236 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

Oh? The cause is the problem, the effect is the solution. Unless you're referring to the second sentence in which case having a scale from DEM to not affecting the stupidity is worthless because their are no points between DEM and not.

[David7204]

Here's an analogy to consider. Is it plot armor that Shepard and some of the squadmates are guaranteed to survive until the end of the game? Or for that matter, almost every protagonist in every story? It's incredibly rare for protagonists to die halfway through.

[Indy_S]

Mangalores wrote...

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.

First of all, do they actually say that? Do they talk about thanix missiles before we find out that there is a Reaper in front of the beam?

Secondly, expecting something for narrative reasons does not actually affect whether or not something is a DEM. I expected a way of defeating the Reapers to be discovered in the game, I wasn't surprised. Doesn't change the fact that the Crucible is a DEM. And for some reason, they do attack big ass Reaper ships with pew-pew guns.

Thirdly, I'm not saying that it is not credible. I would question their abscence. But they do solve the plot, the immediate problem that is a Reaper standing in front of the beam. It is an obstacle that cannot be overcome without the use of these missiles.

[David7204]

The missiles are not a DEM. None of the examples you listed are a DEM aside from maybe the Crucible.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

Here's an analogy to consider. Is it plot armor that Shepard and some of the squadmates are guaranteed to survive until the end of the game? Or for that matter, almost every protagonist in every story? It's incredibly rare for protagonists to die halfway through.

Plot armour is situational. Shepard does have plot armour at some points (crashing the car during the coup is the one that comes to my mind). Similarly, DEM is situational. If an unsolveable problem is introduced and resolved by an unexpected act (object, character, etc.), that act is a DEM. The Reaper stands between us and the beam and these freshly thought-up missiles are the only answer.

[Wayning_Star]

I still think that the star gazers are the ultimate DEM. They fix everything.

I'm figuring that the catalyst is the problem, via the real problem, US/organics.. bwdik?

[Wayning_Star]

Indy_S wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Here's an analogy to consider. Is it plot armor that Shepard and some of the squadmates are guaranteed to survive until the end of the game? Or for that matter, almost every protagonist in every story? It's incredibly rare for protagonists to die halfway through.

Plot armour is situational. Shepard does have plot armour at some points (crashing the car during the coup is the one that comes to my mind). Similarly, DEM is situational. If an unsolveable problem is introduced and resolved by an unexpected act (object, character, etc.), that act is a DEM. The Reaper stands between us and the beam and these freshly thought-up missiles are the only answer.

wouldn't that just be a "smoke'm if you got'em" situation? One "act" doesn't make the whole show? Unless it's "The End"

[Wayning_Star]

this story doesn't actually seem to have The End. No DEM needed?

[David7204]

I'm getting tired of arguing this. If you think your examples fit the TV tropes DEM definition, go post them on the TV Tropes DEM page and see if they last.

[Indy_S]

David7204 wrote...

The missiles are not a DEM. None of the examples you listed are a DEM aside from maybe the Crucible.

A few examples:

We had no idea where Saren was going, where to start looking for the Conduit. But the Rachni's genetic memory has the answer: The Mu Relay! There is no other method of obtaining such information. In other words, an otherwise unsolveable problem. And this ability of theirs is introduced in the same scene. A sudden, unexpected ability solves an unsolveable problem.

Shepard was dead (or near enough). But Cerberus can save him. Plausible or not, this ability of theirs is unexpected. There are no other methods of saving the dead in the setting. Again, a sudden, unexpected ability solves an unsolveable problem.

How do we apply a cure to an entire planet? An atmospheric sustainer, of course. We've never heard of such a thing on Tuchanka? Well I can point to one. Nothing else can do it. But this sudden introduction of the Shroud also solves an unsolveable problem.

[Wayning_Star]

Indy_S wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The missiles are not a DEM. None of the examples you listed are a DEM aside from maybe the Crucible.

A few examples:

We had no idea where Saren was going, where to start looking for the Conduit. But the Rachni's genetic memory has the answer: The Mu Relay! There is no other method of obtaining such information. In other words, an otherwise unsolveable problem. And this ability of theirs is introduced in the same scene. A sudden, unexpected ability solves an unsolveable problem.

Shepard was dead (or near enough). But Cerberus can save him. Plausible or not, this ability of theirs is unexpected. There are no other methods of saving the dead in the setting. Again, a sudden, unexpected ability solves an unsolveable problem.

How do we apply a cure to an entire planet? An atmospheric sustainer, of course. We've never heard of such a thing on Tuchanka? Well I can point to one. Nothing else can do it. But this sudden introduction of the Shroud also solves an unsolveable problem.

well, everything that works out of thin air shouldn't be considered a DEM tho, should it? I mean a simple light switch could be considered DEM that way, if it were a lost amazon tribesman flipping it?

