251 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It's become commonly used to just mean something sought after.  The Holy Grail was a MacGuffin in the one Indiana Jones movie.

Wrong again.

A MacGuffin has to be interchangeable.  The Holy Grail in that Indiana Jones movie isn't interchangeable (because once they've obtained it Indy's dad drinks from it, which saves his life).  If the Holy Grail had been replaced with the Cross of Coronado, Indy's dad would have died of his injuries since the Cross of Coronado doesn't have healing powers.

An example of a MacGuffin is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, which could have easily been a laptop or a painting or an envelope.

Needless to say, the Crucible is not a MacGuffin unless you change the meaning of the word MacGuffin.

[3DandBeyond]

CaptainZaysh wrote...


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.

I don't need to read Horace to understand what a DeM is, but you do need to read people's post before calling them all idiots.  Not interested in further discussion with you since you know you are acting exactly how you are acting and refuse to act like you are actually talking to people.  If you were truly intelligent you might act like you understand that.  Just because someone on here does not know everything you think you do, does not mean they are beneath you and need to be proven to be so by you.  I know what a DeM is.  I know how it was used in Greek tragedies.  I know what other great orators and poets and writers thought of this as a plot device.  I know what current book publishers, good SF writers, and even some game publishers think of it as a plot device.  I know it was used abominably at the end of this.  I also know that the game that partly bears the name as a reference to the concept was in part ridiculing the concept.  I have never once yet called anyone on these forums an idiot and never once have I implied I am superior to anyone because of what I've read.  I am human enough to know that this forum has members who may not understand or write natively in the language I use and I allow for that-they do far better than I would if the roles were reversed. 

I also know there are others that played 3 games that got their feelings wrapped all up in them BY DESIGN and made them care for deep characters and deep stories.  I know that others that are my betters, based not only on their knowledge and education credentials but in how they behave here have given reasoned thought and explanation on why the kid is a DeM and that as such and in practice he disrupts the narrative, changes the plot, creates true plot holes not only within ME1-2, but in ME3 itself, and I have had and continue to have some very lively and interesting discussions with them.  And I have had discussions with others for whom the games and stories were their main game purchases over the years-their no brainer purchases.  Many that cared very deeply for these characters and even Bioware that felt abandoned, not only by the story but by a company they loved-BW.  And for all their humble attempts to explain their love of the games and all of ME and BW but their dislike of the ME3 ending and their sad feelings, I saw them met with ridicule from others who called them haters, told them to quit crying, move on, stop whining, don't like it don't buy it (real logic), get out of my face, and this from people who themselves didn't love the endings.

I repeatedly saw people explain their ideas and feelings and explain things and give good reason get told they were stupid and all manner of things.  They just wanted puppies and rainbows, because they had the nerve to say BW made promises they didn't keep and they had hoped for a variety of endings-one that might be happier.  They also said they bought a game that ended in a way that didn't fit with the other games.  Stories have intrinsic promises that BW broke in making a compilation ending from other people's ideas.  BW never once came to discuss anything with people that were regisered buyers and that had loved BW-fans.  We were all fans. 

I see why you think everyone else is an idiot.  They had expectations that were created within these games and within promises made by BW employees all over the place.  Plotholes and retconning happened on twitter. 

The star kid fixes his own problems.  He isn't even credible.  The choices do not relate to the overarching themes of strength through diversity, unity, and does not follow the character driven story line.  The antagonists are replaced.  The story and game itself stops at the conduit and goes on autoplay.  Shepard goes full idiot.  And then is all but forced to be amoral.  None of this fits in with ME.  And then full on fantasy land takes over.

And for your information when I was a child I was encouraged strongly to read Horace, Milton, Medea, and many other great works.  I'm older now and I've probably forgotten more than you've ever learned.  Enjoy your high horse.

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And for your information when I was a child I was encouraged strongly to read Horace, Milton, Medea, and many other great works.

If only you'd listened.

[3DandBeyond]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

It's become commonly used to just mean something sought after.  The Holy Grail was a MacGuffin in the one Indiana Jones movie.

Wrong again.

A MacGuffin has to be interchangeable.  The Holy Grail in that Indiana Jones movie isn't interchangeable (because once they've obtained it Indy's dad drinks from it, which saves his life).  If the Holy Grail had been replaced with the Cross of Coronado, Indy's dad would have died of his injuries since the Cross of Coronado doesn't have healing powers.

