we need some sort of superweapon."

Why should that be the premise of a story? Even if you strongly feel that we cannot beat the Reapers conventionally, does it at least not feel like rather childish storytelling?

Just curious.

Yeah, I'd have preferred to have spent the time gathering resources, finding small edges of Prothean or advanced allied techs, building a super-weapon that DOES affect a battle (and we know its a super-weapon because it says "This End Toward Enemy", instead of "Well...we THINK its a weapon...maybe...and we have no idea how, or if it will work".

Heck, for a bittersweet ending that I would have loved?  Everyone kicks in, smashes badguys...and it's not enough, but Liara had it all planned with her memory boxes, caches of materials and tech ready for the next cycle.  And the Stargazer is an alien telling a different alien kid about the Shepard...

The Refuse ending works well for that, showing, what LOOKS like an Asari talking to a child who seems human (but both are too far away to see).  That implies to me that at least some people from this cycle survive if Shepard refuses.

[Eire Icon]

Eain wrote...

Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible just to give the writer an opportunity to resolve the conflict with a deus ex machina?

People keep saying "we can't beat the Reapers in conventional warfare, we need some sort of superweapon."

Why should that be the premise of a story? Even if you strongly feel that we cannot beat the Reapers conventionally, does it at least not feel like rather childish storytelling?

Just curious.

Firstly the Reapers are not invincible, they are superior, There is a difference

The fact that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally is the story !!! - If conventional victory was possible Shepard would not have had the same level of influence, it would have gone down completely different paths. The Reapers superiority is the premise for the story !

[ZLurps]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Because a story about how people react to an unstoppable threat is different to a threat which you can hope to defeat on the battlefield.

Mass Effect at it's best was never really about the Reapers, it was about how people reacted to them. By surrendering, by denial or by standing against the inevitable. But none of these stories would have worked the same way if this was a threat.

But this is a video game. Ultimately we want to win video games. "Sorry, all your efforts were pointless, indeed doomed from the start" is not a satisfactory conclusion

Personally, I wouldn't have had the Reapers invade. At least, not for a good while longer. Keep them acting through proxies and lone vanguards like Sovereign or the Collectors, which you can defeat without devaluing the overall threat.

...snip...

Yes, though I'm fine with most of ME3's confrontation with "Gods". Ending is totally different matter, but enemy that would have been beatable with just huge space fleet, would been dissapointing. I think it had been corny and something we have seen in 99% of games already.

ME saga tried to do something different, and for most parts, it IMO was succesful. Ending(s) suck, but journey was good for the most parts of it.

I think this situation would be far different though. A conventional victory would require more than simply space battles, and as we see, it wasn't the typical "humans magically overcome a daunting enemy by sheer will and pyrotechnics" premise. Shepard would literally have united an entire galaxy and used multiple resources in order to overcome them, as well as seen sacrifices that mattered for once. They wouldn't be hollow and generic like in the average action blockbuster. In essence that would've given the game an emotional authenticity.

IMO Shepard did just that, gathered resources of galactic races to buy time to finish the Crusible. The problem I see that if you can beat "God" with a gun, it's not really a "God". Crusible can been seen as "Deus Ex" machine, but I guess that it was meant to be something far more clever than what we actually got with a joke from writer, your "God killer" is "God from the machine".

[Daniel_N7]

Eire Icon wrote...

Eain wrote...

Can anyone tell me in what world it's considered quality writing to make an enemy invincible just to give the writer an opportunity to resolve the conflict with a deus ex machina?

People keep saying "we can't beat the Reapers in conventional warfare, we need some sort of superweapon."

Why should that be the premise of a story? Even if you strongly feel that we cannot beat the Reapers conventionally, does it at least not feel like rather childish storytelling?

Just curious.

Firstly the Reapers are not invincible, they are superior, There is a difference

The fact that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally is the story !!! - If conventional victory was possible Shepard would not have had the same level of influence, it would have gone down completely different paths. The Reapers superiority is the premise for the story !

Respectfully, no. That is the story of ME3, not the story of the trilogy. Yes, the Reapers where a threat, and the fact that the intergalactic community refused to believe in their existence - or believe in Shepard - is what made them such a big menace.

