251 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

Any contrived thing within a story that is never fully explained and especially a DeM that is a substitution for major parts of a plot is considered lazy writing.  It is especially aggregious in ME3 since the DeM comes in at a point when the story most needs to really flow from all that came before.

This is the ending of a trilogy and of many other stories in books and graphic novels.  The insertion of the star kid without any foreshadowing of his specific existence disrupts the natural flow of the story.  Plot twists are one thing and they can be great, but even they need you to be able to connect the dots so that they make sense once you know them.

For instance take any of M. Night Shymalan's works (yes some are horrid)--the better ones, especially.  In the Sixth Sense once you know what is going on with the main character you see all the places the movie was showing you this.  It kept telling you what was going on and very artfully allowed you to ignore it.  The movie The Others does this as well.  That movie intentionally always keeps you a bit off balance, thinking the main character is mentally ill.  When you know the truth, you see it all.  That's a plot twist. 

The star kid is a whole new plot complete with a new goal.  Once you meet the star kid, you don't have some feeling that the rest of the story all makes sense now.  As a new character he needed to do that.  You had to be able to go back and look over the rest of 3 stories and say that the star kid now explains this and that.  You can't and he doesn't.  In order for him to be relevant at the end, he had to be a part of the goal.  His purpose is to explain the motives and origins of the reapers.  He doesn't even do a good job at it and creates more questions than answers.  But, the motives and origins of the reapers were never some big overriding goals.  They are what is known as color commentary.  Not essential but somewhat interesting-nothing is lost if you never know it, but it would be nice to know.  All that could have been added to an epilogue or be in a conversation with a dying Harbinger.  And it should have made more sense.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

Any contrived thing within a story that is never fully explained and especially a DeM that is a substitution for major parts of a plot is considered lazy writing.  It is especially aggregious in ME3 since the DeM comes in at a point when the story most needs to really flow from all that came before.

This is the ending of a trilogy and of many other stories in books and graphic novels.  The insertion of the star kid without any foreshadowing of his specific existence disrupts the natural flow of the story.  Plot twists are one thing and they can be great, but even they need you to be able to connect the dots so that they make sense once you know them.

For instance take any of M. Night Shymalan's works (yes some are horrid)--the better ones, especially.  In the Sixth Sense once you know what is going on with the main character you see all the places the movie was showing you this.  It kept telling you what was going on and very artfully allowed you to ignore it.  The movie The Others does this as well.  That movie intentionally always keeps you a bit off balance, thinking the main character is mentally ill.  When you know the truth, you see it all.  That's a plot twist. 

The star kid is a whole new plot complete with a new goal.  Once you meet the star kid, you don't have some feeling that the rest of the story all makes sense now.  As a new character he needed to do that.  You had to be able to go back and look over the rest of 3 stories and say that the star kid now explains this and that.  You can't and he doesn't.  In order for him to be relevant at the end, he had to be a part of the goal.  His purpose is to explain the motives and origins of the reapers.  He doesn't even do a good job at it and creates more questions than answers.  But, the motives and origins of the reapers were never some big overriding goals.  They are what is known as color commentary.  Not essential but somewhat interesting-nothing is lost if you never know it, but it would be nice to know.  All that could have been added to an epilogue or be in a conversation with a dying Harbinger.  And it should have made more sense.

That that would make the virus virgil give you in ME1 a dem.

And the crucible is fully explined. It's the high science details that is not. Control and Destroy is also explined.

Synthesis is not...Synthesis is the dem.

[avenging_teabag]

nevermind

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 27 juillet 2012 - 01:21 .

[avenging_teabag]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Except you can, and if you understand the origin of the device you will. Even your own definitions involve that implicit understanding that it is a sudden introduction to resolve the issue. 

I understand the device and its origin perfectly fine - it has nothing to do with timing. By the nature of storytelling, a DEM is *usually* introduced close to the end of the story, however, it doesn't *have* to be that way. The proof is in the post you quoted, the rest is just you grasping at straws.

Modifié par avenging_teabag, 27 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[dreman9999]

avenging_teabag wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Except you can, and if you understand the origin of the device you will. Even your own definitions involve that implicit understanding that it is a sudden introduction to resolve the issue. 

