293 réponses à ce sujet

[WhiteKnyght]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Retroactive attempts to explain away the Crucible/Catalyst as something other than a cheap plot device does not negate the fact that it was precisely that.

The Catalyst is the main Antagonist, not a plot device.

All the options you have to choose from are possible with or without the Catalyst. Shepard just stumbled into its domain and showed it that there are more options than it thought.

I mean, come on, you had to have figured that the Reapers had a larger presence pulling their strings. You don't commit large scale genocide for no reason. The Catalyst is the will of the Reapers and its reasons are theirs.

I never argued this, but the fact that the Catalyst is the main antagonist is also another reason why the trope of the DEM is subverted, and doesn't really exist.

The Catalyst is the Reaper equivalent of the Archdemon from Dragon Age. It commands the rest to do its bidding. Facing the force behind the Reapers and learning the truth from it is almost expected to finish the story.

DEM isn't the right term at all. It's a necessity. The Catalyst embodies the consciousness of all of the Reapers. Sovereign, Harbinger, the Destroyer on Rannoch. All these times, you were really speaking to it when you strip away the Reaper's psychological warfare(The mystical mumbo jumbo they spout is a scare tactic.)

[txgoldrush]

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


This means that the DEM plot device was indeed, used properly.

DEM's aren't always bad.

In fact, it rules, if you establish that the protagonist doesn't have real control over things.

Ugh, thought we were getting something there.

If you read what I wrote, I said it was not a true DEM as it thematically fit with the rest of the book.  Narrative is more than just the rigid plotline.  Theme, character and atmosphere are just as important.  The return of authority fits thematically and therefore does not come completely out of nowhere.

And no, it doesn't rule, its cheap.  The audience is robbed of any real conclusion.

Deus Ex Machina's CAN follow the stories themes and be thematically consistant.

Its a plot device, not a thematic one.

In fact, if it does fit the theme, it is a DEM used properly.

Lets take Gigyas on Earthbound/Mother 2 as another example.

While the player (you) are the DEM killing Gigyas (as opposed to the four main characters you play), and definitely a DEM, it fits thematically with the work.

And therefore, this sequence is actually extremely popular.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[Jenonax]

txgoldrush wrote...

Deus Ex Machina's CAN follow the stories themes and be thematically consistant.

Its a plot device, not a thematic one.

In fact, if it does fit the theme, it is a DEM used properly.

Plot is dependent on theme.  They are not separate entities.  If the plot deviates from the theme, the plot is no longer relevant.  See ME3 ending.

If a plot twist aka the return of authority is thematically consistant then its integration into the plot is more acceptable.  The return of authority is a plot twist.  It is logical and thematically consistant with the rest of the plot.  It does not come out of nowhere.  They are the government/Navy looking for missing children.  Not a talking whale or a never before mentioned AI.

[txgoldrush]

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Deus Ex Machina's CAN follow the stories themes and be thematically consistant.

Its a plot device, not a thematic one.

In fact, if it does fit the theme, it is a DEM used properly.

Plot is dependent on theme.  They are not separate entities.  If the plot deviates from the theme, the plot is no longer relevant.  See ME3 ending.

If a plot twist aka the return of authority is thematically consistant then its integration into the plot is more acceptable.  The return of authority is a plot twist.  It is logical and thematically consistant with the rest of the plot.  It does not come out of nowhere.  They are the government/Navy looking for missing children.  Not a talking whale or a never before mentioned AI.

The thing is though, that the ending of ME3 was consistant with the themes. There is no deviation here.

[loungeshep]

txgoldrush wrote...

I was right all along, after the EC came out but before Leviathan.....that instead of the Catalyst coming out of the blue to solve Shepards problem, it is Shepard that solves the Catalyst's problem....or ignores his problem and destroys him or takes his job instead. This is a subversion of the classic roots of a Deus Ex Machina, where in Ancient Greek drama, the "god from the machine" comes down and solves everything. Here the "god of the machine" has the problem and the hero has the solution, a completely backwards relationship.

Leviathan confirms this

A) While the Catalyst was foreshadowed on Thessia and its motives foreshadowed on Rannoch, he is clearly foreshadowed in Leviathan, maybe too much so.

