251 réponses à ce sujet

[Zan51]

3DandBeyond
"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 haveonly 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."

This says it all for me. Their ending is a holocaust of bad, and I mean no disrespect to the holocaust victims or survivors.

"The kid is almost a textbook definition of one, so I don't care if Shepard dons a t shirt that says "I wanna be a DeM", he isn't acting like one, doesn't look like one, and isn't one."

And I want that T shirt too...

Grey_Wind,
loved this. So simple, believable and effective. That's all that's needed.
"Had they actually explored ideas like why the Reapers need to divide the galaxy in order to conquer it, then they could have justified a conventional victory by showing that while the Reapers could easily take down sectioned off portions of the galaxy, they did not have the numbers needed to fight a fully united galaxy (their low numbers could
be a side effect of being so picky about the species they use in their reproduction process).
Then a plot device like the Reaper IFF from ME2 could have easily been the focus of getting past the Relay lockdown and uniting the various races when the Citadel was seized and the galaxy was left divided and without contact."

txgoldrush:
"For the thousandth time..there is no DEMs used narrative wise because the protagonist acts like one."

Well, as one of the probably several Pro SF writers here, I can tell you that you seem to lack some understanding yourself of literary devices. Deus ex machina is a defined literary device, NOT one you can decide means something else to you because you want it to. It was coined in the 5th century BC, so has been around a hell of a long time.
From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1: a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome
2: a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

From Encyclopedia Brittania:
The dramatic device dates from the 5th century bc; a god appears in Sophocles’ Philoctetes and in most of the plays of Euripides to solve a crisis by divine intervention.Since ancient times, the phrase has also been applied to an unexpected saviour or to an improbable event that brings order out of chaos (e.g., the arrival, in time to avert tragedy, of the U.S. cavalry in a western film).

Note the overarching theme of these definitions - Greek and Roman Drama, setting the timing of it at 5th Century, not modern. And the fact that a DeM is ALWAYS unexpected. There is no way a protagonist can therefore be a DeM because they are - the Protagonist.

Protagonist definition from Miriam-Webster:
a[/i] : the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story)
b[/i] : a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event

So there is absolutely no way a leading character in ANY entertainment can be a Deus ex machina because they are not introduced suddenly, like star brat, at the end of the piece to give all the solutuions to... the protagonist!

Modifié par Zan51, 27 juillet 2012 - 08:32 .

[moater boat]

The only way would be to go back and retcon all of ME2, or at a bare minimum, remove arrival and sandwich another game between ME2 and the Reaper invasion.

[avenging_teabag]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Well, the Crucible isn't really that much of a DXM in the first place, seeing as how it requires a tremendous effort to build and transport. While it's established in a similar fashion, it's not quite the same thing.

It doesn't, not from the player's side. The Crucible is getting built and deployed no matter what the player does - even if you fail every single quest from Mars onward. We're TOLD that building the Crucible requires extreme effort, but in reality, it does not.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 27 juillet 2012 - 08:48 .

[Xandurpein]

The term for a "Anti-DEM" is "Diabolus Ex Machina".

Edit: I really, really wish that people would start bothering to check the dictionaries before they start posting what something means or doesn't mean.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 27 juillet 2012 - 08:56 .

[tonnactus]

Yes. If Mass Effect 2 didnt turned out to be a pointless filler and  instead Shepard found possible ways to stopped the reapers and the galaxy used this knowledge in the third game. But we got Pokemon in Space.

[Joccaren]

1. Not nerf Thanix.
2. Have choices, like the Collectors base, Rachni and other, make a significant difference.
3. Go on as normal, but without the Crucible.

Really not that hard. Thanix are the Reaper's weapons on a smaller scale and less efficient. They also scale with size. The true power of Thanix is something the Reapers would be kinda worried about TBH.
Have the collector base tech increase our understanding of Reaper weaponry, or shields, or IFF, or anything really. No, don't find a weak point. Use their own technology against them.
Rachni were preparing. Rather than always making them useless, have them have prepared. I'd assume fast breeding [They are insects after all], we know they are strong, and they are capable of making spacecraft. Zerg Rush the Reapers.
Have Liara as the Shadow broker mean something too, and have a mission assignment thing like in ME2 where you give the Broker's agents jobs to do, and they will conduct surveillance and warn fleets and populations of the Reaper's arrival if successful, and get wiped out if not.