The fact that you couldn't win the Reapers conventionally is a premise that was only established in ME3.

[jeff359]

They aren't invincible, they die. They are just outside our weight class.

[Eire Icon]

Daniel_N7 wrote...

The fact that you couldn't win the Reapers conventionally is a premise that was only established in ME3.

Disagree - The Reapers initiate the start of the cycle before Organic life is advanced enough to threaten them. They allow their own technology to be used to ensure organics develop along the lines they find desireable. The Reapers have been monitoring organic life for 50,000 years, they will not allow them to develop to a stage that they are a threat conventionally.

Soverigns attack on the Citadel confirmed the Reapers might.

The Reapers are not ionvincible - that is why they initiate the cycle.

For that reason it is firmly established that the Reapers are superior and cannot be defeated conventionally accross the Trilogy

[Demadrio]

The Crucible is not a deus ex machina, and as a part of the story it is not bad writing. The fact that it FEELS to many people like a deus ex machina IS bad writing.

[Demadrio]

OK, as long as we're discussing story writing, let's go over a few points:

The Crucible is not a deus ex machina. From the beginning of the game, we're told it's a device that will end the Reaper threat. It does exactly that.

Of course the Reapers caught the galaxy unprepared, it's what they do. After every harvest, the Reapers wipe out all clues they were there. Nazara (Sovereign) stays behind to keep a discreet eye on things, and when it's time for the next harvest, Nazara sends the signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel and BOOM! Instant RoboCthulu Fleet of the Apocalypse where the frak did they come from?! Only the Prothean survivors on Ilos stopped it from happening again this time. They left the beacons to warn of the Reapers and they stopped the Keepers from receiving Nazara's signal. So the Galaxy got a little bit of a headstart, even if only a handful of people were doing anything about it.

Shepard's death at the end of ME3 was intended and foreshadowed all the way back in ME1. You don't have Ashley quote "O Captain my Captain" at him if you don't mean it.

The Crucible is not a humans-only endeavor. Play your cards right and everyone from salarians and quarians to geth and rachni help build it. Mess things up or have humans try to go it alone, and it blows up the solar system.

The goal was to break the cycle of harvest, not simply to destroy the Reapers. Yes, desroying them is one way to break the cycle, but it is not the only way, and whether it's even the best way depends on the player's own feelings. But that fact remains that once Vigil informs you of the existence of the cycle, it doesn't say "the Reapers must be destroyed", it says, "the cycle must be broken". Which leads me to...

The ending the first two games were building towards would not have worked. All the foreshaowing pointed to an ending where galactic civilization abandoned the mass relays and the Citadel for some new tenchology they developed themselves. The conduit, being the first mass relay known to be crated after the cycle of harvest began, played into that. So did Matriarch Aethyta's talk about getting mocked all the way off Thessia for suggesting the asari try something similar. So did the mission on Haestrom (the idea would have been that dark energy expelled by the mass relays over all these millions of years is finally destabilizing stars).

But this would have worked. The galaxy would never have undertaken such endeavors without the Council's sponsorship, and the Council would never have gone for it.
Why?

Reaper artifacts have the power to indocrinate anyone what stays in contact with them long. We see that with the dragon's teeth, and especially with Arrival. The Citadel and the mass relays are Reaper artifacts.

Yes, there's some pretty bad writing, but the Crucible itself is just fine. Over the course of the game, we find out that the Crucible is a device intended to end the Raper threat, once and for all. The militarily minded characters assume that means it's a weapon, but they don't know that for sure. We also learn that it's not of Prothean design — it's been passed down from cycle to cycle, modified a little each time, and nobody knows who conceived it in the first place.

When Shepard finally activates it, she interfaces with the Catalist, who controls the Reapers. Shepard is the first organic being ever to do so, and her ability to do so informs the Catalist that the cycle isn't working anymore and that a new "solution" is required. So the Catalyst presents Shepard with her available options, and the consequences of her choice are felt throughout the galaxy. The cycle is broken (even if Shepard chooses to let this particular harvest finish, it is the last), and the galaxy is free of the Reaper threat. Which is just what we set out to do. So...