An example of a MacGuffin is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, which could have easily been a laptop or a painting or an envelope.

Needless to say, the Crucible is not a MacGuffin unless you change the meaning of the word MacGuffin.

It can be interchangeable but does not have to be.  It can be wholly known or not known at all. Since you see Horace as relevant to a DeM, may I direct you to hitchcock for a MacGuffin.

Edit:  Ok seriously you tell me I'm wrong in saying the holy grail is a MacGuffin and then you give me a link to a site that shows a holy grail in a picture of MacGuffins?

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 03:47 .

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...
not interested in further discussion with you

3DandBeyond wrote...
Edit:  Ok seriously you tell me I'm wrong in saying the holy grail is a MacGuffin and then you give me a link to a site that shows a holy grail in a picture of MacGuffins?

I'm confused.  Are we talking or not talking?

[Dean_the_Young]

You're in fine form tonight, Zaysh.

[3DandBeyond]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
not interested in further discussion with you

3DandBeyond wrote...
Edit:  Ok seriously you tell me I'm wrong in saying the holy grail is a MacGuffin and then you give me a link to a site that shows a holy grail in a picture of MacGuffins?

I'm confused.  Are we talking or not talking?

I said discussion.  I'm interested in discussion and not one person talking about how smart he is and how ignorant others are.  And after this I'm done talking to you. 

You tell me I'm wrong and send me to a site that proves I'm right. 

No one can have a discussion or talk to that. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 03:54 .

[CaptainZaysh]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I said discussion.  I'm interested in discussion and not one person talking about how smart he is and how ignorant others are.  And after this I'm done talking. 

You tell me I'm wrong and send me to a site that proves I'm right. 

No one can have a discussion or talk to that. 

Ooh, the "declare victory and bug out" move.  Nice one.

EDIT: the edit you made to your post was hilarious, by the way.  I don't often say this, but: LOL!  

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 27 juillet 2012 - 04:07 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You're in fine form tonight, Zaysh.

I think I forgot to take my meds.

[SpamBot2000]

As Horace himself put it, Nunc est bibendum.

[Vuduu]

 Here's my thoughts on how ME3 could have very easily avoided DEM.

http://social.biowar.../index/13207216 

[CaptainZaysh]

Vuduu wrote...

 Here's my thoughts on how ME3 could have very easily avoided DEM.

http://social.biowar.../index/13207216 

Yeah.  (Nice editing work, by the way.)  This actually proves that the starchild is not a deus ex machina, since you can literally cut it out of the ending and it still works.

[Ztrobos]

Vuduu wrote...

 Here's my thoughts on how ME3 could have very easily avoided DEM.

http://social.biowar.../index/13207216 

Kinda like how king Arthur does'nt die in the disney version: "Too much flavour, need plain vanilla". 
Starchild is'nt a DEM in my opinion, he represent and also present the twisted logic that the reapers follow.

The reapers are'nt new, neither is the logical conclusion that they, being machines, let some form of mathematical reasoning govern their actions completely. Without starchild, we miss out on some critical information wich would turn the reapers back from primitive god-figures and into being what we already should know they are: rogue AI.

You're basicly taking one loop out of the roller-coster and calling it an improvement.

[txgoldrush]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Not even this because synthesis requires Shepard, or the Catalyst can't enact it.

[txgoldrush]

3DandBeyond wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Shepard is seen as a miracle worker and a hero, one that fixes the problems and does the impossible. Thats clear enough.

Nevermind the fact once again that Shepard and his allies sets up the Crucible.....face it, the Catalyst doesn't explain th efinal choices if Shepard doesn't set it up. Simply put, once again, Shepard basically conviced by allowing the Crucible to be docked that the villians methods do not work anymore.

You keep ignoring this fact. God boy doesn't just interevene because the hero is powerless....he intervenes because the hero intervened.

Once again, if it wasn't for Shep, the cycle continues.

You said it yourself-Shepard is seen as a miracle worker that solves problems and does the impossible.  Shepard is a known person, not a contrived thing thrown in from out of nowhere.  Shepard's the hero of the story and that's what heroes do.  That defines a protagonist and not a Deus ex Machina. 

