236 réponses à ce sujet

[N7 Shadow 90]

People seem to forget this piece of forshadowing.

Modifié par N7 Shadow 90, 27 avril 2013 - 10:14 .

[David7204]

That's not true. First of all, we can hear soldiers discussing them on the comms long before we encounter the Reaper. Secondly, even if we didn't hear about them, it's reasonable to assume the Alliance has vehicles equipped to deal with Reapers in a ground fight against Reapers.

Modifié par David7204, 27 avril 2013 - 10:19 .

[Indy_S]

The Reaper gets introduced at the FOB, the comms talk happens afterwards. As to your second point, I have to point out that it's the missiles that are the DEM, not the trucks they're mounted on. It's completely unexpected that the Alliance has anything at all that can kill a Reaper on the ground.

[David7204]

No it isn't. Why wouldn't you expect the Alliance to have such equipment?

[Indy_S]

Because there is no news that the Alliance has successfully deployed or even trialed such weapons. From the narrative, we know that giant worms (Tuchanka), large fleets (Sovereign and Rannoch) or a cain (which is also a sudden ability of this weapon) are what take down Reapers. Ground offensive weapons? No word of them.

[David7204]

We see a Cain taking a Hades Cannon. Nobody refers to it as a Reaper.

We don't need to be told that ground offensive weapons exist. That's obvious. And it would be misleading to talk about ground weapons as Reaper killers because that would indicate that they're largely successful, which is probably not the case. (There's way too many people here touting any and every even remotely plausible or successful tactic as an instant war winner as it is.) If you remember, Shepard is only able to target the Reaper with EDI's help, and by letting the Reaper get close in a largely suicidal move.

Modifié par David7204, 27 avril 2013 - 10:37 .

[Reorte]

txgoldrush wrote...

Please...the existance of the Crucible is far from impossible and it was designed to use the Reapers own tech against them.

It fits in with the universe.

Totally wrong. Considering what it does it IS impossible, and the plans surviving many cycles and getting added to is incredibly implausible (it would require the Reapers to be complete idiots for starters, and if they were they'd have got wiped out long before).

It is pretty much a DEM . Perhaps it doesn't involve every single aspect of the classical DEM but it pops up completely out of nowhere as a solution to an impossible problem, by using god-like powers. The only difference is that the popping up out of nowhere and being deployed are separated out somewhat (although you could argue that's even worse than the classical DEM, where at least the existence of the gods that carry it out are accepted at the start).

So whether or not you want to call it a DEM it's got all the reasons people don't like DEMs.

Modifié par Reorte, 27 avril 2013 - 10:35 .

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

We see a Cain taking a Hades Cannon. Nobody refers to it as a Reaper.

We don't need to be told that ground offensive weapons exist. That's obvious. And it would be misleading to talk about ground weapons as Reaper killers because that would indicate that they're largely successful, which is probably not the case. (There's way too many people here touting any and every even remotely plausible or successful tactic as an instant war winner as it is.) If you remember, Shepard is only able to target the Reaper with EDI's help, and by letting the Reaper get close in a largely suicidal move.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Hades_Cannon']According to the wiki,[/url] a Hades Cannon is mounted on a Destroyer chassis. The chassis falls over, implying destruction of the main Reaper component.

Ground offensive weapons exist, yes, but ones that work against the Reapers are a different story. Having heard of any other method that successfully killed a Reaper would help but we're left with none. A worm and fleets.

[David7204]

The wiki is not a reliable source of information. Editable by anyone and all that, with low content standards.

Foreshadowing of that is not necessary. We all know what missiles are, we all have a general notion of how they work, we all know they can do an immense amount of damage. It's common knowledge. We don't need to be told that missiles can take out Reapers.

[Indy_S]

The wiki's picture on that page gives credence to the idea that the Hades Cannon is a Destroyer.

And it's not just any missile. These are specific anti-Reaper missiles that have never been mentioned before. The fact that the door is open for such a solution does not change the fact that it suddenly solves the unsolvable.