Where the poor writing comes in is not in the plot itself, but in the underdevelopment. The Extended Cut supplies a lot more exposition, but even with that and Javik's input from From Ashes there are still some things that are unclear. It is suggested in extremely subtle ways that whoever built the Reapers may have conceived the Crucible as a contigency plan, or to see when the galaxy has grown enough that harvest is no longer necessary, but far too little is ever stated to support such ideas being canon. Also, there's next to nothing about how the Council got to be three aliens and Udina, regardless of the choices you make. If you think about it it kinda makes sense that the Reapers would shape it that way to stack the cards in their own favor, but a few lines of dialogue would have cleared things right up.


But what really gets me is the flanderization that began in ME2. In ME1, Joker explains that his brittle bone disease is limited to his legs and hips, and nothing else. In ME2 no bone in his body is safe. In ME1, a Reaper had stayed behind to monitor galactic civilizations to see when they're ready for harvest, and the extinction of the Protheans just happened to have occured about 50,000 years ago. In ME2, that gets changed to the Reapers coming every 50,000 years like clockwork. These, plus a number of unfortunate visual and gameplay changes (who the frak thought up thermal clips?!) really brought down the rest of the trilogy IMO.

Modifié par Demadrio, 09 juillet 2012 - 04:30 .

[High Kicks]

At times, I almost wish that ME2 would have held the line on two fronts:
1.) Stopping the collectors
2.) Developing ways to defeat Reapers.
Cerberus was a distraction, fighting the Collectors was a distraction. A valid one, but still distracting. Shepard forced death was distracting and it sucked. I wanna say TIM somehow did it purpose, but I don't know. Everything about Cerberus was distracting and, for some Shepards, insulting. They spent all of Shepard's time on Collectors. And, just by reading the reports at the end of some missions, you could
tell what Cerberus was doing. Looking for ways to control the reapers/husk/whatever.

One team holds off the Collectors while another researches ways on killing Reapers. The Turians and TIM managed to salvage some of Sovvy's parts and make some good use out of them, why not do this all around? Its like the wrigters were holding the characters back from finding  better more effective way to deal with the Reapers. You'd think after the attack on the Citadel, everyone would cooperate more. But, nope. Everybody that had the ability to make a different had dummy blinds on or something. The galaxy doesn't have anything to fight with. So, when it came down to it in ME3, they were backed into a corner.

In ME2, if you upgraded you were given an edge. If you didn't, you were dead.

The same can apply here. Nobody prepared for this until the last minute. Conventionally means of victory are thrown outta the window because ****** poor preparation I'd like to think.

I think there were crap loads of missed opportunities to gain some helpful resources like maybe keeping the original Shadow Broker.

In the beginning, he didn't want Saren to win because he knew about the Reapers. But, all of a sudden in ME2, he changes his tune? He knew about Reapers, Collectors, and I think the Crucible, too becauseLiara kinda hinted at this in the DLC. But, he had to die because Liara wanted him dead.

Chorban and Jaleed was able to figure the keepers out on their own.

Using the Prothean Archieve before hand. Been there for years collecting dust. Everybody and their freaking mom knew it was there apparently.

Shepard's cipher.

There was just too much getting in the way. The Counsel is dumb. The Alliance is dumb (save for Anderson). Everybody is just...dumb!

Modifié par High Kicks, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:18 .

[Tasker]

I've just posted the gist of this in a different thread but I think it fits in here too...


When the Crucible was first mentioned I thought that it would be a weapon to level the playing field.

I thought it would fire a pulse through the citadel relay that would screw up the mass effect field of any Reaper in range of a mass relay.

Making it so that they were susceptible to conventional weapons.

This would have taken away the invincibility of the Reapers and make it so that they could still be used as a villain for future games.

[Eain]

Demadrio wrote...

OK, as long as we're discussing story writing, let's go over a few points:

The Crucible is not a deus ex machina. From the beginning of the game, we're told it's a device that will end the Reaper threat. It does exactly that.

Absolutely, completely, utterly wrong. I am going to keep hammering this point until the naysayers on this forum get it.

THE CRUCIBLE IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A DEUS EX MACHINA.

