251 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

However Shepard provides the kid with the thought that his plan no longer works...nevermind about what I said about the "Catalyst is the Citadel" revelation that comes earlier in th estory.

Shepard only makes it there because Starbrat brings her right to him. Starbrat could have left Shepard to die near Anderson and the cycle would have went on.

However, the Crucible "changed the variables".....thats why he brought Shepard up.

Plus he needs him or her.

[3DandBeyond]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Catalyst may "Provide" the choices, but he cannot enact them, thats his problem. He cannot break the cycle without Shepard.

Nevermind that Shepard in fact acted on him by even docking the Crucible.....it is Shepard's intervention that makes the Catalyst be able to provide his "solutions"....which in a sense are more problems.

No, he never takes ownership for them, except for in a sense, synthesis.

Nevermind that the "Catalyst as the Citadel" comes out earlier in the story, which makes the fact that the "Catalyst as the Citadel" allowing the choices as well to not fit the trope.

However, Vigil in ME1 IS a Deus Ex Machina......and the Fifth Fleet in ME1 with Joker is a DEM by way of plot hole.

Shepard hit a button and opened up the citadel.  Shepard didn't dock the crucible.  S/he didn't move it at all.

It does not matter if Shepard uses what the DeM provides.  Shepard didn't provide the solutions.  Shepard was not dropped in with not prior explanation and Shepard wasn't contrived.

The catalyst as the citadel is one thing, but as a glowy space kid is another.  And the kid says his solution wouldn't work anymore and he needed a new solution. 


And DeMs are usually bad, but not always.  Generally it's when they substitute for major events as in an ending of 3 stories/games.  Vigil moves the plot along, but "he" is a minor character in the scheme of things.

There are DeMs in stories that give characters something that they can use that will solve the problem.  That's what happened here even if it was just knowledge.

[Mr.House]

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

However Shepard provides the kid with the thought that his plan no longer works...nevermind about what I said about the "Catalyst is the Citadel" revelation that comes earlier in th estory.

Shepard only makes it there because Starbrat brings her right to him. Starbrat could have left Shepard to die near Anderson and the cycle would have went on.

However, the Crucible "changed the variables".....thats why he brought Shepard up.
.

That's speculation.That line only goes with him telling Shepard what the cruible will do. That line has nothing to do with Starbrat brining Shepard right to him.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
The Catalyst may "Provide" the choices, but he cannot enact them, thats his problem. He cannot break the cycle without Shepard. 

Nevermind that Shepard in fact acted on him by even docking the Crucible.....it is Shepard's intervention that makes the Catalyst be able to provide his "solutions"....which in a sense are more problems.

No, he never takes ownership for them, except for in a sense, synthesis.

Nevermind that the "Catalyst as the Citadel" comes out earlier in the story, which makes the fact that the "Catalyst as the Citadel" allowing the choices as well to not fit the trope.

However, Vigil in ME1 IS a Deus Ex Machina......and the Fifth Fleet in ME1 with Joker is a DEM by way of plot hole.

The more debate there is on the point, the less sure I am that DeM is a useful concept.

Well this is the point.  It's usually used to replace actually writing a solution to a problem.  If a god drops down and solves the problem, you don't have to create things or make up ways for characters to solve things themselves.

[txgoldrush]

3DandBeyond wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Catalyst may "Provide" the choices, but he cannot enact them, thats his problem. He cannot break the cycle without Shepard.

Nevermind that Shepard in fact acted on him by even docking the Crucible.....it is Shepard's intervention that makes the Catalyst be able to provide his "solutions"....which in a sense are more problems.

No, he never takes ownership for them, except for in a sense, synthesis.

Nevermind that the "Catalyst as the Citadel" comes out earlier in the story, which makes the fact that the "Catalyst as the Citadel" allowing the choices as well to not fit the trope.

However, Vigil in ME1 IS a Deus Ex Machina......and the Fifth Fleet in ME1 with Joker is a DEM by way of plot hole.

Shepard hit a button and opened up the citadel.  Shepard didn't dock the crucible.  S/he didn't move it at all.

It does not matter if Shepard uses what the DeM provides.  Shepard didn't provide the solutions.  Shepard was not dropped in with not prior explanation and Shepard wasn't contrived.

The catalyst as the citadel is one thing, but as a glowy space kid is another.  And the kid says his solution wouldn't work anymore and he needed a new solution. 