[David7204]

So it's a reused asset. We never actually see the chassis without a flycam shot, so it shouldn't matter.

There's no indication at all that the missiles are 'anti-Reaper' missiles, and not simply very powerful missiles. Just as the fleets that bring down Reapers are not 'anti-Reaper' fleets, just powerful fleets.

This is not a DEM. We can completely expect the Alliance to have missiles, and we can absolutely expect those missiles to do a lot of damage. There's no reason at all why they shouldn't be able to take out a Destroyer.

And you're awfully quick to proclaim a whole lot of problems are 'unsolveable.' You do understand that every problem is unsolved until it's solved? 

Modifié par David7204, 27 avril 2013 - 11:06 .

[Indy_S]

The 'anti-Reaper' comment was more from a writing perspective. The author has placed a problem and now places a solution. The solution comes from nowhere but might be close enough as to not affect your suspension of disbelief.

As to the 'unsolveable' comment, it's more that alternate solutions are never considered or are executed but fail. In each case there is only one solution that can solve the problem.

[David7204]

See, you're acting as if the writer 'placing' a solution is a problem somehow. Insinuating that it's 'bad writing.' Nothing exists in a story except that which the writers puts there,so I'm not sure what reasoning is.

As for alternative solutions, you don't do that. You don't have lengthy chunks of the story that ultimately amount to nothing. You like TV Tropes? Look up Shaggy Dog story. It's a violation of the Theory of Narrative Causality. Of course, you certainly have things go wrong and plans adapting accordingly. You have characters improvising. All of which is a very good thing. But you don't have events of the story be worthless.

Modifié par David7204, 27 avril 2013 - 11:26 .

[Argolas]

So Shepard him/herself is the biggest DEM of all or what?

No seriously, there is not a whole lot of them in Mass Effect, but the Crucible is one. "Destroy the Reapers" is an acceptable function to me. I don't need the technical details: I know that "Destroy the Reapers" is what the Crucible was designed to do, I know that it uses the galaxy-wide Mass Relay network to target all Reapers galaxy-wide and it needs the network's hub, the Citadel, to work. All of this makes sense. Now I don't know why I have to wipe out all synthetics while technology itself clearly stays intact, that makes no sense to me, and that is already a problem. It's not an unsolvable problem, they can come up with explanations, but they don't and considering what a massive point wiping out all synthetics is, that is already hard to forgive.

Now Control is a different matter, the problem is not "How does it work?" but even earlier "What does it do?" Before they explain how a human can become a super AI, they should first tell us what exactly happened because Project Overlord proves that this is not that simple, and those were just a bunch of Geth as opposed to the giant almighty reaper armada.

With Synthesis, it becomes a complete mess. Why does Shepard of all people have to disintegrate, what unique thing does that do? What the hell is it that gets "broken down and then dispersed"? What kind of energy does Shepard release? What does that energy do, what are those circuits it puts on DNA? What is that "understanding of organics" that synthetics now have all of a sudden? How... gosh I could go on for hours and I'm still stuck at the "What the hell happens?" part, I don't even get to the "how is that possible?" part.

All we know is this: Synthesis magically solves all problems. The galaxy is at peace with each other, even Wreav who was going to take revenge on the galaxy and Javik who was not going to rest until the suddenly friendly reapers are wiped out.


So let me get this straight: We built a giant anti-reaper weapon that is supposed to be "little more than a power source". We linked this weapon to the hub of a galaxy-wide network of teleporters.Then, it emitted a beam of light. We jumped into that beam of light which causes an unexplained chain reaction that solves pretty much every problem in the galaxy and allows us to live together in peace and even the reapers are suddenly helpful, friendly allies.
Ladies and Gentlemen, a Deus Ex Machina.

Modifié par Argolas, 27 avril 2013 - 11:29 .