Making choices matter, not nerfing the Thanix and maybe a couple of other changes would make conventional victory feasible. Massive sacrifice, but it could be done.

And to those saying that there was no preparation in ME2: Technology. Where did Thanix come in? Cyclonic Barrier Technology? That new armour?
Shepard didn't do the Preperation, s/he isn't a Ship builder, or a researcher. S/he is a soldier of some description. There was nothing for Shepard to prepare really, and sure s/he did a lot of bugger all in the grand scheme of things, but saying no Preperation was done in ME2 is wrong. We got the Reapers weapons, and turned them against them. We upgraded our own technology, and there were setups all throughout loyalty missions for things like Rannoch and Tuchanka. The preperation was there, it just wasn't necessarily spotlighted.

[tonnactus]

3DandBeyond wrote...


Sorry if I took it that way.  I just see many that suggest that-that ME2 was badly done because of what we see in ME3 and to me that makes no sense.  The events of ME2 really set up what should have happened in ME3.  The collector base, opinion.

Why the reapers would be so dumb to leave viable information for enemies in the base?

[avenging_teabag]

zambot wrote...

Been said, but worth mentioning again. The Crucible is not a DEM. It was introduced at the beginning of the plot, and the entire game was about uniting the galaxy in order to build and protect it. The Catalyst is the DEM since he magically shows up in Shepard's time of need to tell him/her how to use the crucible to stop the reapers.

There are several ways to remove the Catalyst from the story and thus eliminate the DEM. The simplest way would be to just cut the whole ascension thing from the story and just have Shep activate the crucible from the control panel.

This was already discussed to death in umpteen other threads, but the Crucible IS A DEM. The key feature of a DEM is that it solves an unsolvable plot problem in a sudden and/or contrived manner, usually by introducing a new character, object, circumstance or power. The Crucible does exactly that, at what point of the story it appears is pretty much irrelevant.

The Catalyst, otoh, is just a badly done exposition fairy.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 27 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .

[Jassu1979]

There's always another way, especially in a SciFi-scenario:

The McGuffin could have been avoided by following the premise given in the conclusion of ME1:

The Galaxy knows about the Reapers now, and the Citadel races will prepare for their inevitable attack, having already prevented their customary surprise attack. The Citadel is secure, the relay network cannot be shut down, and the Reapers first need to find another way back from the depths of dark space. Combine that with the remains of Sovereign/Nazara, and the galaxy could sufficiently prepare on their own.


All that said, even with the shift of focus (and the retcons) that happened in ME2, you could still avoid the desaster that was ME3, plot-wise:
simply start the game in the immediate aftermath of "The Arrival", having Shepard convince the Alliance that yes, the Reapers are coming and yes, it's high time to prepare for the attack.

Never forget: the Reapers were only invincible because the writers decided that they were - and if they so desired, you could take them down with nothing more than a laser pointer and a precision bombardment from orbit.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

They could have made a final battle, ME2 suicide mission style (that worked so well), where you would use your war assets and send them to do fight, and if you choose them for the wrong thing they would have died, and if you made to many mistakes, you would lose. That's how I envision how the game was going to end. Imagine the emotional value, send Wrex to do something he can't do and see him end up dying, that ending would be great.

[Dean_the_Young]

avenging_teabag wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Well, the Crucible isn't really that much of a DXM in the first place, seeing as how it requires a tremendous effort to build and transport. While it's established in a similar fashion, it's not quite the same thing.

It doesn't, not from the player's side. The Crucible is getting built and deployed no matter what the player does - even if you fail every single quest from Mars onward. We're TOLD that building the Crucible requires extreme effort, but in reality, it does not.

Besides conveniently ignorring his actual point, your argument depends on how much effort you consider the story missions, which revolve around getting the poitical, scientific, and military support to meet the minimum capacity necessary for a successful Crucible.

[Dean_the_Young]

avenging_teabag wrote...

zambot wrote...