And DeMs are usually bad, but not always.  Generally it's when they substitute for major events as in an ending of 3 stories/games.  Vigil moves the plot along, but "he" is a minor character in the scheme of things.

There are DeMs in stories that give characters something that they can use that will solve the problem.  That's what happened here even if it was just knowledge.

However, once again, its not a DEM, because we know the aspect of the "Catalyst is the Citadel". Even without the AI, the Citadel, we are told is important. Therefore, the choices do not fit the trope of DEM, especially the Destory and Control options being on the Citadel.

And like I said, to the Catalyst, Shepard is dropped in. Thats, to the characters POV. Shepard is true for all of this the whole series. Everyone uses him as a solution against the "impossible". This is similar to JC in Deus Ex with Helios being the subversion.

"And the kid says his solution wouldn't work anymore and he needed a new solution. "

And its Shepard that techinically provides him with the solution (synthesis)...or he or she gets rid of him.

Vigil isn't a bad DEM, but the Fifth Fleet coming to save the day with Joker is a bad one. Because the game never accounts for how Joker got off Ilos, or how he knows about the Conduit. A plot hole casues that DEM.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The series suffered from a few things:

1) the Citadel Defense forces dealt with a reaper and knew the difference between it and the Geth they were fighting. There were Geth dreadnoughts in the attack fleet and they were tearing them apart before Sovereign got there. This got completely retconned out in ME2 with the Council and the Earth Alliance denying the reaper threat.

2) If they had not gone full retard, they would have been preparing. This would mean the Asari government not waiting until the last minute to share their secret resource. Although I'm sure the words "political ****storm" were flying around.

3) The way to avoid the DEM was a) not to have Shepard wounded like that unless it was for a purpose; have the instructions for use appear on a holoscreen above the control panel in Prothean, which Shepard would understand from the cipher.

We didn't need to know the motives of the reapers. We didn't need to know their desires. We just needed to make them dead. The only purposes of this DEM that I can think of is further demoralization and indoctrination of the player and to penalize the player for not succumbing to the indoctrination. I do not need IT to recognize propaganda and psychological manipulation.

By contrast in ME1, Joker uses the Normandy's stealth drive at full speed to get back through the Relay to the Citadel. We didn't question that one because the action had built properly, whereas in ME3 the action had paused and the game became for all intents and purposes static.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 27 juillet 2012 - 04:42 .

[Ztrobos]

Mr.House wrote...

Yes. Had Bioware made ME2 focus on preparing for the Reapers, researching, finding tech ect, then yes ME3 could have focused on the war which would have an epic conventional battle, but nope. Bioware decided to waste time in ME2 introducing new characters with no real purpose minus a few, retconning certain things and creating a useless suicide mission that did nothing but hurt the overall arc. Bioware simply wasted time in the middle chapter, which you should never ever ever ever do in a trilogy.

Im sorry but that sounds pretty boring, if the epic climax of ME2 where Shepard saying "well, we're ready to play ME3 now". Especially since you need to be able to beat ME3 by itself. Not to mention how unsatisfying it would be to play ME2 as a stand-alone. I never got the feeling that saving all those colonies and fragging Harbingers entire servant-race was a waste of time, more like the most impactful conventional victory in the war. The characters where well written, and it was a gutsy move to exclude most of them from the final segment. 

I think it's very fair to compare the Crucible to the One Ring. We see the journey of the ring the entire book, then unexpectedly. Is the ring a Deus Ex? Only if you did'nt pay attention.

[txgoldrush]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The series suffered from a few things:

1) the Citadel Defense forces dealt with a reaper and knew the difference between it and the Geth they were fighting. There were Geth dreadnoughts in the attack fleet and they were tearing them apart before Sovereign got there. This got completely retconned out in ME2 with the Council and the Earth Alliance denying the reaper threat.

2) If they had not gone full retard, they would have been preparing. This would mean the Asari government not waiting until the last minute to share their secret resource. Although I'm sure the words "political ****storm" were flying around.

3) The way to avoid the DEM was a) not to have Shepard wounded like that unless it was for a purpose; have the instructions for use appear on a holoscreen above the control panel in Prothean, which Shepard would understand from the cipher.

