255 réponses à ce sujet

[iDeevil]

Dreyfish, did I miss where I said the dues ex Machina was lauded as the most favorable form of artistry? I was just saying it was accepted and seemingly enjoyed by the masses. It still is, if it wasn't movies like Transformers and other action oddballs without a plot wouldn't be popular.

I'm sorry you read it otherwise.

[drayfish]

Hey iDeevil,

Sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you - I really wasn't.

I was just (much as you seem to be) pointing out that it was a completely artless narrative contrivance. It was a device that was considered cheesy and manufactured even by audiences of the time (making it rather remarkably ill-advised to employ in the twenty-first century if you are attempting to market yourself as a storyteller of renown).

Again, it was never my intention to suggest you loved it - and apologies if it seemed I was.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:24 .

[Podge 90]

drayfish wrote...

Personally, I do find it completely absurd that this entire narrative revolves around the notion that the Crucible is an enormous remote control that got lost down the cushions of the galactic couch.

I probably could have gotten on board with it if there were more of a justification for how this feat was accomplished beyond 'we dreamed it up real goodz', but at present it's still not clear to me how multiple generations of civilisations, across countless eons, could all contribute to the construction of a fantastical machine when they had no idea what it was for, where it went, or what it did. That seems like trying to build a supercomputer, in the dark, with rocks, and no idea what electricity is ...while being attacked by zombies. The whole conceit is like a Mad Lib being read at a poetry slam.

And then, despite it being a literal 'I win' button that we are forced to assemble, the game arbitrarily poisons the endings with nonsensical moral compromises that sour the victory in the mistaken belief that forced drama is compelling. For me, for a premise so silly, artlessly tacking on genocide, eugenics and mind-control in order to 'win' only demeaned the whole scenario further.

Flawless Victory 

[Obadiah]

Siirlock wrote...

iDeevil wrote...

Mind you, for what ME was I enjoyed the entire trilogy, and while I could pick apart every problem with the story, I'd rather just enjoy what I do have.  Which is rare for me since I tend to over analyze everything.

I agree.

I agree. There are problems with the Crucible. I would have rather the Crucible had been discovered over the course of two or three missions - maybe pulled in David or some other savant to piece together disparate pieces of evidence.

But what we got works fine. We discover it at the beginning of the game, spend the entire game building it and helping to work out how the thing works, and at the end an AI explains what it does, and gives a couple of other options (which include the action our main antagonist The Illusive Man has been talking about for the entire game) before we fire the thing.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:47 .

[iDeevil]

drayfish wrote...

Hey iDeevil,

Sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you - I really wasn't.

I was just (much as you seem to be) pointing out that it was a completely artless narrative contrivance. It was a device that was considered cheesy and manufactured even by audiences of the time (making it rather remarkably ill-advised to employ in the twenty-first century if you are attempting to market yourself as a storyteller of renown).

Again, it was never my intention to suggest you loved it - and apologies if it seemed I was.

Problem is, it's something that is universally loved (even if narratively unsound at best), and has been by many most likely since the beginning of storytelling.  It's easy for writers to fall into the 'it's a twist' trap, the the Star  Trek 'Beam us up Scotty' sinkhole and think they are writing something that resonates because its something that is mass marketable.

It's also easy for people to miss foreshadowing and declare something a Deus ex Machina, like the Crucible, when it itself had been loosely foreshadowed.  What wasn't was the Catayst, which wasn't the Citidel but the Star Child of strange weirdness.  And he'll, I might have even bought that if there was *something* that made sense about Shepard believing the little brat.

[LilLino]

The whole concept of giant AI cuttlefish Gods killing everyone for some reason every 50000 thousand years is absurd and contrived.

I don't get why people complain about the plot just about now.

[drayfish]

iDeevil wrote...

Problem is, it's something that is universally loved (even if narratively unsound at best), and has been by many most likely since the beginning of storytelling.  It's easy for writers to fall into the 'it's a twist' trap, the the Star  Trek 'Beam us up Scotty' sinkhole and think they are writing something that resonates because its something that is mass marketable.

It's also easy for people to miss foreshadowing and declare something a Deus ex Machina, like the Crucible, when it itself had been loosely foreshadowed.  What wasn't was the Catayst, which wasn't the Citidel but the Star Child of strange weirdness.  And he'll, I might have even bought that if there was *something* that made sense about Shepard believing the little brat.

I'm not sure that I agree at all that the deus ex machina has ever been beloved; indeed, in contrast, they usually completely dislodge people from their enjoyment of a text.  Twist endings and dramatic escapes (which have to be foreshadowed) function differently to DEM's (which literally change the rules of the universe).  It's a get-out-of-jail-free-card, and retroactivelly devalues everything that came before it.

