889 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Actually, by definition. It is a Deus ex Machina. A plot hole is when an event occurs with no explanation or rationality to how or why. We have the answers to both those questions however, asinine they may be. A DEM is when a seemingly unsolvable problem is abruptly solved by a contrived plot device, ala the Crucible.

The definition also requires the DEM to be introduced at the last minute. The Crucible comes up about 68% of the way into ME, varying a bit depending on your play-style and installed DLCs. I don't think that qualifies.

Just being pedantic; whether the Crucible fits in the box marked DEM doesn't matter.

[StarcloudSWG]

Harry Harrison was a decent writer. He understood the basics of story-writing, including this thing called 'narrative coherence.' Basically, keeping the tone and themes consistent within the framework set up for a story. He knew the Space Opera genre very well, and his series were either reconstructions or parodies of Space Opera tropes.

As such, he likely would have deplored the original ending of Mass Effect 3 as a shoddily written piece of philosophical claptrap that didn't fit into the action-adventure of the Mass Effect story.

We'll never know, though. He died in august this year and I dont' think he ever played the game.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 04 novembre 2012 - 10:12 .

[Fixers0]

Bad plot device is bad.

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Actually, by definition. It is a Deus ex Machina. A plot hole is when an event occurs with no explanation or rationality to how or why. We have the answers to both those questions however, asinine they may be. A DEM is when a seemingly unsolvable problem is abruptly solved by a contrived plot device, ala the Crucible.

The definition also requires the DEM to be introduced at the last minute. The Crucible comes up about 68% of the way into ME, varying a bit depending on your play-style and installed DLCs. I don't think that qualifies.

Just being pedantic; whether the Crucible fits in the box marked DEM doesn't matter.

the crucible it just the generic super weapon - the last straw.

the catalyst however, fits the discription. it tells you, how to use said superweapon and what you will acheive by doing it. the fact that there is no explanation, or any foreshadowing that there could be an alternative to destroying the reapers is speaks volumes.

the catalyst is the "by the book" deus ex machina.

[Bourne Endeavor]

AlanC9 wrote...

The definition also requires the DEM to be introduced at the last minute. The Crucible comes up about 68% of the way into ME, varying a bit depending on your play-style and installed DLCs. I don't think that qualifies.

Just being pedantic; whether the Crucible fits in the box marked DEM doesn't matter.

Technically, it does, as this is the third installment and the Reaper problem was introduced two games ago. Admittedly, it seems to dove tail between a DEM and a plot hole, neither of which is good.

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

There is probably many definitions but this is the one I look to when I think of a plot hole

a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot.

In the origins of the Crucible you can grab something, and it will always be one.
In ME3, pretty much everything at the end is.... really something else.

Oh, the end is undeniably a series of plot holes the size of the Grand Canyon. Like I said above, the Crucible certainly dove tails. So you probably could attach any of those literacy faults. Shocking when you think about it; that something could be this poorly written.

[AlanC9]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The definition also requires the DEM to be introduced at the last minute. The Crucible comes up about 68% of the way into ME, varying a bit depending on your play-style and installed DLCs. I don't think that qualifies.

Just being pedantic; whether the Crucible fits in the box marked DEM doesn't matter.

Technically, it does, as this is the third installment and the Reaper problem was introduced two games ago. Admittedly, it seems to dove tail between a DEM and a plot hole, neither of which is good.

I'm really not comfortable with 68% into the story being equated with "last minute." I can't think of any other instance of something being introduced that early still being called a DEM.

[Maxster_]

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

Those sentences are completely unrelated to each other. And both are false

[Maxster_]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

Actually, by definition. It is a Deus ex Machina. A plot hole is when an event occurs with no explanation or rationality to how or why. We have the answers to both those questions however, asinine they may be. A DEM is when a seemingly unsolvable problem is abruptly solved by a contrived plot device, ala the Crucible.

Sadly, the Crucible plot is utterly reliant on Reaper and galaxy stupidity to the highest degree. Frankly, this level of poor writing is astonishing.

There is 2 parts of Crucible being plothole.
1. How it was designed and by who.
2. How it's blueprints passed cycles.

Both can not be explained in a plausible way.

[Fireblader70]

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

[Bourne Endeavor]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The definition also requires the DEM to be introduced at the last minute. The Crucible comes up about 68% of the way into ME, varying a bit depending on your play-style and installed DLCs. I don't think that qualifies.

Just being pedantic; whether the Crucible fits in the box marked DEM doesn't matter.

Technically, it does, as this is the third installment and the Reaper problem was introduced two games ago. Admittedly, it seems to dove tail between a DEM and a plot hole, neither of which is good.

I'm really not comfortable with 68% into the story being equated with "last minute." I can't think of any other instance of something being introduced that early still being called a DEM.

There is actually no set time for a DEM. For instance, one occurs in Final Fantasy VIII when the Ragnarok suddenly drifts by Squall and Rinoa. This happens a good few hours before the ending and has no impact on it beond being a new flying airship for you.

TVTropes has a good explanation of it, although I admit, the Crucible is a debatable DEM. It seems to fit on the fence but when viewing the series as a whole story. It does fall into DEM territory more so. The Reapers were perceived has an unsolvable problem, yet suddenly we have this device Liara so happens to find on Mars, that so happens to be capable of destroying them.

Perhaps, this is the first instance of of a Deus ex Hole or a Plot Machina. BioWare, achieved a new feat of failure. 