We didn't need to know the motives of the reapers. We didn't need to know their desires. We just needed to make them dead. The only purposes of this DEM that I can think of is further demoralization and indoctrination of the player and to penalize the player for not succumbing to the indoctrination. I do not need IT to recognize propaganda and psychological manipulation.

By contrast in ME1, Joker uses the Normandy's stealth drive at full speed to get back through the Relay to the Citadel. We didn't question that one because the action had built properly, whereas in ME3 the action had paused and the game became for all intents and purposes static.

Explain the Joker from Ilos to the Fifth Fleet plothole in ME1. How does he know about the Conduit to not strand Shep on Ilos? How does he go from Ilos to Arctrus in th etime it takes Shep to go from landing to the Citadel Controls.

And please...the Asari trying to hold on to their secret is the character flaw.....notice every race has character flaws that hurt the war effort?

[Mr.House]

Ztrobos wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yes. Had Bioware made ME2 focus on preparing for the Reapers, researching, finding tech ect, then yes ME3 could have focused on the war which would have an epic conventional battle, but nope. Bioware decided to waste time in ME2 introducing new characters with no real purpose minus a few, retconning certain things and creating a useless suicide mission that did nothing but hurt the overall arc. Bioware simply wasted time in the middle chapter, which you should never ever ever ever do in a trilogy.

Im sorry but that sounds pretty boring, if the epic climax of ME2 where Shepard saying "well, we're ready to play ME3 now". Especially since you need to be able to beat ME3 by itself. Not to mention how unsatisfying it would be to play ME2 as a stand-alone. I never got the feeling that saving all those colonies and fragging Harbingers entire servant-race was a waste of time, more like the most impactful conventional victory in the war. The characters where well written, and it was a gutsy move to exclude most of them from the final segment. 

I think it's very fair to compare the Crucible to the One Ring. We see the journey of the ring the entire book, then unexpectedly. Is the ring a Deus Ex? Only if you did'nt pay attention.

I did not have any satisfaction playing ME2, I wanted a real Mass Effect 2, a middle chapter, a bridge. Not some time waster that does nothing.

[txgoldrush]

Mr.House wrote...

Ztrobos wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yes. Had Bioware made ME2 focus on preparing for the Reapers, researching, finding tech ect, then yes ME3 could have focused on the war which would have an epic conventional battle, but nope. Bioware decided to waste time in ME2 introducing new characters with no real purpose minus a few, retconning certain things and creating a useless suicide mission that did nothing but hurt the overall arc. Bioware simply wasted time in the middle chapter, which you should never ever ever ever do in a trilogy.

Im sorry but that sounds pretty boring, if the epic climax of ME2 where Shepard saying "well, we're ready to play ME3 now". Especially since you need to be able to beat ME3 by itself. Not to mention how unsatisfying it would be to play ME2 as a stand-alone. I never got the feeling that saving all those colonies and fragging Harbingers entire servant-race was a waste of time, more like the most impactful conventional victory in the war. The characters where well written, and it was a gutsy move to exclude most of them from the final segment. 

I think it's very fair to compare the Crucible to the One Ring. We see the journey of the ring the entire book, then unexpectedly. Is the ring a Deus Ex? Only if you did'nt pay attention.

I did not have any satisfaction playing ME2, I wanted a real Mass Effect 2, a middle chapter, a bridge. Not some time waster that does nothing.

For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

[Mr.House]

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

Modifié par Mr.House, 27 juillet 2012 - 04:58 .

[txgoldrush]

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

However ME2 was a trap by TIM to get Reaper tech, shows how Reapers reproduce and ascend races, and shows their preference for humans. Thats what its purpose was.

[3DandBeyond]

txgoldrush wrote...

However, once again, its not a DEM, because we know the aspect of the "Catalyst is the Citadel". Even without the AI, the Citadel, we are told is important. Therefore, the choices do not fit the trope of DEM, especially the Destory and Control options being on the Citadel.

And like I said, to the Catalyst, Shepard is dropped in. Thats, to the characters POV. Shepard is true for all of this the whole series. Everyone uses him as a solution against the "impossible". This is similar to JC in Deus Ex with Helios being the subversion.

"And the kid says his solution wouldn't work anymore and he needed a new solution. "

And its Shepard that techinically provides him with the solution (synthesis)...or he or she gets rid of him.