It is said that he hasn't attained his goal of the preservation of life, and that he is using the cycle to look for the answer. Shepard IS that answer.

Really, if the Catalyst was the viewpoint character in Mass Effect, it would be Shepard that would be a Deus Ex Machina, the Catalyst's contrived solution to his unsolvable problem.

The ending was never a DEM, its the fact that it was underdeveloped that was the problem.

LOL @ B.  Catalyst demands the equation. 

Sorry that's an inside joke between my wife and I about holographic squid demanding the equation, and yeah. 

[DashRunner92]

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


This means that the DEM plot device was indeed, used properly.

DEM's aren't always bad.

In fact, it rules, if you establish that the protagonist doesn't have real control over things.

Ugh, thought we were getting something there.

If you read what I wrote, I said it was not a true DEM as it thematically fit with the rest of the book.  Narrative is more than just the rigid plotline.  Theme, character and atmosphere are just as important.  The return of authority fits thematically and therefore does not come completely out of nowhere.

And no, it doesn't rule, its cheap.  The audience is robbed of any real conclusion.

Exactly. I wouldn't argue anymore though. It's pretty obvious that OP is either trolling or doesn't have an array of knowledge in the mechanics of literature and art. I mean, just look at the first sentence of OP's post. "I was right all along," I mean seriously?

[blueumi]

no they pulled it out of no where and now they make dlc and you think that changes the fact that the first 2 games and almost all of the 3rd did not set up star child at all

[Jenonax]

txgoldrush wrote...

The thing is though, that the ending of ME3 was consistant with the themes. There is no deviation here.

Not in my opinion.

The theme for me was always of triumph through unity.  See ME1 ending and the assault on the Collector Base where through the unification of different races to solve the overal Main Plot of both games we achieved victory.

Sacrifice was a sub theme.  Important but hardly the main theme.

Suddenly that theme is thrust to the front at the expense of the Unity theme.  Suddenly the idea that we can win if we stand together is torn apart in favour of meaningless sacrifice.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I'm surprised people have such an issue with it being / or not being a deus ex machina. There is nothing wrong with a deus ex machina, its perfectly legitmate story telling and has been used successfully for many stories.

Sometimes it works really well, sometimes it doesn't.

Eh no.

A DEM is by definition something that it is undesirable. It's an inherently negative label. 

WRONG

Deus Ex Machinas can be great given the right director and writer.

War of the Worlds and Raiders of the Lost Ark had well executed DEM. How can you say that the ****s opening the ark wasn't well done?

Gaming examples.

The defeat of Gigyas in Earthbound is a fourth wall breaking DEM. And it was completely awesome.

Celes finding a seagull with Locke's bandanna restoring her hope in FFVI is another example of good DEM. The seagull true nature is open for interpetation.

I'm genuinely confused. 

You don't label something a DEM as a form of praise. It's not neutral, it's a form of negative criticism. 

Simple as that. Look up the what the f*cking term means and its conotations before you comment please.

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...

no they pulled it out of no where and now they make dlc and you think that changes the fact that the first 2 games and almost all of the 3rd did not set up star child at all

But ME3 did........its called a "plot twist"

The very mention of a "Catalyst" is a set up.

[Jenonax]

DashRunner92 wrote...


Exactly. I wouldn't argue anymore though. It's pretty obvious that OP is either trolling or doesn't have an array of knowledge in the mechanics of literature and art. I mean, just look at the first sentence of OP's post. "I was right all along," I mean seriously?

I like a good argument, Dash.  Besides if I stopped arguing every circular debate I get into I'd never talk!

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I'm surprised people have such an issue with it being / or not being a deus ex machina. There is nothing wrong with a deus ex machina, its perfectly legitmate story telling and has been used successfully for many stories.

Sometimes it works really well, sometimes it doesn't.

Eh no.

A DEM is by definition something that it is undesirable. It's an inherently negative label. 

WRONG

Deus Ex Machinas can be great given the right director and writer.

War of the Worlds and Raiders of the Lost Ark had well executed DEM. How can you say that the ****s opening the ark wasn't well done?

Gaming examples.

The defeat of Gigyas in Earthbound is a fourth wall breaking DEM. And it was completely awesome.