I understand the device and its origin perfectly fine - it has nothing to do with timing. By the nature of storytelling, a DEM is *usually* introduced close to the end of the story, however, it doesn't *have* to be that way. The proof is in the post you quoted, the rest is just you grasping at straws.

True. But the crucible is still not a dem being that it was hinted for Lothsb and it doesn't suddenly solve the reaper problem being that it has to be built.
Ifyou want a real example of DEM it would be how Tali is introduced in ME1.

Modifié par dreman9999, 27 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[Ztrobos]

Considering what wide definitions are given to the DEM in this post, it seem to cover very nearly every grand and somewhat unexpected solution to a problem. Ewoks in Starwars are DEM, the Ring in Lothr (or possibly Golllum biting Frodos finger off), dr Who managing to fix his busted time-machine and redirecting power to thrusters in Star trek.

What are you trying to say?

You didn't like the ending, we get that. You mistook the reapers for chutulu-styled unknowable elder gods while others tried to guess what logic the machines where following. Some where richly rewarded with information. Most suggested revisions so far have been awful.

[Comsky159]

Deus ex machina is the cheap way out of a sci-fi narrative, unless the name of the game is deus ex naturally. I expected one ending to be along those lines, not all three.

Modifié par Comsky159, 27 juillet 2012 - 02:08 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

That that would make the virus virgil give you in ME1 a dem.

And the crucible is fully explined. It's the high science details that is not. Control and Destroy is also explined.

Synthesis is not...Synthesis is the dem.

Ok no.  Vigil could be a minor DeM.  The data file is not.

A DeM is literally a god from the machine that is contrived and comes out of nowhere to solve a problem.
Synthesis is not a DeM.

A DeM (from wikipedia) is a plot device where "a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the
contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character,
ability, or object".  Synthesis is a part of the solution but it does not intervene.  It is passive.  The kid intervenes and is there to solve the problem.

The crucible is a MacGuffin.  It s sought after often to the exclusion of all else often with little or no explanation as to why it's so desirable.  They have no idea why they want the crucible because they don't know what it does.  But they think it may help them so they will  do just about anything to have it.  That's a MacGuffin.

Both of these are substitutes for actually writing story content.  A MacGuffin isn't bad nor is a DeM, but unless there's some really good story written around and eventually about them, they fail. 

Vigil if he even is a DeM, helps to explain things and does not kill the plot-he moves it forward.  He also fits with everything already known in the story.  It's known that the protheans existed and were wiped out.  They also had a lot of tech they'd created-beacons remain and other VIs do exist that other people have created.  This is not suprising.  The star kid on the other hand comes out of nowhere, offering choices that exist where he lives, that are powered by the unknown crucible (no one knows where the plans came from and the kid never fully explains them).  The kid's is like a whole new character in a whole new story.  He is the very model of a DeM, as the writers see him-he solves the problem, not the original problem, but the new one that they suddenly made the ending about.

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Once you meet the star kid, you don't have some feeling that the rest of the story all makes sense now.  

I did, actually.  I finally understood why they were Reaping, and I found the idea that all these terrifying galactic exterminations were the result of a coding error made by some billennia-old government contractor bitterly ironic.  It was also the first time in the entire series when I realised how alien an AI could be.

I found it incredibly thought provoking, and thought the way the writers had left the future of the Mass Effect galaxy a big unknown again - parallelling the audience's experience at the start of the first game, looking out to the stars and wondering what are we going to find out there - was extremely clever.  And so I logged into the BSN, eagerly wanting to know what my fellow fans thought about a post-relay galaxy, about how the dextroes might use liveships and cloned meat to survive their long homeward journey, about the ramifications of completing/sabotaging the genophage cure, etc.

And you know what I got?  A bunch of idiots who couldn't even tell you who Horace was, let alone quote Ars Poetica, shouting Y U DO DEUS EX MACHINA BW.  For months.

[3DandBeyond]

Comsky159 wrote...

Deus ex machina is the cheap way out of a sci-fi narrative, unless the name of the game is deus ex naturally. I expected one ending to be along those lines, not all three.