Been said, but worth mentioning again. The Crucible is not a DEM. It was introduced at the beginning of the plot, and the entire game was about uniting the galaxy in order to build and protect it. The Catalyst is the DEM since he magically shows up in Shepard's time of need to tell him/her how to use the crucible to stop the reapers.

There are several ways to remove the Catalyst from the story and thus eliminate the DEM. The simplest way would be to just cut the whole ascension thing from the story and just have Shep activate the crucible from the control panel.

This was already discussed to death in umpteen other threads, but the Crucible IS A DEM. The key feature of a DEM is that it solves an unsolvable plot problem in a sudden and/or contrived manner, usually by introducing a new character, object, circumstance or power. The Crucible does exactly that, at what point of the story it appears is pretty much irrelevant.

The Catalyst, otoh, is just a badly done exposition fairy.

That's reversed. The key aspect of the DEM is timing, not that it solves an issue, being at the climax without forewarning: the Crucible is introduced at the beginning of the game and developed throughout it. A DEM introduced before before the climax it resolves is not a DEM.

Even the Catalyst isn't a DEM because it's introduced in the mid-game, the search of it taking the last arc before Earth.

The Star Child has the timing to be a DEM, but he's an exposition device on something already introduced.

[dreman9999]

The crucible and catalyst aren't Deus ex's.

[dreman9999]

Jassu1979 wrote...

There's always another way, especially in a SciFi-scenario:

The McGuffin could have been avoided by following the premise given in the conclusion of ME1:

The Galaxy knows about the Reapers now, and the Citadel races will prepare for their inevitable attack, having already prevented their customary surprise attack. The Citadel is secure, the relay network cannot be shut down, and the Reapers first need to find another way back from the depths of dark space. Combine that with the remains of Sovereign/Nazara, and the galaxy could sufficiently prepare on their own.


All that said, even with the shift of focus (and the retcons) that happened in ME2, you could still avoid the desaster that was ME3, plot-wise:
simply start the game in the immediate aftermath of "The Arrival", having Shepard convince the Alliance that yes, the Reapers are coming and yes, it's high time to prepare for the attack.

Never forget: the Reapers were only invincible because the writers decided that they were - and if they so desired, you could take them down with nothing more than a laser pointer and a precision bombardment from orbit.

It's not a 
McGuffin  ether because there is a clear understanding why crucible is seeked.

[dreman9999]

tonnactus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


Sorry if I took it that way.  I just see many that suggest that-that ME2 was badly done because of what we see in ME3 and to me that makes no sense.  The events of ME2 really set up what should have happened in ME3.  The collector base, opinion.

Why the reapers would be so dumb to leave viable information for enemies in the base?

The details of making a reaper need to be there for the collectors to make a reaper.

[KEMKA]

avenging_teabag wrote...

zambot wrote...

Been said, but worth mentioning again. The Crucible is not a DEM. It was introduced at the beginning of the plot, and the entire game was about uniting the galaxy in order to build and protect it. The Catalyst is the DEM since he magically shows up in Shepard's time of need to tell him/her how to use the crucible to stop the reapers.

There are several ways to remove the Catalyst from the story and thus eliminate the DEM. The simplest way would be to just cut the whole ascension thing from the story and just have Shep activate the crucible from the control panel.

This was already discussed to death in umpteen other threads, but the Crucible IS A DEM. The key feature of a DEM is that it solves an unsolvable plot problem in a sudden and/or contrived manner, usually by introducing a new character, object, circumstance or power. The Crucible does exactly that, at what point of the story it appears is pretty much irrelevant.

The Catalyst, otoh, is just a badly done exposition fairy.

I don't think it's fair to say when it appeared is irrelevant, your definition of a DEM includes a 'time frame' (sudden). What is the unsolvable plot problem, do you mean the reapers in general? I'll agree the starkid AI part doesn't sit right, I don't mind giving the reapers some background, I quite like the idea of them being 'put into action' by a rogue ai who went too far with his purpose - trying to resolve the organic/synthetic conflict, a theme which has been around the entire series, it's kind of ironic. Like others have mentioned, the reapers claimed to be controlled by no-one, so they dropped the ball with that line about the AI controlling the reapers, I think they should have just let it explain what it was and it's involvement with the reapers, and left it at that (I created them, then let them run free kind of thing). I don't have a problem with the level of destruction at the end of the game though, I find it hard to see how someone couldn't see it coming all along! My only problem is how we use the catalyst/crucible. The synthesis ending was dependant entirely upon this organics vs synthetics quest the AIKid had  I did pick it though

blueumi wrote...

i'm sorry mass effect 1 and 2 showed we could fight them and that harbenger was who we had to face
...
 