If you say that it is not, you are wrong, factually wrong. The precise moment of introduction has no bearing on whether or not something is a deus ex machina device, and citing it as evidence to the contrary demonstrates only your unfamiliarity with the concept.

The reason why the Crucible is a DEM device is as follows:

At the moment of the Reaper invasion, the galaxy is effectively finished. The setting as we know it has established amply that the Reapers are going to kill us all. Shepard and his allies stand on the brink of the abyss with death staring them in the face. The ENTIRE GALAXY is standing on the brink of the abyss with death staring them in the face.

Were it not for the sudden, unexpected, arbitrary and most of all contrived discovery of the Crucible in the Mars archives, the entire galaxy would've fallen off the brink and straight into the abyss and the story would have been over. The moment the Reapers arrived the galaxy was effectively finished, and the only reason we have a plot at all is because Liara found the plans for a Reaper destroying superweapon lying around the largest prothean library in the galaxy, that all races had access to ever since it was opened.

The notion that a DEM must by definition resolve the plot is wrong. It can start a plot, it can drive a plot, or it can resolve one. It doesn't matter. If a DEM device allows for the continuation of a story rather than the immediate abortion of one due to the protagonist lacking out of options and being defeated, it is no less a DEM. Had Liara not conveniently come across the plans for the Crucible there would have been no story to tell. Hence, contrived.

Of course the Reapers caught the galaxy unprepared, it's what they do. After every harvest, the Reapers wipe out all clues they were there. Nazara (Sovereign) stays behind to keep a discreet eye on things, and when it's time for the next harvest, Nazara sends the signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel and BOOM! Instant RoboCthulu Fleet of the Apocalypse where the frak did they come from?! Only the Prothean survivors on Ilos stopped it from happening again this time. They left the beacons to warn of the Reapers and they stopped the Keepers from receiving Nazara's signal. So the Galaxy got a little bit of a headstart, even if only a handful of people were doing anything about it.

Again you are wrong. Blatantly, flat-out wrong. The only reason the galaxy was unprepared had nothing to do with the Reapers and everything with the infinite and CONTRIVED stupidity the galaxy's rulers. The writers went out of their way to ensure that every attempt of Shepard's to prepare the galaxy was met with ignorance, and thereby they went out of their way to sabotage a logical resolution of the story. The whole gain of ME1's events was that Sovereign proved the Reapers were real when he attacked the Citadel, thereby giving the galaxy time to prepare. In ME2 we discover that the Council still stubbornly refuses to believe. The writers did their absolute and utmost best to ensure that the Reapers still had the element of surprise despite the fact that if the story had progressed logically the galaxy would've at least been prepared to some extent, however futile or feeble those preparations may have been.

The story is written almost as if the writers wanted nothing more than to suddenly pull something out of their ass when the Reapers invaded, allowing for some sort of contrivance that would not only compensate for the galaxy's unrelenting stupidity but nullify the entire threat posed by the enemy at all. Something like, here's a thought, plans for a giant Reaper-defeating superweapon just hanging around a library that Liara could've looked for Reaper evidence in the moment she was recruited by Shepard, but for some reason did not because she would rather run her little Illium office and be an information broker in a world inhabited by people too stupid to use information when it is given to them!

Gonna spare myself the rest of the post in order to retain my sanity.

Modifié par Eain, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:05 .

[High Kicks]

Eain wrote...

Demadrio wrote...

OK, as long as we're discussing story writing, let's go over a few points:

The Crucible is not a deus ex machina. From the beginning of the game, we're told it's a device that will end the Reaper threat. It does exactly that.

Absolutely, completely, utterly wrong. I am going to keep hammering this point until the naysayers on this forum get it.

THE CRUCIBLE IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A DEUS EX MACHINA.

If you say that it is not, you are wrong, factually wrong. The precise moment of introduction has no bearing on whether or not something is a deus ex machina device, and citing it as evidence to the contrary demonstrates only your unfamiliarity with the concept.

The reason why the Crucible is a DEM device is as follows:

At the moment of the Reaper invasion, the galaxy is effectively finished. The setting as we know it has established amply that the Reapers are going to kill us all. Shepard and his allies stand on the brink of the abyss with death staring them in the face. The ENTIRE GALAXY is standing on the brink of the abyss with death staring them in the face.