The kid says a lot of things-all things are only what he says.  But just because Shepard uses what the kid provides does not make Shepard any kind of DeM.  Shepard did not create the crucible-Shepard didn't even find the plans.  Shepard didn't make the citadel or anything else.  The DeM could have used anyone, we have no way of knowing it needed Shepard specifically.  That may be so, but if so that's never explored or said.  And the kid says the crucible, (not Shepard) changed me.  For control, the kid needs someone to control the reapers.  For synthesis, someone's energy.  Destroy, he needs someone to shoot the tube.  He doesn't say specifically that must be Shepard.

You really have to go back to what a DeM is.  It's a god from a machine and as such quite literally drops in from nowhere to solve the problem.  The writers use the kid to do that-his tools are the crucible, the catalyst, and Shepard.  Shepard happened to be the one that got there.  Shepard used what was provided to be used.  Shepard didn't create any of it.


As for the choices.  You say with no proof that synthesis is the only choice the kid wants made.  No it isn't.  He may prefer it, but all choices fix his problem.  He was created to find a balance between synthetics and organics.  His solution was basically to never let races advance to the point where conflict can happen-don't allow synthetics to exist.  That isn't working anymore.  There's more to acutually prove that the existence of the geth are why his solution isn't working than that it's just because Shepard is on the citadel.  And again themes within ME2 that might make sense of this all in some way were abandoned and the obsession with humans is never explained or explored.  In ME2 they go after humans using the collectors and not just Shepard.

The choices all solve the kid's original problem.  His solution, the reapers, is no longer working.  He needs a new solution, but he can't make it happen.  He's still providing the solution.  I used an example.  You ignored it.  If a blind man appears suddenly and offers the protagonist of a story an magic gun that he found on the floor, so the protagonist can beat some bad guys, the blind man is acting as a DeM, even though he didn't make the gun and isn't using the gun himself.

Shepard can choose synthesis.  The kid may like this the best because it solves his problem he thinks forever as the final goal of evolution.  Never mind the problems it could create.  The reapers always advanced people along a specific path.  He wants people to fully advance along this path.  He is tech and he thinks people want perfection through tech.  So, people want to be him.  It's forced eugenics.  It stops the conflict and chaos as the kid sees it-solving his problem.

Shepard can choose synthesis.  Shepard may replace the kid, but the essence or intelligence of the kid may live on.  Who knows, but even so the kid will have at least temporarily solved his problem.  It's similar to but more nuanced than his solution of the reapers.  The reapers still exist to enforce the peace.  That stops conflict and chaos.  An emotionless intelligence (Shepard) will be controlling them and at least temporarily that intelligence isn't yet warped like the kid.  Nevermind all the people that might not like reapers with people goo inside them running around and never mind that this means the reapers will still be creating the tech and advancing organics along a certain path.

Shepard can choose destroy.  Not as permanent as even the other choices, but it does solve the current synthetic problem by destroying all of them.  Certain tech may be fixed, but synthetic life won't exist anytime soon.  It will take awhile to repair all the other things (they have to learn how to).  The conflict and chaos may (according to the kid will) return, but he has for now solved his problem.  He doesn't say that he will be destroyed.  He does say "we" when asked about the reapers, but the kid isn't just the reapers.  Before he created the first reaper, he existed and was not a reaper.  So, he might still exist and could create a new solution (even reapers).  There's no way of knowing.

Any choice is preferred by the kid over a solution that is not currently or still working for him.  In fact, he never protests that Shepard should just choose synthesis.

This is all a part of why the kid fails since he is meant by the writers to be the solution to the reaper problem.  This is evident in the refuse option and the fact the original ending basically forced you to choose one of the 3 options to successfuly finish (not win) the game.  People are even convinced that making one of these choices is a win because they stop the reapers.  Only one of the choices might do that.  But none of them are wins at all.  The writers want you to think they are.  But they are not why you played 3 games.  They don't say the galaxy is a better place.  And 2 of them allow the reapers to still exist and be right in people's faces.  They are all destructive to people and set up immoral options as paths to victory.  That is demented.

The kid needs to be excised like a wart.  It won't happen, but a lot of the ending (all of it) is so far removed from what ME was.  They are glorified versions of the original RGB endings.  The game and story needed for people to finish the reapers not for Shepard to have a conversation with the reaper god and help him choose how to carry out his directive.

You still do not get it.......Shepard gets "known" only because he is the miraculous solution. To get known he was unknown, like most of ME1.

Shepard didn't create the Crucible, but his or her actions allowed it to be possible to be used. Credit is due here, you are not giving it.

And like dreman says, he solves nothing.