I wrote this elsewhere, but I'll inflict it on people again:

The concept of the deus ex machina came from ancient Greek theatre in which a God would intrude upon the action of the play to fundamentally alter the organic, logical flow of the narrative. People could pray to Apollo for help throughout the play, mention his name repeatedly, but he would still be operating as a deus ex machina if he stepped out onto stage at the end to suddenly fix everyone's problems.

Narratively, the Catalyst performs exactly this function. We build a mysterious device with no idea what it does (we may as well be praying to the space-magic Gods), and at precisely the moment the narrative (not logic) requires, their tech support advisor pops up to tell us how we can (with no justification for how these new, galaxy-altering magics function) remake both the universe and the story.

Indeed, to me, the fact that the writers literally made it a 'God' from a 'Machine' means that even they realised its function and hoped that calling it out overtly was enough to excuse how blatant such a lazy narrative mechanic was.

The reason the deus ex machina is so despised in the history of narrative is that it fundamentally reshuffles the deck of the player/audience's investment in the story. It belittles what we have been focused upon throughout the tale by introducing new powers and possibilities beyond our understanding that dismiss, deride or ignore our primary concerns. And personally, I think we see that happen throughout Mass Effect 3's conclusion:

we see the causal logic of the world get undermined (we start wondering how things can happen in such a way - hence people saying 'space magic' whenever we hit a pothole in the plot?);

we see action as arbitrary rather than the natural progression of events (we wonder what was the point of striving for so long and so hard if all we had to do in the end was push a fantastical button and our problems would go away?);

we feel cheated for worring over the lead up to these events (why bother assembling the largest fleet in the universe when they do nothing?);

and all of the thematic concerns we invested in get wiped away by the imposition of an entirely new character's vision of the events (what does it matter if we have had all of these experiences and seen all of these truths about the Geth and EDI and freedom and inclusivity and hope if we are just going to have to abandon those principles and do whatever the magic man says in the end, unable to even talk him out of his skewed beliefs?)

Modifié par drayfish, 02 octobre 2012 - 03:19 .

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
I probably could have gotten on board with it if there were more of a justification for how this feat was accomplished beyond 'we dreamed it up real goodz', but at present it's still not clear to me how multiple generations of civilisations, across countless eons, could all contribute to the construction of a fantastical machine when they had no idea what it was for, where it went, or what it did. That seems like trying to build a supercomputer, in the dark, with rocks, and no idea what electricity is ...while being attacked by zombies. The whole conceit is like a Mad Lib being read at a poetry slam.

And then, despite it being a literal 'I win' button that we are forced to assemble, the game arbitrarily poisons the endings with nonsensical moral compromises that sour the victory in the mistaken belief that forced drama is compelling. For me, for a premise so silly, artlessly tacking on genocide, eugenics and mind-control in order to 'win' only demeaned the whole scenario further.

Hi Drayfish.  The Giant Spacegun that is the Crucible is always gonna be hard to implement believably, but I think Bioware did a decent job here.

I figured that someone, at some point in a previous cycle, thought of an idea to use the Reapers' own Mass Relays against them.  They didn't know exactly how it would work at the time, but they began to come up with ideas based on what they knew about Reaper tech, the Citadel tech and how the Mass Relays worked.  That first civilisation's plans were then uncovered by some future cycle (not necessarily the next one) and worked on by subsequent cycles, until they came up with what we see in ME3.  So as long as, at some point, one of the designers/contributors thought that it at least might work, it is not necessary for all others to understand it.  Just the fact that it's something that might be able to stop the Reapers gives it value in itself.

It's not a watertight explanation but, given that we're talking about a giant spacegun, I don't think it's all that bad either.

drayfish wrote...
I suspect that the writers of Mass Effect though that by calling out what they had done (making it a literal 'god' from a 'machine') it would be some kind of metatextual statement that people would nod knowingly at in appreciation, but it is still completely unjustified by the plot, a disruptive last-minute recalibration (pun intended) of the narrative's cohesion, and a fundamental violation of the audience's investment.  Everything that Horace and Aristotle warned against.

They may as well have had a dude dressed as Apollo swing in on a pole with a wooden lightning bolt in his hand to magic away everyone's problems - just like the old days.

My personal take on this is that there is no Deus Ex Machina in Mass Effect 3 at all.  Not the Crucible, nor the StarKid, nor anything else.  But I might need to go in depth into my interpretation of the game to explain this.  So I won't unless you are interested.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 02 octobre 2012 - 03:23 .