NightShadow1800 wrote...

-Unite the galaxy unlike anyone's seen before (war readiness must be max)
-Kill the Reapers with said army (without that little star child pricks help)
-Wipe the star child's AI out of existence as punishment for the countless lives he's killed
-Shepard reunited with his/her crew
-End

These two are from early on in the thread but it's something I've heard echoed a lot. I have to say I completely disagree! ME 1 and 2 were not proof we could defeat the reapers at all, the first game was one reaper, which left the citadel and fleet pretty much decimated, and in ME2 we faced the collectors, they weren't the reapers, I know they were controlled by them but facing the collectors and facing the reapers are not the same thing, and not comparable. Quite a few characters pointed out throughout the games that it took us so much to destroy one reaper, how an earth would we face a whole army/fleet?
The army we prepared was not to 'defeat' the reapers, at least that was not the impression I was under, it was to hold them at bay, it was more about survival than being on the offensive. And I would have found it unrealistic if we had defeated the reapers with conventional methods, that would seem like a plot hole to me - by the end of me1 and through the rest of the games I was thinking 'Wow we're buggered!' They've wiped out countless civilisations, they're far more technologically superior, as far as we know they've never been defeated. It's something they made a point to highlight through out the games.

[Grimwick]

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible and catalyst aren't Deus ex's.

You are kidding me.

Look up the definition of a DEM - the Catalyst is the very embodiement (although could be a diabolus ex machina but that is simply semantics).

The Crucible's DEM status is debatable but is still in any case poor writing.

[CaptainZaysh]

Grimwick wrote...

Look up the definition of a DEM - the Catalyst is the very embodiement (although could be a diabolus ex machina but that is simply semantics).

The two are significantly different.  Deus ex machina arrives without warning to solve the hero's problem.  Diabolus ex machina is a last minute complication to the hero's solution.

[Grimwick]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Look up the definition of a DEM - the Catalyst is the very embodiement (although could be a diabolus ex machina but that is simply semantics).

The two are significantly different.  Deus ex machina arrives without warning to solve the hero's problem.  Diabolus ex machina is a last minute complication to the hero's solution.

Yes, I understand that - but a diabolus ex machina is still a poor writing tool and it is still an asspull in ME3.

Although, one could argue that the Catalyst 'helps' Shepard and is a DEM - it doesn't necessarily complicate things itself.

[CaptainZaysh]

Grimwick wrote...

Yes, I understand that - but a diabolus ex machina is still a poor writing tool and it is still an asspull in ME3.

Disagree.

Grimwick wrote...
Although, one could argue that the Catalyst 'helps' Shepard and is a DEM - it doesn't necessarily complicate things itself.

Of course it does.  (As I recall) Shepard thinks he has completed his part of the mission and is just sitting there with Anderson enjoying the view.  At that point Shep thinks the Crucible will be fired.  The Catalyst throws in the last minute complication, unexpectedly making Shepard choose how it will be fired.

[avenging_teabag]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

avenging_teabag wrote...

zambot wrote...

Been said, but worth mentioning again. The Crucible is not a DEM. It was introduced at the beginning of the plot, and the entire game was about uniting the galaxy in order to build and protect it. The Catalyst is the DEM since he magically shows up in Shepard's time of need to tell him/her how to use the crucible to stop the reapers.

There are several ways to remove the Catalyst from the story and thus eliminate the DEM. The simplest way would be to just cut the whole ascension thing from the story and just have Shep activate the crucible from the control panel.

This was already discussed to death in umpteen other threads, but the Crucible IS A DEM. The key feature of a DEM is that it solves an unsolvable plot problem in a sudden and/or contrived manner, usually by introducing a new character, object, circumstance or power. The Crucible does exactly that, at what point of the story it appears is pretty much irrelevant.