And destroy goes against his prime directive, its clear that he wants to convince you out of this choice...you didn't pay attention. He specifically says the chaos will come back.

[zambot]

3DandBeyond wrote...


Edit:  Ok seriously you tell me I'm wrong in saying the holy grail is a MacGuffin and then you give me a link to a site that shows a holy grail in a picture of MacGuffins?

The day is still young, but so far this is the funniest thing I've seen on the internet today.

[incinerator950]

It was an idea that surfaced during playing ME1 back four years. They may need to pull it because of how high they set the enemy.

[CaptainZaysh]

zambot wrote...

The day is still young, but so far this is the funniest thing I've seen on the internet today.

The funniest thing I saw was his original post trashing TV Tropes as a source of reliable commentary, and then quickly deleting that opinion when he saw there was an inconsistency on the page that might have supported his argument.

Sadly we'll never know, since he declared victory and ran off.

[dreman9999]

txgoldrush wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Not even this because synthesis requires Shepard, or the Catalyst can't enact it.

But if you choose it ...It is a dem.

[macrocarl]

@3DandBeyond - Sorry if I was coming off as a stickler for the definitions of McGuffin and DEM etc. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it!
People have been throwing around these terms trying to express what they don't like about ME3 and using narrative structure to back up their opinions incorrectly. To me, the heart of the matter is that the folks who don't like the ending are responding from an emotional standpoint. Which is completely valid. But! Around ol' BSN there are many arguments that are using these narrative structural terms to validate their opinions very loosely.
A Mcguffin or a DEM aren't bad plot devices in themselves, they're just ways of explaining structural shifts in a story. Which historically a lot of 'bad writing' uses these plot devices but they aren't inherently bad in themselves if handled correctly.
All that aside, I think some of us who enjoyed ME3 are defending the writing as not inherently 'bad'.
And some folks who are using these terms in the negative are basically inferring that we're wrong because of a misunderstanding of the terms they've set. Anyway, hope that made sense. My brain is fried.

[Klijpope]

If the Crucible is a DEM then the Conduit certainly is. At least we know something about the Crucible, ie: it is a powerful device that runs on dark energy designed to end the reaper threat. The Conduit - all we know is that Saren wants it. In fact, they're both just plot devices. The Crucible is a bit like the Genesis Device from ST2, except we get shown the space magic of Genesis in the first act of the movie. But if we, as sf fans, can accept the Genesis Wave, why can't we accept the RGB space magic?

The Catalyst is not a DEM, but it is deliberately written to resemble one. It is quite literally the (reaper) god in the (Citadel) machine.

DEM's actually come up quite a lot in SF, it's part of the territory - the most famous being in 2001.

Has anyone read the "Night's Dawn Trilogy" by Peter F Hamilton? Actually has a lot in common with the ME franchise, with its cosmic horror and a seemingly unbeatable enemy, the ability for the bad guys to co-opt the good guys, a form of tech/organic synthesis, massive space and ground battles, a 'good' massive space station and a 'bad' massive space station, and so on. It ends with a classic DEM, and while that is disappointing in some ways, was the only way to resolve the narrative, and that overall narrative was fantastic.

After all, the Crucible/Catalyst/RGB was far more plausible than the inserting computer virus via a macbook pro and a serial port at the end of Independence Day.

[Joccaren]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The destroy and control options of the crucible is not magical

Explain how they work then, given the lore of the Mass Effect Universe and what we know of it. You will be hard pressed to find a logical explanation. "We don't know" is the best and only true answer, as it should not work according to ME physics.

and Liara states the sb found something left by the protheans in lotsb.

Again, does not say "Found a device that can instantly stop the Reapers". It could have been anything. Hell, I take it as evidence of him fniding Javik. Its how the diggers on Eden Prime knew where to dig. There is more evidence of that than it being the Crucible, as had it been the Crucible he would likely have sent off the designs to get it built - as he wanted to live - and we would have had them 6 months prior to ME3, and had the Crucible deployed by the time the Reapers invaded.

2.No. That's not a suddened solving of a solution. IT still has to be build. That how it's not sudden.

Stop being obtuse. Prior to the Crucible we did not know how we could ever defeat the Reapers. Then we SUDDENLY find the Crucible's designs on Mars. Yes, it still needs to be built. It is introduced suddenly with no leadup, however.

3.It's still info from the past. Still simular to wat happen before with in ME1.