[iDeevil]

Drayfish, as annoying as it is 90% of TV and film use some form of Deus Ex Machina and many folks enjoy it (books usually depend less on it) Is it beloved, probably not, is it sincerely enjoyed? Yes.  Do some people see it as the most twistiest piece of twist ever twisted?  You bet.

and at this point I have no idea why I'm discussing Deus Ex Machina in this way .  I think we agree it's a cheat but it doesn't always have devalue enjoyment.  IE: I enjoyed ME3, even the ending.  Would have enjoyed it more fore a number of reasons but I'm typing on my iPhone and my thumbs may fall off.

Funnily enough it's when character act out of character is when the masses start to notice a problem.

Modifié par iDeevil, 02 octobre 2012 - 03:43 .

[NM_Che56]

do you think the scientist who worked on the atom bomb knew exactly what would happen...?

[Fixers0]

Master Che wrote...

do you think the scientist who worked on the atom bomb knew exactly what would happen...?

False analogy.

[Kel Riever]

Eterna5 wrote...

I'm curious, do you have a better story or plot occurrence that would allow the galaxy to defeat the Reapers?

Yes, and so do many people from full grown adults all the way down to 13 year olds.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:09 .

[NM_Che56]

Fixers0 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

do you think the scientist who worked on the atom bomb knew exactly what would happen...?

False analogy.

Both were weapons of mass destruction where the creators were not sure of the full impact of their creation.

[Fixers0]

Master Che wrote...

Both were weapons of mass destruction where the creators were not sure of the full impact of their creation.

Too simplistic, still a false analogy, one's a Real life weapon the other a fiction Macguffin, The magnitude of the A-bom was surprising allthough all it's theoratical effects were known.

Modifié par Fixers0, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:20 .

[Gerbil Fetus]

I agree with what some of you have said....

But I like that its a WMD being made by the good guys....it's as if the rebel alliance were building a Death Star or something.

[NM_Che56]

Fixers0 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Both were weapons of mass destruction where the creators were not sure of the full impact of their creation.

Too simplistic, still a false analogy, one's a Real life weapon the other a fiction Macguffin, The magnitude of the A-bom was surprising allthough all it's theoratical effects were known.

The theoretical effects of the crucible were known, too; i.e., stop the reapers.

At least one researcher on the Manhattan Project thought that the very atmosphere itself would ignite.  I'd equate that to the fear of the unknown regarding the development of the catalyst and destroying all life.

[NM_Che56]

Gerbil Fetus wrote...

I agree with what some of you have said....

But I like that its a WMD being made by the good guys....it's as if the rebel alliance were building a Death Star or something.

False analogy!



did I do it right?   LOL j/k

[Fixers0]

Master Che wrote...
The theoretical effects of the crucible were known, too; i.e., stop the reapers.

I need detail, we as gamers need detail, dreadnoughts and cruisers stop Reapers too.

Master Che wrote...
At least one researcher on the Manhattan Project thought that the very atmosphere itself would ignite.  I'd equate that to the fear of the unknown regarding the development of the catalyst and destroying all life.

Argument remains logical fallicous, as you're comparing to things which cannot be compared, except in the most rudimentary and selective way.

Modifié par Fixers0, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:36 .

[NM_Che56]

Fixers0 wrote...

Master Che wrote...
The theoretical effects of the crucible were known, too; i.e., stop the reapers.

I need detail, we as gamers need detail, dreadnoughts and cruisers stop Reapers too.

Master Che wrote...
At least one researcher on the Manhattan Project thought that the very atmosphere itself would ignite.  I'd equate that to the fear of the unknown regarding the development of the catalyst and destroying all life.

Argument remains logical fallicous, as you're comparing to things which cannot be compared, except in the most rudimentary and selective way.

1) Detail:   there you go.  Straight from Adm. Hackett.

2) ...so what makes it "false"? 

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

A = Crucible
B = Atom Bomb
P = Destruction of an enemy or target that would end a war (reaper war or WWII).  Effects theorized prior to deployment included a fear of widespread collateral damage.

The differences between the two do not affect whether or not they have property P.

Modifié par Master Che, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:43 .

[Fixers0]

Master Che wrote...
1) Detail:   there you go.  Straight from Adm. Hackett.

That's not detail, i need to know precisly how it works, what it does in the way it does it, how to activate it, if there is an emergency shutdow, what the scientific basis is, on what core resources it relies, Etc. I need detail.

Master Che wrote...
2) ...so what makes it "false"? 

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

A = Crucible
B = Atom Bomb
P = Destruction of an enemy or target that would end a war (reaper war or WWII).  Effects theorized prior to deployment included a fear of widespread collateral damage.