Celes finding a seagull with Locke's bandanna restoring her hope in FFVI is another example of good DEM. The seagull true nature is open for interpetation.

I'm genuinely confused. 

You don't label something a DEM as a form of praise. It's not neutral, it's a form of negative criticism. 

Simple as that. Look up the what the f*cking term means and its conotations before you comment please.

Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule. Even Shakspeare used DEM.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Deus Ex Machina's CAN follow the stories themes and be thematically consistant.

Its a plot device, not a thematic one.

In fact, if it does fit the theme, it is a DEM used properly.

Plot is dependent on theme.  They are not separate entities.  If the plot deviates from the theme, the plot is no longer relevant.  See ME3 ending.

If a plot twist aka the return of authority is thematically consistant then its integration into the plot is more acceptable.  The return of authority is a plot twist.  It is logical and thematically consistant with the rest of the plot.  It does not come out of nowhere.  They are the government/Navy looking for missing children.  Not a talking whale or a never before mentioned AI.

The thing is though, that the ending of ME3 was consistant with the themes. There is no deviation here.

Which themes? 

Genuine question. What themes were consistent until the very end? 

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule.

There are no exceptions. 

If a certain plot element fits and works well then it isn't a DEM. 

[Twinzam.V]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Deus Ex Machina's CAN follow the stories themes and be thematically consistant.

Its a plot device, not a thematic one.

In fact, if it does fit the theme, it is a DEM used properly.

Plot is dependent on theme.  They are not separate entities.  If the plot deviates from the theme, the plot is no longer relevant.  See ME3 ending.

If a plot twist aka the return of authority is thematically consistant then its integration into the plot is more acceptable.  The return of authority is a plot twist.  It is logical and thematically consistant with the rest of the plot.  It does not come out of nowhere.  They are the government/Navy looking for missing children.  Not a talking whale or a never before mentioned AI.

The thing is though, that the ending of ME3 was consistant with the themes. There is no deviation here.

Which themes? 

Genuine question. What themes were consistent until the very end? 

Godly force coming out of nowhere theme? 

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule.

There are no exceptions. 

If a certain plot element fits and works well then it isn't a DEM. 

You are not getting it.

A DEM can work well, it just has to follow the defintion.

DEMs are not always bad. They GENERALLY are, but not ALWAYS.

[Jenonax]

txgoldrush wrote...

Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule. Even Shakspeare used DEM.

Shakespeare is not generally accepted as the best at plot.  Rather his language, prose and atmosphere.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Deus Ex Machina's CAN follow the stories themes and be thematically consistant.

Its a plot device, not a thematic one.

In fact, if it does fit the theme, it is a DEM used properly.

Plot is dependent on theme.  They are not separate entities.  If the plot deviates from the theme, the plot is no longer relevant.  See ME3 ending.

If a plot twist aka the return of authority is thematically consistant then its integration into the plot is more acceptable.  The return of authority is a plot twist.  It is logical and thematically consistant with the rest of the plot.  It does not come out of nowhere.  They are the government/Navy looking for missing children.  Not a talking whale or a never before mentioned AI.

The thing is though, that the ending of ME3 was consistant with the themes. There is no deviation here.

Which themes? 

Genuine question. What themes were consistent until the very end? 

sacrifice (ME3 main theme), overcoming odds, the conflict between created and creators for example.

[Joe Del Toro]

Wait hang on. The title of this thread is basically 'There is no DEM anymore', and yet the argument being made is DEMs can be good. If they can be good then why make the point that ME3 no longer has one

[Twinzam.V]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule.

There are no exceptions. 

If a certain plot element fits and works well then it isn't a DEM. 

You are not getting it.

A DEM can work well, it just has to follow the defintion.

DEMs are not always bad. They GENERALLY are, but not ALWAYS.

The macguffin fits better. Its viewed in a more positive light in storytelling since its present since the beginning, losing gradually importance, to gain a more relevant role in the end.
Ex. The staff to defeat Jagar Tharn from The Elder Scrolls Arena.

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:19 .

[Jenonax]

txgoldrush wrote...

sacrifice (ME3 main theme), overcoming odds, the conflict between created and creators for example.