[Indy_S]

Wayning_Star wrote...

well, everything that works out of thin air shouldn't be considered a DEM tho, should it? I mean a simple light switch could be considered DEM that way, if it were a lost amazon tribesman flipping it?

A light switch is not a solution.

[Mangalores]

Indy_S wrote...

...
Plot armour is situational. Shepard does have plot armour at some points (crashing the car during the coup is the one that comes to my mind). Similarly, DEM is situational. If an unsolveable problem is introduced and resolved by an unexpected act (object, character, etc.), that act is a DEM. The Reaper stands between us and the beam and these freshly thought-up missiles are the only answer.

The Reaper was also freshly thought up. The reason it is not DEM is that both are introduced together.They create the stage for the next plot progression. If the thanix missiles would suddenly appear out of the blue when you are constantly wacked by the Reaper, then they would be a DEM for this subplot. As it is, they are introduced as part of the final battle and with a challenge of a Reaper you are provided a logical tool to progress past that point.

 DEMs also resolve the plot, not some scene. If the hero gets rescued by some soldiers at the start of the game, then it is just plot progression. The soldiers do not resolve the plot even though you might never heard of them until they save you. If the same thing happens at the end of the story when the hero is completely stuck and some random person you couldn't expect to be there kills the bad guy.


But admitedly the definition between DEM and plot device is floating. I consider the tacked on bit of the Catalyst and the three ways you can use the Crucible a DEM, the Crucible itself just an overly convenient plot device because they built up the Reaper threat too much.

[Wayning_Star]

Indy_S wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

well, everything that works out of thin air shouldn't be considered a DEM tho, should it? I mean a simple light switch could be considered DEM that way, if it were a lost amazon tribesman flipping it?

A light switch is not a solution.

ask Edison?

you're being evasive.

[Wayning_Star]

Mangalores wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

...
Plot armour is situational. Shepard does have plot armour at some points (crashing the car during the coup is the one that comes to my mind). Similarly, DEM is situational. If an unsolveable problem is introduced and resolved by an unexpected act (object, character, etc.), that act is a DEM. The Reaper stands between us and the beam and these freshly thought-up missiles are the only answer.

The Reaper was also freshly thought up. The reason it is not DEM is that both are introduced together.They create the stage for the next plot progression. If the thanix missiles would suddenly appear out of the blue when you are constantly wacked by the Reaper, then they would be a DEM for this subplot. As it is, they are introduced as part of the final battle and with a challenge of a Reaper you are provided a logical tool to progress past that point.

 DEMs also resolve the plot, not some scene. If the hero gets rescued by some soldiers at the start of the game, then it is just plot progression. The soldiers do not resolve the plot even though you might never heard of them until they save you. If the same thing happens at the end of the story when the hero is completely stuck and some random person you couldn't expect to be there kills the bad guy.


But admitedly the definition between DEM and plot device is floating. I consider the tacked on bit of the Catalyst and the three ways you can use the Crucible a DEM, the Crucible itself just an overly convenient plot device because they built up the Reaper threat too much.

I always thought that the reaps needed a guide/leader. The story leads up to that, so that the Cat being there isn't a surprise/DEM/Insta-cure, but a 'boss' of all bosses. We got to defeat one reap in the start, upend their baby humanoid collector critter and so on up to the point of the catalyst/intelligence. It/he wasn't an actual surprise.

Then the endings fandango that seems to have "0" resolution, spread wide and tall, but never really harvested for wheat bread. Fans gets no choice, but to nitpick and deconstruct their 'end point'.

Then the star gazer scene with all ending solution as 'time' it's self is the canon ending or DEM?

[dreamgazer]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Would you consider the conduit in ME1 to be a deus ex machina? Think about it.

Nope, that's just a door opening.

You mean what's abruptly revealed to be a functioning Prothean prototype of technology they didn't invent (something that Shepard didn't know what it did or how it worked), which allowed the crew to fly through it in the Mako at the last second to stop Saren's agenda. Implausible, unexpected, absolutely necessary solution with no foreshadowing.

It is, in fact, a MacGuffin, but it flirts with the line.

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Would you consider the conduit in ME1 to be a deus ex machina? Think about it.

Nope, that's just a door opening.

You mean what's abruptly revealed to be a functioning Prothean prototype of technology they didn't invent (something that Shepard didn't know what it did or how it worked), which allowed the crew to fly through it in the Mako at the last second to stop Saren's agenda. Implausible, unexpected, absolutely necessary solution with no foreshadowing.