Again, my unicorns example. Info from the past is not sufficient justification for why it fits. Those magical flying unicorns I came up with were info from the past left behind by the Protheans. They would not fit in ME3 at all.

4.The protheans left if for us. And Ironocly they do have a history of making super weapons...http://masseffect.wi...a'til#Zha.27til 

Compare the scale of each weapon. One is likely far smaller than the Crucible, and destroys a star. The other is about 1/4 the size of the Citadel [Rough guess. Might be more or less], has the ability to discriminate between targets [Doesn't destroy the sun, destroys only the Zha'Til around the sun] and has the reach to spread its affect over the entire galaxy.
Perhaps "Superweapon" is too broad a term. "Instant Galactic War Win Button" might be more accurate.

[MassEffect762]

Yes times infinite.

Answer: Better writers and a better publisher.

That's all there is to it folks, not very complicated.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 28 juillet 2012 - 03:27 .

[dreman9999]

Joccaren wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The destroy and control options of the crucible is not magical

Explain how they work then, given the lore of the Mass Effect Universe and what we know of it. You will be hard pressed to find a logical explanation. "We don't know" is the best and only true answer, as it should not work according to ME physics.

and Liara states the sb found something left by the protheans in lotsb.

Again, does not say "Found a device that can instantly stop the Reapers". It could have been anything. Hell, I take it as evidence of him fniding Javik. Its how the diggers on Eden Prime knew where to dig. There is more evidence of that than it being the Crucible, as had it been the Crucible he would likely have sent off the designs to get it built - as he wanted to live - and we would have had them 6 months prior to ME3, and had the Crucible deployed by the time the Reapers invaded.

2.No. That's not a suddened solving of a solution. IT still has to be build. That how it's not sudden.

Stop being obtuse. Prior to the Crucible we did not know how we could ever defeat the Reapers. Then we SUDDENLY find the Crucible's designs on Mars. Yes, it still needs to be built. It is introduced suddenly with no leadup, however.

3.It's still info from the past. Still simular to wat happen before with in ME1.

Again, my unicorns example. Info from the past is not sufficient justification for why it fits. Those magical flying unicorns I came up with were info from the past left behind by the Protheans. They would not fit in ME3 at all.

4.The protheans left if for us. And Ironocly they do have a history of making super weapons...http://masseffect.wi...a'til#Zha.27til 

Compare the scale of each weapon. One is likely far smaller than the Crucible, and destroys a star. The other is about 1/4 the size of the Citadel [Rough guess. Might be more or less], has the ability to discriminate between targets [Doesn't destroy the sun, destroys only the Zha'Til around the sun] and has the reach to spread its affect over the entire galaxy.
Perhaps "Superweapon" is too broad a term. "Instant Galactic War Win Button" might be more accurate.

1. Destroy=emp
Control= rewrite.

2.The comment  that the sb may have found info from the protheans that well help us defeat the reaper is a nod to the crusible. hat still is a hint to it.

3.The crucible did not suddenly come up. Do you not get that?

4.But your missing the point. It still a fact we have a history of getting info, details , tools and weapon from the protheans and past races in the story well before ME3. iT'S NOT OUT OF PLACE IF THEY DO THAT NOW.

[Joccaren]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Destroy=emp
Control= rewrite.

Why does the EMP not destroy all technology, but only Reaper based Technology?
Why does a rewrite signal break Relays?

2.The comment  that the sb may have found info from the protheans that well help us defeat the reaper is a nod to the crusible. hat still is a hint to it.

It is an extremely broad statement that hints towards anything, and therefore nothing. Upon hearing that statement the logical reaction is not "Giant device that I can use to instantly stop all Reapers" but "Something the Protheans left behind that could give us an advantage - maybe weapons tech, maybe a Prothean scientist AI thing, maybe info on Reaper weak spots".

3.The crucible did not suddenly come up. Do you not get that?

It did suddenly come up. One minute we're being invaded by Reapers who we have no hope in hell of defeating, the next we have a device that can instantly stop all the Reapers if we just build it. What is not sudden?

4.But your missing the point. It still a fact we have a history of getting info, details , tools and weapon from the protheans and past races in the story well before ME3. iT'S NOT OUT OF PLACE IF THEY DO THAT NOW.

Of course its not out of place to do that, but doing that doesn't automatically make everything qualify as in place. See Unicorns example. Its not out of place that the Protheans left behind the info, but the Unicorns themselves are out of place in the ME universe.