And actually the term in Deus ex is meant to slam game devs that use DeMs.

DeMs and MacGuffins are similar sort of.
DeMs are like surprises that swoop down to solve the problem.  It's abrupt. 
MacGuffins are sought after, like a Holy Grail.  It may or many not have some explanation.

The problem with DeMs is they are not natural parts of the plot.  They are there with no explanation and just kind of work to end things-a current part of the story sometimes, but most often the whole end of a story.  They usually say the writer didn't know how to write an ending and so a miracle comes in, saves the day, ends the story.  The problem it solves is usually said to be unsolvable.  DeMs when used this way are destructive to the narrative and the plot, because they are external forces-not a part of the story in any meaningful way.  They are usually done very badly because they are usually not ever explained well.

MacGuffins aren't as horrible if they at least make sense at some point.  The crucible could have worked if someone had looked at the plans and sort of recognized something that it did.  And if people had real reasons for believing in it.  It defies logic as it is because rational people aren't going to jump at making something that could be a weapon for good but could just as easily be a big "destroy the whole galaxy" bomb.  It does get an explanation of sorts at the end-it's a power source.  But that's too late.

[Grimwick]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

That doesn't make the Catalyst a diabolus - just the entire fact that the crucible didn't fire when they opened the arms.

Now you're arguing semantics.

Grimwick wrote...
Your arrogance astounds me.

I could have been more diplomatic but, let's face it, the EC was the ending again but delivered more slowly so even the kids at the back of the room could follow along.  Handhold the Line.

Your ignorant attitude only serves to make you look like an idiot.

[CaptainZaysh]

Grimwick wrote...

Your ignorant attitude only serves to make you look like an idiot.

NO U.

[Grimwick]

dreman9999 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Read it's definition...
http://www.thefreedi...deus ex machina 
1. [/b]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.A dem is not explined at all. Both a macguffin and a DEM are not explined.

It doesn't say 'unexplained' at all in any of the definitions. It doesn't even say it in yours... unless you are reading 'unexpected' and 'unexplained'....

This is not helping your case.

unexpected, artificial, or improbable points to it being unexplined.

unexpected 
http://www.thefreedi....com/unexpected 
Coming without warning; unforeseen. 

Addeedthe definationis that it's 
sudden and unexpected .

Both the catalyst and the crucible don't do that.

And example of a DEM is the dease that killed all the aliens in War of the worlds.

You aren't making a case here.

Unexpected =/= unexplained. Nor does it suggest that it is unexplained.

If you are trying to argue semantics as the basis for it not being a DEM then you are going to be flat out wrong.

[3DandBeyond]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Once you meet the star kid, you don't have some feeling that the rest of the story all makes sense now.  

I did, actually.  I finally understood why they were Reaping, and I found the idea that all these terrifying galactic exterminations were the result of a coding error made by some billennia-old government contractor bitterly ironic.  It was also the first time in the entire series when I realised how alien an AI could be.

I found it incredibly thought provoking, and thought the way the writers had left the future of the Mass Effect galaxy a big unknown again - parallelling the audience's experience at the start of the first game, looking out to the stars and wondering what are we going to find out there - was extremely clever.  And so I logged into the BSN, eagerly wanting to know what my fellow fans thought about a post-relay galaxy, about how the dextroes might use liveships and cloned meat to survive their long homeward journey, about the ramifications of completing/sabotaging the genophage cure, etc.

And you know what I got?  A bunch of idiots who couldn't even tell you who Horace was, let alone quote Ars Poetica, shouting Y U DO DEUS EX MACHINA BW.  For months.

Well that's truly constructive.  You really didn't read much did you if that's all you got from all the various discussions because there was a lot of great thought going on.

You apparently avoided what I said--the rest of the story making sense.  How can the reapers in ME3 at the end fit in with Sovereign?  Where is the kid in ME1 or when the Protheans turned off the send in the reapers signal?

It is not a central issue or theme of any ME story to understand the origins and motivations of the reapers and as presented it cheapens them.  They are lap dogs.