The Catalyst, otoh, is just a badly done exposition fairy.

That's reversed. The key aspect of the DEM is timing, not that it solves an issue, being at the climax without forewarning: the Crucible is introduced at the beginning of the game and developed throughout it. A DEM introduced before before the climax it resolves is not a DEM.

Even the Catalyst isn't a DEM because it's introduced in the mid-game, the search of it taking the last arc before Earth.

The Star Child has the timing to be a DEM, but he's an exposition device on something already introduced.

No. And NO again.

This has been discussed in exhaustive detail already, so i'll just give you 5 first results for a google search for "deus ex machina literary definition"

http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/literaryterms/g/deusexmachina.htm
Deus Ex Machina

Definition: Literally "god in the machine", deus ex machina is a literary device dating back to ancient Greek theater in which divine intervention is employed to get the protagonist out of a sticky situation or untangle an ugly plotline.

http://web.cn.edu/kw...it_terms_D.html

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

http://andromeda.rut...sexmachina.html


DEUS EX MACHINA
In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.

Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.

http://www.mlahanas....sExMachina.html

Deus ex machina is Latin for "god from the machine" and is a calque from the Greek "από μηχανής θεός", (pronounced "apo mekhanes theos"). It originated with Greek and Roman theater, when a mechane would lower a god or gods onstage to resolve a hopeless situation. Thus, "god comes from the machine". The phrase deus ex machina has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief, and presumably allows the author to end it in the way he or she wanted. (emphasis mine)

http://www.thefreedi...deus ex machina

deus ex ma·chi·na (ks mäk-n, -nä, mk-n)
n.
1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

You can dig up five more of your own definitions of a DEM if you wish, and you'll still find nothing in them regarding specific timing of that plot device. It can be anywhere in the story. All it has to do to qualify as a DEM is to resolve a plot problem in an unrealistic or contrived way. The Crucible qualifies.

I've seen this argument for the Crucible not being a DEM (its timing) multiple times - it has no leg to stand on.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 27 juillet 2012 - 11:09 .

[dreman9999]

Grimwick wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible and catalyst aren't Deus ex's.

You are kidding me.

Look up the definition of a DEM - the Catalyst is the very embodiement (although could be a diabolus ex machina but that is simply semantics).

The Crucible's DEM status is debatable but is still in any case poor writing.

deus ex machina 
http://www.thefreedi...deus ex machina 

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
That being said. The catalyst is not a deus ex because it doesn't solve anything. It adds more problem to the problems we have now. He makes picking Destory a more difficult choice and control a difficult choice. He is also explined, a Deus ex is not explined at all it just suddenly happens as solve everything with out any quetions asked.

What is the dues ex is sysnthesis. It's never explined how it's done and it solves all the problem on hand.

[Grimwick]

[quote]CaptainZaysh wrote...

[quote]Grimwick wrote...

Yes, I understand that - but a diabolus ex machina is still a poor writing tool and it is still an asspull in ME3.[/quote]

Disagree.[/quote]

This is where context is so important. It is a complete asspull in ME3. Not necessarily in other stories, but for the most part a diablous is a frustrating and annoying writing device which unnecessarily prolongs the fight/provides contrived complications.

This is certainly what happens in ME3 - where the 'sacrifices' are so contrived.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...
Although, one could argue that the Catalyst 'helps' Shepard and is a DEM - it doesn't necessarily complicate things itself.
[/quote]

Of course it does.  (As I recall) Shepard thinks he has completed his part of the mission and is just sitting there with Anderson enjoying the view.  At that point Shep thinks the Crucible will be fired.  The Catalyst throws in the last minute complication, unexpectedly making Shepard choose how it will be fired.
[/quote][/quote]

I said it can be argued so I don't necessarily agree; but I shall play devil's advocate.

It depends on your perspective - some people argue that the Crucible is the mechnism which led to these complications (although I still think the Catalyst was the one who presented the choices) in which case the Catalyst wouldn't be a diabolus.

If the Catalyst is the one who presents these choices to the player (having made them) then it is a cross between a DEM and a diabolus - he presents the solutions you need, but he also presents some complications (which are not necessarily his fault).