[Archereon]

I have no intention of reading through 13 pages of flaming, so I don't know if this point has been raised before, but I'll say it now:

The biggest problem with Mass Effect 3's ending after several glaring narrative inconsistencies were cleared up by the extended cut is that it does not fit the rest of the narrative at all, and that it introduces what is arguably the most important character in the franchise-the mastermind behind the cyclic extinction of galactic civilization every 50,000 years for the past 5 billion years or so-in the last few minutes of what, in theory, is the chronologically last entry in the Mass Effect franchise.

To expand on the first point, what was done with the ending of Mass Effect 3 is roughly analogous to swapping the ending of the Star Wars trilogy with that of 2001: A Space Oddysey. Square peg, round hole doesn't even begin to cover it.

There's also the matter of Mass Effect 3's ending having no apparent reason besides an attempt to imitate masterpiecse like 2001 or other classic works of science fiction film and literature, which themselves frequently ended in such bizzare fashions because the author was trying to convey how otherworldly outer space is.

[Seival]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Maxster_ wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

Actually, by definition. It is a Deus ex Machina. A plot hole is when an event occurs with no explanation or rationality to how or why. We have the answers to both those questions however, asinine they may be. A DEM is when a seemingly unsolvable problem is abruptly solved by a contrived plot device, ala the Crucible.

Sadly, the Crucible plot is utterly reliant on Reaper and galaxy stupidity to the highest degree. Frankly, this level of poor writing is astonishing.

There is 2 parts of Crucible being plothole.
1. How it was designed and by who.
2. How it's blueprints passed cycles.

Both can not be explained in a plausible way.

Aye, thus I rephrased by earlier post. It dove tails between both, although it did have a slight plausibility... until they mentioned it was hundreds of cycles and not just the Prothens.

[Maxster_]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


Perhaps, this is the first instance of of a Deus ex Hole or a Plot Machina. BioWare, achieved a new feat of failure. 

Deus ex Plot Hole Machina?

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

isolated, it may be fine - but it is inconsistent to the massage and story of the series as a whole.

[Bill Casey]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

I must have reaaaaaaaaaaally hated the ending, then...
Because I thought Shepard was being indoctrinated before I even got to the ending...

Did you ever stop and think that was some people's first impression of the game?
The literal interpretation to me is the theory fans came up with...

It's one I engage in on the forums...
But it sure as hell wasn't what I saw when I played the first time...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 04 novembre 2012 - 10:45 .

[Maxster_]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

Actually, by definition. It is a Deus ex Machina. A plot hole is when an event occurs with no explanation or rationality to how or why. We have the answers to both those questions however, asinine they may be. A DEM is when a seemingly unsolvable problem is abruptly solved by a contrived plot device, ala the Crucible.

Sadly, the Crucible plot is utterly reliant on Reaper and galaxy stupidity to the highest degree. Frankly, this level of poor writing is astonishing.

There is 2 parts of Crucible being plothole.
1. How it was designed and by who.
2. How it's blueprints passed cycles.

Both can not be explained in a plausible way.

Aye, thus I rephrased by earlier post. It dove tails between both, although it did have a slight plausibility... until they mentioned it was hundreds of cycles and not just the Prothens.

Yeah, that was the moment when my suspension of disbelief was finally and completely broken. But what you described in a part of your post - sadly, the Crucible plot is utterly reliant on Reaper and galaxy stupidity to the highest degree - was there from the start.
Eh, and all that to shoehorn Catalyst's nonsense. EAWare nowadays have some strange priorities.

Modifié par Maxster_, 04 novembre 2012 - 10:46 .

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

isolated, it may be fine - but it is inconsistent to the massage and story of the series as a whole.

The entire story goes to those last minutes when we finally know all the truth. The ending fits the entire trilogy just perfectly. We have the best ending possible, and any change can only ruin the story.

Modifié par Seival, 04 novembre 2012 - 10:48 .

[dreamgazer]

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

Actually, it's understanding the story, the themes, and the precedents put in place by the Mass Effect series and both classic and contemporary science-fiction that make the decision chamber seem a bit off---on top of components that bleed the real and surreal together. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 04 novembre 2012 - 10:49 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

There is no understanding nonsensical jiberrish or "insane troll logic." The Catalyst provides us no evidence, contradicts itself more times than I care to count and is outright proven wrong by ME3's own plot. The ending is a colossal failure of proper narrative cohesion that it near defies words.

When the ending breaks just about every literacy rule we have. It is far from "fine."

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 novembre 2012 - 10:48 .

[dsl08002]

maybe but he wouldn´t love that it went everything that ME stood for,

[Maxster_]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Seival wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

Here's the thing - when people have to make up an 'Indoctrination Theory' to be content with the ending, that in itself should be an indicator that something is a little off.

Lack of desire to understand the ideas behind the story is what a "little off" here. The ending itself is fine.

There is no understanding nonsensical jiberrish or "insane troll logic." The Catalyst provides us no evidence, contradicts itself more times than I care to count and is outright proven wrong by ME3's own plot. The ending is a colossal failure of proper narrative cohesion that it near defies words.

When the ending breaks just about every literacy rule we have. It is far from "fine."

Yeah, nonsense and absurdity of endings dwarfs everything that came before them in ME3(and terminator from ME2). It is a whole other level of nonsense.
More funny, that they managed to achieve another level of nonsense with Leviathan DLC.

[dreamgazer]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

There is no understanding nonsensical jiberrish or "insane troll logic." The Catalyst provides us no evidence, contradicts itself more times than I care to count and is outright proven wrong by ME3's own plot.

Indeed, but I honestly believe that's part of the point.