Vigil isn't a bad DEM, but the Fifth Fleet coming to save the day with Joker is a bad one. Because the game never accounts for how Joker got off Ilos, or how he knows about the Conduit. A plot hole casues that DEM.

Well, we can debate till the cows come home but the kid is a DeM-I defer to actual authors and literary types on this.  SF writers of all stripes have said he is and said it's poor writing.  Literary reviewers have said he is and it's poor writing.  I may not hit all the right points about it but I do understand that the DeM does not have to use the solution to the problem, he merely shows up to "give" it to the character.  He is revealed to be quite literally a god from the machine.  Any suggestion that the solutons are not his relies solely on his word.  There is the concept of a catalyst but not a contrived deluded godboy so his appearance is contrived. 

Shepard is a known person there throught the stories all along and consistently solves problems.  Shepard goes up the conduit to solve this problem  That makes him/her not contrived.  A god from the machine quite literally provides (not enacts) the solution. 

A guy that pops in from out of nowhere at the end of a story and gives you his friends gun to shoot because he is blind and can't use it could be a DeM.

And Denton in Deus ex is not one.  It's a reference to some in the game who want god-like powers and kind of an insult to other stories and games that used a DeM plot device.  This was said by a producer of the game.  Denton was not a DeM.

And in ME1, I really couldn't care less about what Joker did and didn't know at the end.  He's there and that's great, but I barely remember that even after playing it several times.  I remember Shepard's fight with Saren and Sovereign being vulnerable and Shepard rising up.

Counter that with the kid that I hate with a passion and there's no comparison.  I'll never forget how horrible the ME3 ending is and I have only good memories of the ME1 ending, contrived or not, it works far better because it fits the story.  It's icing on the poop cake to actually know the devs thought genocide, forced eugenics and assault, and god-like control of serial killers who've "eaten" people, and gratuitous suicide are far better ways to end a video game series than some other non-magical, non-fantasy, unrealistic ending.

[3DandBeyond]

txgoldrush wrote...

Explain the Joker from Ilos to the Fifth Fleet plothole in ME1. How does he know about the Conduit to not strand Shep on Ilos? How does he go from Ilos to Arctrus in th etime it takes Shep to go from landing to the Citadel Controls.

And please...the Asari trying to hold on to their secret is the character flaw.....notice every race has character flaws that hurt the war effort?

That Joker thing is far less important than the ending to 3 games and even if improbable it does not stand out.  The way it can be or has been explained is that he went to get the Fifth Fleet from another sector and bring it to the Citadel.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 05:10 .

[Mr.House]

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

However ME2 was a trap by TIM to get Reaper tech, shows how Reapers reproduce and ascend races, and shows their preference for humans. Thats what its purpose was.

None of those things where important at all, more so their prefrence for humans because it is not explored anymore. Those things where just giving us a better understanding, that does not mean they continued the overall arc because they added nothing.

Also Cerberus and TIM should have never had a big presense AT all. The trilogy was ment to be about the war with Reapers, not be about the war with TIM.

[3DandBeyond]

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

However ME2 was a trap by TIM to get Reaper tech, shows how Reapers reproduce and ascend races, and shows their preference for humans. Thats what its purpose was.

None of those things where important at all, more so their prefrence for humans because it is not explored anymore. Those things where just giving us a better understanding, that does not mean they continued the overall arc because they added nothing.

Also Cerberus and TIM should have never had a big presense AT all. The trilogy was ment to be about the war with Reapers, not be about the war with TIM.

The main problem with ME2 was that major points of it were ignored in ME3.  Well ME3 seemed to try to ignore a lot of ME1 and 2.  The human interest theme was prevalent in ME2 and ignored in ME3. 

[silverignika]

I always thought that we'd defeat the Reapers in ME3 because they had to manually travel to the Milky Way, which they never had to do before in any cycle (as far as we know)

Bioware could easily write off the notion that some of their shielding had to be sacrificed for fuel during their trip.

Bam. Reapers can be defeated conventionally.

[o Ventus]

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

However ME2 was a trap by TIM to get Reaper tech, shows how Reapers reproduce and ascend races, and shows their preference for humans. Thats what its purpose was.

None of those things where important at all, more so their prefrence for humans because it is not explored anymore. Those things where just giving us a better understanding, that does not mean they continued the overall arc because they added nothing.

Also Cerberus and TIM should have never had a big presense AT all. The trilogy was ment to be about the war with Reapers, not be about the war with TIM.