Were it not for the sudden, unexpected, arbitrary and most of all contrived discovery of the Crucible in the Mars archives, the entire galaxy would've fallen off the brink and straight into the abyss and the story would have been over. The moment the Reapers arrived the galaxy was effectively finished, and the only reason we have a plot at all is because Liara found the plans for a Reaper destroying superweapon lying around the largest prothean library in the galaxy, that all races had access to ever since it was opened.

The notion that a DEM must by definition resolve the plot is wrong. It can start a plot, it can drive a plot, or it can resolve one. It doesn't matter. If a DEM device allows for the continuation of a story rather than the immediate abortion of one due to the protagonist lacking out of options and being defeated, it is no less a DEM. Had Liara not conveniently come across the plans for the Crucible there would have been no story to tell. Hence, contrived.

[/b]

[b]Of course the Reapers caught the galaxy unprepared, it's what they do. After every harvest, the Reapers wipe out all clues they were there. Nazara (Sovereign) stays behind to keep a discreet eye on things, and when it's time for the next harvest, Nazara sends the signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel and BOOM! Instant RoboCthulu Fleet of the Apocalypse where the frak did they come from?! Only the Prothean survivors on Ilos stopped it from happening again this time. They left the beacons to warn of the Reapers and they stopped the Keepers from receiving Nazara's signal. So the Galaxy got a little bit of a headstart, even if only a handful of people were doing anything about it.

Again you are wrong. Blatantly, flat-out wrong. The only reason the galaxy was unprepared had nothing to do with the Reapers and everything with the infinite and CONTRIVED stupidity the galaxy's rulers. The writers went out of their way to ensure that every attempt of Shepard's to prepare the galaxy was met with ignorance, and thereby they went out of their way to sabotage a logical resolution of the story. The whole gain of ME1's events was that Sovereign proved the Reapers were real when he attacked the Citadel, thereby giving the galaxy time to prepare. In ME2 we discover that the Council still stubbornly refuses to believe. The writers did their absolute and utmost best to ensure that the Reapers still had the element of surprise despite the fact that if the story had progressed logically the galaxy would've at least been prepared to some extent, however futile or feeble those preparations may have been.

The story is written almost as if the writers wanted nothing more than to suddenly pull something out of their ass when the Reapers invaded, allowing for some sort of contrivance that would not only compensate for the galaxy's unrelenting stupidity but nullify the entire threat posed by the enemy at all. Something like, here's a thought, plans for a giant Reaper-defeating superweapon just hanging around a library that Liara could've looked for Reaper evidence in the moment she was recruited by Shepard, but for some reason did not because she would rather run her little Illium office and be an information broker in a world inhabited by people too stupid to use information when it is given to them!

Gonna spare myself the rest of the post in order to retain my sanity.

I don't know you, but I like you.

[motfcu]

Reapers weren't invicible until the end of ME 3. Two or three shots from the main gun of a dreadnought are enough to blow the shields of a Sovereign class easily (look at your codex about the Sovereign class if you want proof).

Sovereign was hard to destroy because dreadnoughts could'nt use their main guns (there was the Citadel all around them). In Mass Effect 3 they have Thanix guns, MAC-like guns and hundreds of ships. If they concentrate their fire they could have easily destroy a quarter of the Reaper fleet during the first shots of the battle of Earth.

But no, Bioware made them invicible.


Additionnaly, the real Deus Ex Machina in ME3 isn't the Crucible, it's the goddam child/AI.
If the Crucible was just a big "kill all the Reapers in the galaxy" like weapon. Then the goal during the battle of Earth would have been "manage to put the Crucible on the Citadel and make it works". Choices (like Mass Effect 2 ending) and EMS would have infuenced the results from complete failure to epic victory.

This would have been great.

[avenging_teabag]

Eain wrote...

Demadrio wrote...

OK, as long as we're discussing story writing, let's go over a few points:

The Crucible is not a deus ex machina. From the beginning of the game, we're told it's a device that will end the Reaper threat. It does exactly that.