It is, in fact, a MacGuffin, but it flirts with the line.

Remember gaze.  ME1 is perfect. 

[SpamBot2000]

dreamgazer wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Would you consider the conduit in ME1 to be a deus ex machina? Think about it.

Nope, that's just a door opening.

You mean what's abruptly revealed to be a functioning Prothean prototype of technology they didn't invent (something that Shepard didn't know what it did or how it worked), which allowed the crew to fly through it in the Mako at the last second to stop Saren's agenda. Implausible, unexpected, absolutely necessary solution with no foreshadowing.

It is, in fact, a MacGuffin, but it flirts with the line.

Umm, not quite. 

"It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?", and the other answers, "Oh, that's a McGuffin". The first one asks "What's a McGuffin?" "Well", the other man says, "It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands". The first man says, "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands", and the other one answers, "Well, then that's no McGuffin!" So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all."

-Alfred hitchcock (who popularized the term, talking about his movie The 39 Steps)

Simply put, a MacGuffin is an object that serves as a motivation, like the maltese falcon in The Maltese Falcon, with no necessary content at all. The Conduit was a passage to the place Shepard needed to go. Not the same thing.

Edit: Weird, you are not allowed to capitalize "hitchcock". That appears to be the case with several words beginning with a "c" as well.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 27 avril 2013 - 02:41 .

[dreamgazer]

And you're suggesting that the Conduit didn't drive the plot or provide motivation? Or the fact that it eventually provides a convenient solution dismisses it from being a MacGuffin?

Modifié par dreamgazer, 27 avril 2013 - 02:58 .

[Wayning_Star]

Edit: Weird, you are not allowed to capitalize "hitchcock". That appears to be the case with several words beginning with a "c" as well.

we're being indoctrinated... I just KNEW it!

that spell checker needs a spell checker...

[Megaton_Hope]

A MacGuffin is a device for moving the plot forward. The transit papers in Casablanca are a MacGuffin - although they're ultimately used by a character to escape the occupation, their primary purpose was for the characters to have something to compete over acquiring. The plot could have been concluded without those papers ever being used just as easily.

[SpamBot2000]

dreamgazer wrote...

And you're suggesting that the Conduit didn't drive the plot or provide motivation? Or the fact that it eventually provides a convenient solution dismisses it from being a MacGuffin?

The latter option. The MacGuffin is simply the embodiment of "motivation". Why do you want the MacGuffin? Because you do, that's why it's a MacGuffin. 

The Conduit, on the other hand, was a gateway from where Shepard was to where he wanted to go. Shepard didn't want the Conduit for itself, he wanted to go through it.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 27 avril 2013 - 07:11 .

[dreamgazer]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

And you're suggesting that the Conduit didn't drive the plot or provide motivation? Or the fact that it eventually provides a convenient solution dismisses it from being a MacGuffin?

The latter option. The MacGuffin is simply the embodiment of "motivation". Why do you want the MacGuffin? Because you do, that's why it's a MacGuffin.

This is exactly what the conduit remained in ME, until Vigil told us otherwise at the last minute. Is the vague explanation "it does something with the Reapers" much more of a motive than "it's valuable" when you have no idea what it is or what it actually does?

The Conduit, on the other hand, was a gateway from where Shepard was to where he wanted to go. Shepard didn't want the Conduit for itself, he wanted to go through it.

Shepard didn't know what the conduit was until Ilos, though, and s/he sought it because Saren sought it. Until then, the conduit was the embodiment of motivation towards an undefined object, until the plot needed it to solve the problem in an unlikely way.  Is it a MacGuffin once all is said and done? I dunno, perhaps not, but it walks and talks like one until it shifts into an out-of-the-blue narrative solution that wasn't really foreshadowed.

(And, I swear, I consider ME's writing to be the better of the three.)

Modifié par dreamgazer, 27 avril 2013 - 07:53 .

[SpamBot2000]

Well, I'm not suggesting that interpreting plot elements is an exact science or anything, contrary to the dogmatic arguments that people often have on BSN on the subject. I guess you can say an element functions in one role at one point of a plot, but ultimately may transcend that role. "MacGuffin" is a weird term, since it's basically pejorative, but originally somewhat affectionately so, used by producers to refer to an element in their own works.

Anyways, that "tvtropes" site seems to have made a dogmatic critic out of everyone. I find the whole trend a little dispiriting, to be honest. Sure, it's often amusing and insightful, but it just makes it too easy to rip apart any story into snarkily named cliches. And too often it seems to be replacing doing any actual thinking about a story with a game of "Spot The Trope".

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 27 avril 2013 - 08:45 .

[AlanC9]

 That's just user error, though. Tropes Are Not Bad.