The differences between the two do not affect whether or not they have property P.

Again, your explanation is way to rudimentary and the your property is way too selective because of the lack of detail within the narrative, even better noboy even knows what it propery is right up until we see, Wheter or not it actually combats the Reapers is unknow up until the very moment it is used.

Modifié par Fixers0, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:48 .

[XqctaX]

drayfish wrote...

Personally, I do find it completely absurd that this entire narrative revolves around the notion that the Crucible is an enormous remote control that got lost down the cushions of the galactic couch.

I probably could have gotten on board with it if there were more of a justification for how this feat was accomplished beyond 'we dreamed it up real goodz', but at present it's still not clear to me how multiple generations of civilisations, across countless eons, could all contribute to the construction of a fantastical machine when they had no idea what it was for, where it went, or what it did. That seems like trying to build a supercomputer, in the dark, with rocks, and no idea what electricity is ...while being attacked by zombies. The whole conceit is like a Mad Lib being read at a poetry slam.

And then, despite it being a literal 'I win' button that we are forced to assemble, the game arbitrarily poisons the endings with nonsensical moral compromises that sour the victory in the mistaken belief that forced drama is compelling. For me, for a premise so silly, artlessly tacking on genocide, eugenics and mind-control in order to 'win' only demeaned the whole scenario further.

i think this is the most honest review (without beeing one) on the ending ive read on bsn,
very well done!

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Argument remains logical fallicous, as you're comparing to things which cannot be compared, except in the most rudimentary and selective way.

Except that they can be compared since they're both weapons of mass destruction, they were both made in a desperate act to stop a devastating war and the makers of both weren't sure about the potential side effects.

There. I just made a comparison. What, isn't the comparison legit just because you say so or something?

Oh, one of them is fictional and that renders the comparison pointless? Then we can might as well ignore any argument about anything on this forum since a lot of them are based on the experience and/or knowledge of similar real life scenarios.

[NM_Che56]

Fixers0 wrote...

Master Che wrote...
1) Detail:   there you go.  Straight from Adm. Hackett.

That's not detail, i need to know precisly how it works, what it does in the way it does it, how to activate it, if there is an emergency shutdow, what the scientific basis is, on what core resources it relies, Etc. I need detail.

Master Che wrote...
2) ...so what makes it "false"? 

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

A = Crucible
B = Atom Bomb
P = Destruction of an enemy or target that would end a war (reaper war or WWII).  Effects theorized prior to deployment included a fear of widespread collateral damage.

The differences between the two do not affect whether or not they have property P.

Again, your explanation is way to rudimentary and the your property is way too selective because of the lack of detail within the narrative, even better noboy even knows what it propery is right up until we see, Wheter or not it actually combats the Reapers is unknow up until the very moment it is used.

1) You're asking for detail.  You won't get it.  It's science fic.  Not science fact.

2) The analogy still holds up logically as both the real A-Bomb (at the time of development) and the Crucible share the same rudimentary properties.  Both were theorized to destroy things on a massive scale.  I don't think the crucible's design was perpetuated for aeons just to tickle the reapers into submission....

Analogies are just that; analogies.  A way of illustrating a point or transferring understanding using general themes and common traits.  The intent is not that the traits embodied by the subjects of comparison equate 1:1 in every respect.  Otherwise they would be equal, not analogous (i.e. comparable in CERTAIN respects...not ALL respects).

Example:

Explaining computer viruses to a college girl using the concept of physical viruses.  To impart understanding, the analogy works (hence the common use of the word "virus" to describe something physical and software related).

 She eventually thought she could catch one herself...no joke, this happened to me in 1996 when I started college.  Had to talk her down...

[NM_Che56]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Argument remains logical fallicous, as you're comparing to things which cannot be compared, except in the most rudimentary and selective way.

Except that they can be compared since they're both weapons of mass destruction, they were both made in a desperate act to stop a devastating war and the makers of both weren't sure about the potential side effects.

There. I just made a comparison. What, isn't the comparison legit just because you say so or something?

Oh, one of them is fictional and that renders the comparison pointless? Then we can might as well ignore any argument about anything on this forum since a lot of them are based on the experience and/or knowledge of similar real life scenarios.

Oh God bless you!

[Fixers0]

Master Che wrote...

1) You're asking for detail.  You won't get it.  It's science fic.  Not science fact.

There it is, no need to respond any further, Detail is needed in order to consitute a believable narrative, and to make the audiance aware of what is actually taking place, if you're a fan of just handwaving, that's cool,but don' come here with meaningless analogies if aren't properly able to adress the problem.