...

Which was made irrelevant in ME3, and is therefore not a problem with ME2. The thinking involved isn't even that critical.

Modifié par o Ventus, 27 juillet 2012 - 05:07 .

[dorktainian]

way to end me3 without star brat. simple stuff. use harbinger as a boss. his will is the collective will of the reapers. shep and harbie fight inside the closed citadel. they knock lumps out of each other. TIM is revealed as Harbies avatar. Shep beats TIM. The Reapers retreat. The fleet finish them off. Finally Harbie begs shep for forgiveness. Harbie dies - variation of death due to paragon/renegade choices.

The galaxy is saved. Life goes on.

Cut to the future end of sheps life - with all his surviving friends there as he passes. time to remember the fallen and what has been lost to the reapers.

Then in a cutscene at the end of the credits a vague introduction to the next threat in the ME universe before cutting to black.

[txgoldrush]

3DandBeyond wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

However, once again, its not a DEM, because we know the aspect of the "Catalyst is the Citadel". Even without the AI, the Citadel, we are told is important. Therefore, the choices do not fit the trope of DEM, especially the Destory and Control options being on the Citadel.

And like I said, to the Catalyst, Shepard is dropped in. Thats, to the characters POV. Shepard is true for all of this the whole series. Everyone uses him as a solution against the "impossible". This is similar to JC in Deus Ex with Helios being the subversion.

"And the kid says his solution wouldn't work anymore and he needed a new solution. "

And its Shepard that techinically provides him with the solution (synthesis)...or he or she gets rid of him.

Vigil isn't a bad DEM, but the Fifth Fleet coming to save the day with Joker is a bad one. Because the game never accounts for how Joker got off Ilos, or how he knows about the Conduit. A plot hole casues that DEM.

Well, we can debate till the cows come home but the kid is a DeM-I defer to actual authors and literary types on this.  SF writers of all stripes have said he is and said it's poor writing.  Literary reviewers have said he is and it's poor writing.  I may not hit all the right points about it but I do understand that the DeM does not have to use the solution to the problem, he merely shows up to "give" it to the character.  He is revealed to be quite literally a god from the machine.  Any suggestion that the solutons are not his relies solely on his word.  There is the concept of a catalyst but not a contrived deluded godboy so his appearance is contrived. 

Shepard is a known person there throught the stories all along and consistently solves problems.  Shepard goes up the conduit to solve this problem  That makes him/her not contrived.  A god from the machine quite literally provides (not enacts) the solution. 

A guy that pops in from out of nowhere at the end of a story and gives you his friends gun to shoot because he is blind and can't use it could be a DeM.

And Denton in Deus ex is not one.  It's a reference to some in the game who want god-like powers and kind of an insult to other stories and games that used a DeM plot device.  This was said by a producer of the game.  Denton was not a DeM.

And in ME1, I really couldn't care less about what Joker did and didn't know at the end.  He's there and that's great, but I barely remember that even after playing it several times.  I remember Shepard's fight with Saren and Sovereign being vulnerable and Shepard rising up.

Counter that with the kid that I hate with a passion and there's no comparison.  I'll never forget how horrible the ME3 ending is and I have only good memories of the ME1 ending, contrived or not, it works far better because it fits the story.  It's icing on the poop cake to actually know the devs thought genocide, forced eugenics and assault, and god-like control of serial killers who've "eaten" people, and gratuitous suicide are far better ways to end a video game series than some other non-magical, non-fantasy, unrealistic ending.

However, once again the fact is, the story establishes that the Catalyst is needed to stop the Reapers...making the choices he presents, not DEM. The AI kid only shows that there is more to the Catalyst than we were told. Thats it. Nevermind thatthe Catalyst doesn't solve the problem, Shepard does.

I never said that Shepard was contrived, from the narrative view...you are simply not getting it. The fact is from OTHER CHARACTERS POINT OF VIEW....Shepard is the miraculous solution to an unsolvable problem. And as I said, if the character is in a "Deus Ex" role, the trope cannot happen, becaue the protagonist is making things happen.

And now you are showing bias, which leads to hypocrisy. Just because ME1 had a great ending to you doesn't escape the fact that it not only hasa Deus Ex Machina, but TWO. Face facts here. You are being hypocritical. You complain about ME3 using a DEM, but ignore the fact that ME1 uses it too.