[David7204]

Synthesis is stupid, but not a DEM. The technology is irrelevant. The crux is Shepard's choice.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

See, you're acting as if the writer 'placing' a solution is a problem somehow. Insinuating that it's 'bad writing.' Nothing exists in a story except that which the writers puts there,so I'm not sure what reasoning is.

As for alternative solutions, you don't do that. You don't have lengthy chunks of the story that ultimately amount to nothing. You like TV Tropes? Look up Shaggy Dog story. It's a violation of the Theory of Narrative Causality. Of course, you certainly have things go wrong and plans adapting accordingly. You have characters improvising. All of which is a very good thing. But you don't have events of the story be worthless.

I am not saying it's bad writing, I'm saying it's a Deus Ex Machina. The two are unrelated but often combined. Writers place problems to have their characters overcome them with their established abilities. When a new ability (or character, or object) is introduced to resolve such a problem, it is a Deus Ex Machina. Even suspension of disbelief, which you are arguing is maintained here, is irrelevant.
And I was thinking more along the lines of using established objects, abilities or characters as the solution to a problem. For instance, using the Conduit on Ilos to get to the Citadel at the end. Instead, they introduce a new solution and never mention Ilos as an alternative. Handwaving like that would be sufficient if it contributed to a backup plan.

[David7204]

Introduced from a meta-perspective, but not from an in-universe perspective.

[Indy_S]

Argolas wrote...

A lot.

Synthesis solves a problem but it's not the only thing that does. The cycle, ironically, prevents the destruction of all organic life too. Since there is an alternative, Synthesis is not a DEM.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Introduced from a meta-perspective, but not from an in-universe perspective.

Doesn't quite work for the Crucible, does it? From an in-universe perspective, it remains possible. From a meta-perspective, it seems quite contrived. But it is a DEM. It solves the impossible situation of beating the Reapers. It appears suddenly to do so. The missiles might be a better DEM, but they're a DEM nonetheless.

[David7204]

No, it doesn't work for the Crucible at all. And that's because it doesn't work from an in-universe perspective. Whereas the missiles absolutely do. The missiles are not a DEM.

Modifié par David7204, 27 avril 2013 - 11:58 .

[Indy_S]

A dark energy battery that has been developed by organics over thousands of cycles and is capable of destroying advanced mechanical life? It's not likely, but it's possible. It's very stupid, but it's possible. If the door is open enough to let the missiles slide as not-DEM, why can't the Crucible jump in?

[David7204]

Firstly, because missiles are not the least bit stupid at all, and the door doesn't have to be 'opened' in the slightest for effective missiles to exist. Secondly, because the problems with the Crucible are generally where, when, and why it's found rather than it's actual function.

Modifié par David7204, 27 avril 2013 - 12:07 .

[Indy_S]

Well the missiles are found in the London streets, just before their first in-narrative use and just to kill a Reaper that we have no other way of dealing with. There isn't a point on the scale from stupid to not that limits something to being a DEM.

[David7204]

You're mixing up cause and effect.

[Mangalores]

Indy_S wrote...

Well the missiles are found in the London streets, just before their first in-narrative use and just to kill a Reaper that we have no other way of dealing with. There isn't a point on the scale from stupid to not that limits something to being a DEM.

They say, the big ass fleet brought anti ship missiles for the ground forces to deploy along to punch a whole in their defenses. They are talked about as part of the hammer invasion, they are essentially tech we have today absent the warhead but with tech we know the Allied fleet uses up in space. There is no capability in them that somehow subverts known in universe limitation or widespread military tech. They are part of a ground offensive with possibly tens of thousands of soldiers where you'd assume they tag some heavy guns along or otherwise you'd think the plot is thin because they attack big ass Reaper ships with pew-pew guns.

They are actually adding credibility to the final battle as you'd question their abscence (or that of artillery and tanks in general) in such an operation.They also do not magically solve the plot.

You can consider them a plot device, but that is not the same as Deus Ex Machina solution.