Again, at the end you have to have the feeling that all the relevant points and the goal of the story were explained and met.  Their origins and motives aren't major relevant points.  That's backstory and color commentary.  Their destruction is the goal.

The endings weren't thought provoking for this story because they are from other stories.  Deus ex, Babylon 5, the Matrix Revolutions, and the list goes on.  The utilization of a DeM at the end is why it kept being discussed because it's lazy writing and doesn't make for a good story ending.  But people always discussed a whole lot more.  Your characterization of all the interesting people that were here says more about you than it does about them. You need to insult others to feel your own thoughts are right.  Have fun with that.  Referring to Ars Poetica to insult others is truly hilarious if you don't get the relevant message of Ars Poetica.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 02:34 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That that would make the virus virgil give you in ME1 a dem.

And the crucible is fully explined. It's the high science details that is not. Control and Destroy is also explined.

Synthesis is not...Synthesis is the dem.

Ok no.  Vigil could be a minor DeM.  The data file is not.

A DeM is literally a god from the machine that is contrived and comes out of nowhere to solve a problem.
Synthesis is not a DeM.

A DeM (from wikipedia) is a plot device where "a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the
contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character,
ability, or object".  Synthesis is a part of the solution but it does not intervene.  It is passive.  The kid intervenes and is there to solve the problem.

The crucible is a MacGuffin.  It s sought after often to the exclusion of all else often with little or no explanation as to why it's so desirable.  They have no idea why they want the crucible because they don't know what it does.  But they think it may help them so they will  do just about anything to have it.  That's a MacGuffin.

Both of these are substitutes for actually writing story content.  A MacGuffin isn't bad nor is a DeM, but unless there's some really good story written around and eventually about them, they fail. 

Vigil if he even is a DeM, helps to explain things and does not kill the plot-he moves it forward.  He also fits with everything already known in the story.  It's known that the protheans existed and were wiped out.  They also had a lot of tech they'd created-beacons remain and other VIs do exist that other people have created.  This is not suprising.  The star kid on the other hand comes out of nowhere, offering choices that exist where he lives, that are powered by the unknown crucible (no one knows where the plans came from and the kid never fully explains them).  The kid's is like a whole new character in a whole new story.  He is the very model of a DeM, as the writers see him-he solves the problem, not the original problem, but the new one that they suddenly made the ending about.

Their is no such thing as a minor dem. It ether is or is not.And the crucible is not a macguffin because it's clear to why the main cahracter is after it.
And example of a macguffin would be the ark in raiders of the lost ark.
The catalyst also does the samething Virgil does as well.

[macrocarl]

People are misusing the term 'Deus Ex Machina'.
Starkid didn't pop out of no where per se. Nor did he save the day on his own.  You spend the whole game getting people to work on the project.
Depending on how you interpret events through ME3 he was around the whole game. Even if you don't consider the child from the beginning of ME3 to be the same one as the glowworm version at the end it was clearly stated throughout ME3 that the allied forces had no idea what was going to happen. It was also clearly stated that a conventional defeat of the Reapers wasn't possible.
In fact, through out the entire series BW was hinting at the enormity of the situation. On top of that they continuously stressed that no one was officially taking Shep seriously about the impending doom. (Citedel Council anyone?)
I bring up this stuff because it actually is letting the player know that something unexpected HAS to happen because even it the galexy WAS ready for the Reaper invasion they were still hosed.
So here's my theory:
Other video games make narrative claims that it's going to be impossible and then still let you pull it off.
Video game players have come to expect that despite having the narrative clearly stating that it's impossible and then letting you go ahead and do it anyway is an industry norm.
BW didn't follow that plan and some players don't like it.
So unless you're taking 'Deus Ex Machina' literally...... then yeah, it's the leader/boss/ god of the machines.

[macrocarl]

On the MacGuffin thing. The Crucible is not necessarily a MacGuffin. Yes no one knows what it is going to do but we clearly know from the narrative that the galaxy is up against the wall and is out of options and have to try the only thing left to them if they want to survive. Character's say that over and over in the game. To me that's a pretty strong indicator as to 'why' they are going after it which makes the Crucible fall short of the criteria for a MacGuffin

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Once you meet the star kid, you don't have some feeling that the rest of the story all makes sense now.  