Absolutely, completely, utterly wrong. I am going to keep hammering this point until the naysayers on this forum get it.

THE CRUCIBLE IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A DEUS EX MACHINA.

If you say that it is not, you are wrong, factually wrong. The precise moment of introduction has no bearing on whether or not something is a deus ex machina device, and citing it as evidence to the contrary demonstrates only your unfamiliarity with the concept.

The reason why the Crucible is a DEM device is as follows:

At the moment of the Reaper invasion, the galaxy is effectively finished. The setting as we know it has established amply that the Reapers are going to kill us all. Shepard and his allies stand on the brink of the abyss with death staring them in the face. The ENTIRE GALAXY is standing on the brink of the abyss with death staring them in the face.

Were it not for the sudden, unexpected, arbitrary and most of all contrived discovery of the Crucible in the Mars archives, the entire galaxy would've fallen off the brink and straight into the abyss and the story would have been over. The moment the Reapers arrived the galaxy was effectively finished, and the only reason we have a plot at all is because Liara found the plans for a Reaper destroying superweapon lying around the largest prothean library in the galaxy, that all races had access to ever since it was opened.

The notion that a DEM must by definition resolve the plot is wrong. It can start a plot, it can drive a plot, or it can resolve one. It doesn't matter. If a DEM device allows for the continuation of a story rather than the immediate abortion of one due to the protagonist lacking out of options and being defeated, it is no less a DEM. Had Liara not conveniently come across the plans for the Crucible there would have been no story to tell. Hence, contrived.

[/b]

[b]Of course the Reapers caught the galaxy unprepared, it's what they do. After every harvest, the Reapers wipe out all clues they were there. Nazara (Sovereign) stays behind to keep a discreet eye on things, and when it's time for the next harvest, Nazara sends the signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel and BOOM! Instant RoboCthulu Fleet of the Apocalypse where the frak did they come from?! Only the Prothean survivors on Ilos stopped it from happening again this time. They left the beacons to warn of the Reapers and they stopped the Keepers from receiving Nazara's signal. So the Galaxy got a little bit of a headstart, even if only a handful of people were doing anything about it.

Again you are wrong. Blatantly, flat-out wrong. The only reason the galaxy was unprepared had nothing to do with the Reapers and everything with the infinite and CONTRIVED stupidity the galaxy's rulers. The writers went out of their way to ensure that every attempt of Shepard's to prepare the galaxy was met with ignorance, and thereby they went out of their way to sabotage a logical resolution of the story. The whole gain of ME1's events was that Sovereign proved the Reapers were real when he attacked the Citadel, thereby giving the galaxy time to prepare. In ME2 we discover that the Council still stubbornly refuses to believe. The writers did their absolute and utmost best to ensure that the Reapers still had the element of surprise despite the fact that if the story had progressed logically the galaxy would've at least been prepared to some extent, however futile or feeble those preparations may have been.

The story is written almost as if the writers wanted nothing more than to suddenly pull something out of their ass when the Reapers invaded, allowing for some sort of contrivance that would not only compensate for the galaxy's unrelenting stupidity but nullify the entire threat posed by the enemy at all. Something like, here's a thought, plans for a giant Reaper-defeating superweapon just hanging around a library that Liara could've looked for Reaper evidence in the moment she was recruited by Shepard, but for some reason did not because she would rather run her little Illium office and be an information broker in a world inhabited by people too stupid to use information when it is given to them!

Gonna spare myself the rest of the post in order to retain my sanity.

PREACH IT

[Whimper]

Eain wrote...

Absolutely, completely, utterly wrong. I am going to keep hammering this point until the naysayers on this forum get it.

THE CRUCIBLE IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A DEUS EX MACHINA.

If you say that it is not, you are wrong, factually wrong. The precise moment of introduction has no bearing on whether or not something is a deus ex machina device, and citing it as evidence to the contrary demonstrates only your unfamiliarity with the concept. . . 

<snip>

The notion that a DEM must by definition resolve the plot is wrong. It can start a plot, it can drive a plot, or it can resolve one. It doesn't matter. I

I don't know, but your textbook and mine are at odds. No point arguing with you though, since you just like to shout about how "wrong" everyone is.  