ME3 theme, yes, were were the themes from 1 and 2?  Specifically the theme of triumph through unity?  I united the Geth and the Quarians and what do I get for my trouble.  Death and a whole lot of it.  The theme is neutralised for a subtheme of sacrifice.  Sacrifice is not the main theme of the trilogy and can't simply be thrust forward because the author wants to suddenly do a 180 on where the plot is going to end up. 

Conflict between creator and created is also a subplot, shamelessly thrust into the spotllight long after the Rannoch arc where the theme was prevelant was concluded.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule.

There are no exceptions. 

If a certain plot element fits and works well then it isn't a DEM. 

You are not getting it.

Believe it or not, I do understand you. 

I just disagree that you're right. 

A DEM can work well, it just has to follow the defintion.

DEMs are not always bad. They GENERALLY are, but not ALWAYS.

If it works well then it's not a DEM. That's what the term means, something negative and out of place. 

[ld1449]

txgoldrush wrote...



Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule. Even Shakspeare used DEM.

And this most assuredly does not fall into that category.

The existence of the AI was not foreshadowed in any way shape or form in the vanilla game. There was no exposition, there was no explanation and there was no inkling to ever believe that there ever would be some random AI at the end of this game.

Sovereigns statements specifically negated such a thing in ME1 claiming that each reaper was a nation, independent and so on and so forth.

And to answer someone else before who said that "of course the reapers had some driving force behind them" yes, that was implied, but it was implied via Harbinger, who they built up for the entire second game, to the point that he drives the collectors and the Reapers only reactivate themselves and make the migration from Darkspace when he gives the word.

It was not a holographic child.

Furthermore, you stated in a previous thread of yours that the Catalyst was never a DEM and AFTER the induction of Leviathan you would be proven *ahem* "right" because they would foreshadow the Catalyst in this DLC.

That has got to be the stupidest logic I've ever heard of since "Yo dawg I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics-"

The Catalyst was always a DEM, almost literally fitting the definition down to a bloody T. To argue that he was "never" a DEM because Bioware was going to foreshadow it in leviathan is like saying a Glass Table was never broken because someone came in and swept up the pieces.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

sacrifice (ME3 main theme),

True.

overcoming odds,

 

I didn't overcome any odds. The Catalyst did all the work. 

the conflict between created and creators for example.

In what way was this theme adressed? 

Created and Creators was effectively adressed three times in the series. 

With EDI and Cerberus, with the Geth and Quarians, and with the Krogan and Salarians. 

I'm not entirely sure how it was carried over until the end. Synthetics versus organics as a huge galaxy defining conflict was never a theme. 

[txgoldrush]

ld1449 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



Generally, it is bad.

But there are exceptions to the rule. Even Shakspeare used DEM.

And this most assuredly does not fall into that category.

The existence of the AI was not foreshadowed in any way shape or form in the vanilla game. There was no exposition, there was no explanation and there was no inkling to ever believe that there ever would be some random AI at the end of this game.

Sovereigns statements specifically negated such a thing in ME1 claiming that each reaper was a nation, independent and so on and so forth.

And to answer someone else before who said that "of course the reapers had some driving force behind them" yes, that was implied, but it was implied via Harbinger, who they built up for the entire second game, to the point that he drives the collectors and the Reapers only reactivate themselves and make the migration from Darkspace when he gives the word.

It was not a holographic child.

Furthermore, you stated in a previous thread of yours that the Catalyst was never a DEM and AFTER the induction of Leviathan you would be proven *ahem* "right" because they would foreshadow the Catalyst in this DLC.

That has got to be the stupidest logic I've ever heard of since "Yo dawg I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics-"

The Catalyst was always a DEM, almost literally fitting the definition down to a bloody T. To argue that he was "never" a DEM because Bioware was going to foreshadow it in leviathan is like saying a Glass Table was never broken because someone came in and swept up the pieces.

WRONG

The notion of a master was plainly foreshadowed on Thessia, by Vendetta, who says that the Reapers are servants to a pattern, but it cannot identify its master.

The motives were clearly foreshadowed on Rannoch by the Reaper there.

And did you read my OP....and my posts in the pasts to where I said with the EC, The Catalyst subverts the DEM? Leviathan completely and untterly makes this true, if it wasn't already.

My view is that it already wasn't a DEM, before Leviathan.