I did, actually.  I finally understood why they were Reaping, and I found the idea that all these terrifying galactic exterminations were the result of a coding error made by some billennia-old government contractor bitterly ironic.  It was also the first time in the entire series when I realised how alien an AI could be.

I found it incredibly thought provoking, and thought the way the writers had left the future of the Mass Effect galaxy a big unknown again - parallelling the audience's experience at the start of the first game, looking out to the stars and wondering what are we going to find out there - was extremely clever.  And so I logged into the BSN, eagerly wanting to know what my fellow fans thought about a post-relay galaxy, about how the dextroes might use liveships and cloned meat to survive their long homeward journey, about the ramifications of completing/sabotaging the genophage cure, etc.

And you know what I got?  A bunch of idiots who couldn't even tell you who Horace was, let alone quote Ars Poetica, shouting Y U DO DEUS EX MACHINA BW.  For months.

Well that's truly constructive.  You really didn't read much did you if that's all you got from all the various discussions because there was a lot of great thought going on.

You apparently avoided what I said--the rest of the story making sense.  How can the reapers in ME3 at the end fit in with Sovereign?  Where is the kid in ME1 or when the Protheans turned off the send in the reapers signal?

It is not a central issue or theme of any ME story to understand the origins and motivations of the reapers and as presented it cheapens them.  They are lap dogs.

Again, at the end you have to have the feeling that all the relevant points and the goal of the story were explained and met.  Their origins and motives aren't major relevant points.  That's backstory and color commentary.  Their destruction is the goal.

The endings weren't thought provoking for this story because they are from other stories.  Deus ex, Babylon 5, the Matrix Revolutions, and the list goes on.  The utilization of a DeM at the end is why it kept being discussed because it's lazy writing and doesn't make for a good story ending.  But people always discussed a whole lot more.  Your characterization of all the interesting people that were here says more about you than it does about them. You need to insult others to feel your own thoughts are right.  Have fun with that.  Referring to Ars Poetica to insult others is truly hilarious if you don't get the relevant message of Ars Poetica.

Sovergin being an nation is explained in ME2 by Legion. In the conversion about the reapers,legion states this about Sovergin....
"One ship, one will, many mind. Just like the geth."

Legion stated that is why Sovergin called his self a nation. He like the geth except they don't sharebraing power. The reaper work via concencus.

Now, in ME3 with the catalyst... He states.
"I am the enbodyment of the collective intelligence of the reapers."

Basicly, the catalyst to the reapers is like legion to one of 1183 geth in it platform.

[macrocarl]

'MacGuffins are sought after, like a Holy Grail.' Except that it's a religious icon and so belief is a very strong 'why' even though the seekers faith may be somewhat flawed or seem crazy to outsiders. If the Crucible is seen as an icon then the 'why' everyone is trying this out even though it's mysterious is pretty self evident.

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well that's truly constructive.  You really didn't read much did you if that's all you got from all the various discussions because there was a lot of great thought going on.

This is the loosest definition of "great thought" I've ever read.

3DandBeyond wrote...
You apparently avoided what I said--the rest of the story making sense.  How can the reapers in ME3 at the end fit in with Sovereign?

In what sense?  Are you talking about the "every one of us a nation" line on Virmire?

3DandBeyond wrote...
Where is the kid in ME1 or when the Protheans turned off the send in the reapers signal?

This is never explicitly answered, of course, but "waiting for Sovereign to boot it up" seems reasonable, and is also implied by the Crucible docking at the same point Sovereign was fiddling with during the ME1 climax.

3DandBeyond wrote...
It is not a central issue or theme of any ME story to understand the origins and motivations of the reapers and as presented it cheapens them.  They are lap dogs.

Now that's a valid criticism.  I don't share it, but I would respect ending criticisms if they were more along the lines of "I would have preferred the Reapers to have been portrayed differently" and less along the lines of "the ending was objectively bad and all who disagree are fools".

3DandBeyond wrote...
Referring to Ars Poetica to insult others is truly hilarious if you don't get the relevant message of Ars Poetica.