But every single definition I read of deus ex machina talked about it being a cheap and arbitrary resolution of a plot, usually at the climax.  Find me one reputable source that backs your claims, and I'll be happier with that than with all the boldface print you can muster.  I'll save you from checking the following three sources, since they won't help you.


N.B.:

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

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

Definition of DEUS EX MACHINA
1: a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome2: 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

 

Modifié par Whimper, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:42 .

[ZLurps]

motfcu wrote...

Reapers weren't invicible until the end of ME 3. Two or three shots from the main gun of a dreadnought are enough to blow the shields of a Sovereign class easily (look at your codex about the Sovereign class if you want proof).

Sovereign was hard to destroy because dreadnoughts could'nt use their main guns (there was the Citadel all around them). In Mass Effect 3 they have Thanix guns, MAC-like guns and hundreds of ships. If they concentrate their fire they could have easily destroy a quarter of the Reaper fleet during the first shots of the battle of Earth.

But no, Bioware made them invicible.

This is either bull**** or Codex contradits itself (which is a real possibility, considering that it's written it's written as "in universe").

From Codex:
http://masseffect.wi...dex/The_Reapers


"The kinetic barriers on a Reaper capital ship can shrug off the firepower of a small fleet. Weapons specifically designed to overcome shields, such as the Javelin, GARDIAN lasers, or the Thanix series, can bypass the barriers to some degree. The difficulty is getting close enough to use them -- the surface-mounted weaponry on Reaper ships,
similar in principle to GARDIAN, presents an effective defense against organic species' fighters."


"In the case of a Reaper capital ship, these kinetic barriers can hold off the firepower of two dreadnoughts simultaneously, but three clearly causes strain, and four typically results in destruction. Weapons designed to maximize heat damage, such as the Thanix series, show better results against the Reapers than pure kinetic impacts."

Modifié par ZLurps, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:35 .

[DeepChild]

I was of the same mind as the OP at first.  The whole crucible "super weapon" narrative device was really disappointing when it was first revealed.  It wasn't until after playing the EC and taking it all in that it began to grow on me.  

The Reapers are not an enemy in the traditional sense.  They are so advanced, so powerful, so numerous, that they are more akin to a force of nature, a Lovecraftian horror, if you will.  All throughout ME1 and 2 we're led to believe that if the Reapers arrive in our galaxy, we're completely doomed.  From the very beginning of ME3, we're shown just how devastating the Reapers are.  It's been stated a thousand times in discussions about the endings that the goal in the ME games is the destruction of the Reapers.  I take issue with that.  It's really to find a way to survive the raging storm that has consumed every civilization in every cycle before.  Yes, Shep wants to destroy them.  Who wouldn't after seeing the atrocities they've committed.  But that's often phrased as "I'll find some way to stop them".  And that's all Shep can really hope for: some way to stop the killing.

The question remains however.  "Why write an invincible enemy rather than an overpowering one that CAN be defeated?"  It's just a different kind of story.  However, I think this kind of story is necessary to elevate the Reapers to their aloof and mysterious place as the ME universe's lurking unspeakable horror.

[Whimper]

I liked that Lovecraft aspect to Sovereign. And I liked that, even after having killed Sovereign, there was this notion that an unbeatable legion of his Reaper brethren awaited in dark-space. The idea of the invincible and imponderable alien force was very cool.

[Demadrio]

Eain wrote...

Again you are wrong. Blatantly, flat-out wrong. The only reason the galaxy was unprepared had nothing to do with the Reapers and everything with the infinite and CONTRIVED stupidity the galaxy's rulers.

*sigh*

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The galaxy's rulers were indoctrinated.

Reaper artifacts can indoctrinate anyone over prolonged exposure. This is a point made over and over in the games. So is the point that the Citadel is a Reaper artifact.

Sovereign specifically states that the main function of the Citadel and the mass relays to ensure that galactic civilization evolves the way the Reapers want it to.

Again: the Council was not stupid, it was indoctrinated by the Reapers to dismiss Shepard's warnings. Which fits perfectly into established lore and history within the ME verse. And if you started ME3 expecting the Council to behave differently, you simply weren't paying attention.