This last minute 'complication' is him presenting the solutions - you seem to assume Shepard knows how the Crucible would work before the ending, when he doesn't.

[dreman9999]

avenging_teabag wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

avenging_teabag wrote...

zambot wrote...

Been said, but worth mentioning again. The Crucible is not a DEM. It was introduced at the beginning of the plot, and the entire game was about uniting the galaxy in order to build and protect it. The Catalyst is the DEM since he magically shows up in Shepard's time of need to tell him/her how to use the crucible to stop the reapers.

There are several ways to remove the Catalyst from the story and thus eliminate the DEM. The simplest way would be to just cut the whole ascension thing from the story and just have Shep activate the crucible from the control panel.

This was already discussed to death in umpteen other threads, but the Crucible IS A DEM. The key feature of a DEM is that it solves an unsolvable plot problem in a sudden and/or contrived manner, usually by introducing a new character, object, circumstance or power. The Crucible does exactly that, at what point of the story it appears is pretty much irrelevant.

The Catalyst, otoh, is just a badly done exposition fairy.

That's reversed. The key aspect of the DEM is timing, not that it solves an issue, being at the climax without forewarning: the Crucible is introduced at the beginning of the game and developed throughout it. A DEM introduced before before the climax it resolves is not a DEM.

Even the Catalyst isn't a DEM because it's introduced in the mid-game, the search of it taking the last arc before Earth.

The Star Child has the timing to be a DEM, but he's an exposition device on something already introduced.

No. And NO again.

This has been discussed in exhaustive detail already, so i'll just give you 5 first results for a google search for "deus ex machina literary definition"

http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/literaryterms/g/deusexmachina.htm
Deus Ex Machina

Definition: Literally "god in the machine", deus ex machina is a literary device dating back to ancient Greek theater in which divine intervention is employed to get the protagonist out of a sticky situation or untangle an ugly plotline.

http://web.cn.edu/kw...it_terms_D.html

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

http://andromeda.rut...sexmachina.html


DEUS EX MACHINA
In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.

Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.

http://www.mlahanas....sExMachina.html

Deus ex machina is Latin for "god from the machine" and is a calque from the Greek "από μηχανής θεός", (pronounced "apo mekhanes theos"). It originated with Greek and Roman theater, when a mechane would lower a god or gods onstage to resolve a hopeless situation. Thus, "god comes from the machine". The phrase deus ex machina has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief, and presumably allows the author to end it in the way he or she wanted. (emphasis mine)

http://www.thefreedi...deus ex machina

deus ex ma·chi·na (ks mäk-n, -nä, mk-n)
n.
1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

You can dig up five more of your own definitions of a DEM if you wish, and you'll still find nothing in them regarding specific timing of that plot device. It can be anywhere in the story. All it has to do to qualify as a DEM is to resolve a plot problem in an unrealistic or contrived way. The Crucible qualifies.

I've seen this argument for the Crucible not being a DEM (its timing) multiple times - it has no leg to stand on.

The curcible doesn't sudden solve everything and is later explined. A dem just comes is and solve everything with no questions ask.

[Grimwick]

dreman9999 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible and catalyst aren't Deus ex's.

You are kidding me.

Look up the definition of a DEM - the Catalyst is the very embodiement (although could be a diabolus ex machina but that is simply semantics).

The Crucible's DEM status is debatable but is still in any case poor writing.

deus ex machina 
http://www.thefreedi...deus ex machina 

1. In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.2. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.3. A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
That being said. The catalyst is not a deus ex because it doesn't solve anything. It adds more problem to the problems we have now. He makes picking Destory a more difficult choice and control a difficult choice. He is also explined, a Deus ex is not explined at all it just suddenly happens as solve everything with out any quetions asked.

What is the dues ex is sysnthesis. It's never explined how it's done and it solves all the problem on hand.

Now put the Catalyst into context... He does solve a problem (remember the Crucible wasn't working?), he does present options and he does in the end, come out of nowhere.

And no - a DEM can be explained, just at the last minute. there is nothing in the definition that suggest and explanation causes something not to be a DEM, you are thinking of a MacGuffin.