From TVTropes:

While Deus Ex, along with the two other games in the series, were named after the trope, they do not really feature it, though the original game does feature a Deus Est Machina.

• The protagonist of the first game was the dues ex. The beginning of the game is set in a crapsack world where corporations and conspiracies rule the world and it looks like nothing can improve it. Then Denton comes along and everything is changed. Almost no one could have predicted Denton's actions or just how drastically he would change the world around him. Thus to the any normal person looking to change the world Denton would appear to be a Deus Ex Machina. This is made all the more obvious by the fact that Denton is arguable a Deus Est Machina himself, being one of the worlds first nano-augmented soldiers.

[txgoldrush]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

However ME2 was a trap by TIM to get Reaper tech, shows how Reapers reproduce and ascend races, and shows their preference for humans. Thats what its purpose was.

None of those things where important at all, more so their prefrence for humans because it is not explored anymore. Those things where just giving us a better understanding, that does not mean they continued the overall arc because they added nothing.

Also Cerberus and TIM should have never had a big presense AT all. The trilogy was ment to be about the war with Reapers, not be about the war with TIM.

The main problem with ME2 was that major points of it were ignored in ME3.  Well ME3 seemed to try to ignore a lot of ME1 and 2.  The human interest theme was prevalent in ME2 and ignored in ME3. 

However, through the series logic, it is highly obvious why the Reapers would favor ascending humans, and doing it first.

Not everything has to be explained.

[txgoldrush]

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


For several major plot lines, it is the perfect bridge.

So secondary major arcs are more important then the primary overall arc? Really?

However ME2 was a trap by TIM to get Reaper tech, shows how Reapers reproduce and ascend races, and shows their preference for humans. Thats what its purpose was.

None of those things where important at all, more so their prefrence for humans because it is not explored anymore. Those things where just giving us a better understanding, that does not mean they continued the overall arc because they added nothing.

Also Cerberus and TIM should have never had a big presense AT all. The trilogy was ment to be about the war with Reapers, not be about the war with TIM.

WRONG

Because TIM's character is about fighting the Reapers...as he is indoctrinated.

[palician]

Whatever you want to call it anything that is a simple "Enemies defeated!" button is an unimaginative and unconvincing resolution.

[/quote]
This a million times over.

[Ztrobos]

dorktainian wrote...

way to end me3 without star brat. simple stuff. use harbinger as a boss. his will is the collective will of the reapers. shep and harbie fight inside the closed citadel. they knock lumps out of each other. TIM is revealed as Harbies avatar. Shep beats TIM. The Reapers retreat. The fleet finish them off. Finally Harbie begs shep for forgiveness. Harbie dies - variation of death due to paragon/renegade choices.

The galaxy is saved. Life goes on.

Cut to the future end of sheps life - with all his surviving friends there as he passes. time to remember the fallen and what has been lost to the reapers.

Then in a cutscene at the end of the credits a vague introduction to the next threat in the ME universe before cutting to black.

Way too much vanilla, how could anyone stomach it? Also it's the same ending as ME1, so it's not even better wrighting. Only more care-bear love. The more I read the more convinced I become that the ending is just fine. As a side note, I think it's ironic, and funny, that so many hack sci-fi wrighters are so vocal about their disdain of ME. They can't make a better ending, though not from a lack of trying, and ME still stacks up with the best pure sci-fi ever made, IMO.

[3DandBeyond]

txgoldrush wrote...

snipped


From TVTropes:

While Deus Ex, along with the two other games in the series, were named after the trope, they do not really feature it, though the original game does feature a Deus Est Machina.

• The protagonist of the first game was the dues ex. The beginning of the game is set in a crapsack world where corporations and conspiracies rule the world and it looks like nothing can improve it. Then Denton comes along and everything is changed. Almost no one could have predicted Denton's actions or just how drastically he would change the world around him. Thus to the any normal person looking to change the world Denton would appear to be a Deus Ex Machina. This is made all the more obvious by the fact that Denton is arguable a Deus Est Machina himself, being one of the worlds first nano-augmented soldiers.

I don't care what tvtropes said, I told you what a producer of the game Deus ex said.  Anyone can say whatever they want about it, the one producer said the references were basically jabs at other games that relied on DeMs.  Warren Spector thought the DeMs were poor techniques.