And yet, unlike you, I've actually read it.

[Ozida]

How about this one: http://social.biowar...ndex/13174689/1? I think it is more logical fit to ME Universe.

Modifié par Ozida, 27 juillet 2012 - 02:52 .

[3DandBeyond]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well that's truly constructive.  You really didn't read much did you if that's all you got from all the various discussions because there was a lot of great thought going on.

This is the loosest definition of "great thought" I've ever read.

I didn't define great thought, but merely stated the obvious.  You have been insulting and then made generalizations that indicate you pidgeon-holed people whose posts you've never even read.

I never said I did read Ars Poetica, but you referenced it in order to assume your superiority over others whose thoughts you dismissed without even reading.  It doesn't matter that I didn't read Ars Poetica, but it does matter that you called people idiots without ever having read what they said. 

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I never said I did read Ars Poetica, but you referenced it in order to assume your superiority over others whose thoughts you dismissed without even reading.  It doesn't matter that I didn't read Ars Poetica, but it does matter that you called people idiots without ever having read what they said. 

The point is that deus ex machina has a specific meaning.  Like Ztrobos pointed out upstream:

Considering what wide definitions are given to the DEM in this post, it seem to cover very nearly every grand and somewhat unexpected solution to a problem. Ewoks in Starwars are DEM, the Ring in Lothr (or possibly Golllum biting Frodos finger off), dr Who managing to fix his busted time-machine and redirecting power to thrusters in Star trek.

You guys are using such a loose definition of deus ex machina as to make it meaningless.  And that's a big deal, because without sticking to the commonly agreed definition of certain terms we end up having stupid conversations about irrelevant topics.  I would be much more interested in discussing your opinion on how the Reaper revelation cheapened them as primary antagonists, but I can't, because you insist on arguing about whose interpretation of Horace's literary criticism is more correct, instead.

Needless to say, this is especially galling considering you admit you haven't even f**king read Horace, which is probably why I'm coming across as a bit of a dick.

[3DandBeyond]

macrocarl wrote...

'MacGuffins are sought after, like a Holy Grail.' Except that it's a religious icon and so belief is a very strong 'why' even though the seekers faith may be somewhat flawed or seem crazy to outsiders. If the Crucible is seen as an icon then the 'why' everyone is trying this out even though it's mysterious is pretty self evident.

Ok I wasn't meaning the religious aspect just trying to get across the idea that it's something people really search for. Holy Grail is commonly used to refer to any item (not necessarily religious) that people really desire to find.  It's become commonly used to just mean something sought after.  The Holy Grail was a MacGuffin in the one Indiana Jones movie.

A MacGuffin just has to be something people try to find or get and they desire a lot-but they can have a reason to do it.  They may even think they know what it is.  DeMs are more mysterious.  MacGuffins that make sense are at least partly understood.   They can be mysteries, have value, have no intrinsic value, do something, do nothing, and so on.  It's just they usually are not fully understood, but still they can be.  They are just something that moves the story along.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

'MacGuffins are sought after, like a Holy Grail.' Except that it's a religious icon and so belief is a very strong 'why' even though the seekers faith may be somewhat flawed or seem crazy to outsiders. If the Crucible is seen as an icon then the 'why' everyone is trying this out even though it's mysterious is pretty self evident.

Ok I wasn't meaning the religious aspect just trying to get across the idea that it's something people really search for. Holy Grail is commonly used to refer to any item (not necessarily religious) that people really desire to find.  It's become commonly used to just mean something sought after.  The Holy Grail was a MacGuffin in the one Indiana Jones movie.

A MacGuffin just has to be something people try to find or get and they desire a lot-but they can have a reason to do it.  They may even think they know what it is.  DeMs are more mysterious.  MacGuffins that make sense are at least partly understood.   They can be mysteries, have value, have no intrinsic value, do something, do nothing, and so on.  It's just they usually are not fully understood, but still they can be.  They are just something that moves the story along.

That's not it at all. Seran would be one if that was true.  A Macguffin is just something that is seeked with no real reason given. The crucible has a real reason. That makes it not a macguffin.