224 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

AlanC9 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

LMAO how in the world is the Conduit a Deus Ex Machina? A MacGuffin sure (but not in a bad way, the Conduit is a good MacGuffin), but a DEM? No way son.

Traditionally MacGuffin is used for things which don't have a specific function in the plot except as an object of desire. I suppose we could start using MacGuffin the way you're using it, but then we'll need a new word to handle the job MacGuffin used to do, won't we?

MacGuffin's USUALLY do not have a plot-related function other than that it serves as a motivation for the actions of the protagonist and antagonist. That doesn't mean it's ALWAYS the case.

The triforce of The Legend of Zelda comes to mind.

Is the triforce a MacGuffin? Hell yes. Nobody would ever deny that the trifoce is a MacGuffin (unless you're a real-hardcore Zelda fanboy who sees the term "MacGuffin" as some sort of insult, which it isn't).

Does the triforce not have a specific function that is related to the plot? Yes, it does have a specific function that is related to the plot. The triforce, when complete, will grand the user one single wish. In most games, Ganondorf wants to use this wish to gain total domination over the world, while Zelda and/or Link usually want to use this wish to restore the land of Hyrule and/or clean up Ganondorf's mess.

However, the problem with the triforce is that when someone without a pure heart tries to use it, the triforce will break appart into 3 pieces, each piece representing a certain characteristic. The triforce of power, the triforce of wisdom and the triforce of courage. In order to protect the triforce, the 3 pieces will go to 3 different people who posses these characterisitcs.

I could go on and explain the triforce in further detail, but I won't, because that's besides the point. The point is that the triforce is a properly explained item with a lot of background lore attached to it and it is deeply intergrated into the plot of The Legend of Zelda, yet it STILL falls under the MacGuffin category.

[KaiserShep]

Technically, a lot of objects of desire, explained or not, can be defined as MacGuffins. The ring in LOTR is technically a MacGuffin, even if it's something we learn about early on in the saga. It can range from things like that to the mysterious briefcase in Pulp Fiction. The point is that it's an object of desire, which may or may not serve as the key to the story's climax. A better example would be Citizen Kane's "Rosebud", which is a MacGuffin that does actually have a reveal.

[AlanC9]

You seem to be assuming what you're trying to prove, there. The TriFirce is a MacGuffin because everyone says it is?

[dreamgazer]

I understand perfectly fine what both are, Hanar, and you stating "False" and claiming I don't doesn't work, old sport. Also, read my previous responses and think about nuanced usage of the tropes.

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...

Technically, a lot of objects of desire, explained or not, can be defined as MacGuffins. The ring in LOTR is technically a MacGuffin, even if it's something we learn about early on in the saga. It can range from things like that to the mysterious briefcase in Pulp Fiction. The point is that it's an object of desire, which may or may not serve as the key to the story's climax. A better example would be Citizen Kane's "Rosebud", which is a MacGuffin that does actually have a reveal.

This is exactly why I prefer hitchcock's usage; what good is the word if it applies to so many different things?

(Weird; the site keeps decapitalizing hitchcock in the above sentence. And this one. Spam filter exception malfunction, maybe!)

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juin 2013 - 05:21 .

[JamieCOTC]

bowboski wrote...

HappyApathy553 wrote...

I remember not been able to sleep well that night after finding out that those really were the 3, the only 3, possible endings. I literally felt sick about the endings and couldn't believe this was what Bioware would do to its own creation.

I didn't hate the endings like most people did. And even if I did I would never lose sleep over it. Since the EC came out I rather like the ending's now, I got what I wanted out of it. I don't need a super happy ending with rainbows and unicorns to like it, I find it fitting that my Sheapard sacrificed himself for the rest of the galaxy. I never wanted a cliche ending where the hero saves the day and rides off into the sun set, I find that rather boring. But just because Shepard dies, doesn't mean that it's not a happy ending.

Strip away all the nonsense and base it purely on this simple premise and the ending is fine. If it wasn't for all the other crap that got in the way ...

[Auld Wulf]

@OP

BioWare owes you nothing, don't be so entitled. The product was offered, as-is, and it was your choice to do what you like with it. If you don't like the product, don't buy future products of theirs. You are, however, not entitled to demand that they create any game content "just for you."

I'd love for a Geth vanguard in multiplayer (and I have the lore down for that, too), but they didn't do that. Whilst it would have been neat, they don't owe me that, and I don't hold a grudge against them (at all) for not giving me that. We all have things where we think 'hey, this might be kind of neat.' But you have to understand that there's a line you should cross when it comes to demanding that they sacrifice the thing they were creating just to please you.

It's kind of like watching a film and then demanding that the creators refilm it because your favourite character died. In Fullmetal Alchemist, my favourite character died, so I just lost interest in that show. It was a horrible development, but it was the story they wanted to tell. It's not my business to dictate to anyone how to tell a story. I can have my likes or dislikes, but again, you cross a line when you start making demands.

TotalBiscuit has spoken about this before. It's fine to boycott and vote with your wallet, but what's not fine is making demands that go beyond your rights as a consumer. If you feel that they've really betrayed your rights as a consumer under the laws of your country, then do what you want in that regard and claim a refund as you so desire. But your rights go as far as the law dictates. Your rights stop at the rights of the next person.

You have no right to claim that BioWare should have made your perfect, happy ending, just for you. You have no right to claim that it should have been a choice.

I've bought terrible games in the past, many of them. One has disposable income and one takes risks. But again, the only thing one can do in that case is perhaps hopefully claim a refund. You can't tell them what kind of game they should be making. That's arrogant, ignorant, egotistical, and entitled -- the worst qualities of any person, which gamers unfortunately seem to possess in abundance.

BioWare wanted their game to not be just another Space Invaders-like game with the most basic plot imaginable. ("I am mass murdering gud guy! I blow up bad guy! I get ceremony! Hooray!") I actually appreciate that. We've had far too many black & white plots of late -- but there's a thing, see. If you want a black & white plot, there are plenty of games out there that would sate your desire for that, including the very first Mass Effect.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 05 juin 2013 - 05:27 .

[The Heretic of Time]

AlanC9 wrote...

You seem to be assuming what you're trying to prove, there. The TriFirce is a MacGuffin because everyone says it is?

The Triforce is a MacGuffin because it is. It fits the trope.

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

I understand perfectly fine what both are, Hanar, and you stating "False" and claiming I don't doesn't work, old sport. Also, read my previous responses and think about nuanced usage of the tropes.

No you don't understand what both are, as is very clear in your responses.

Also, everytime I state your arguments or claims are false I explain why they are false every single time.


Again, the Conduit probably is a MacGuffin, but it most certainly does not fit the Deus Ex machina trope, not at all.

[Auld Wulf]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You seem to be assuming what you're trying to prove, there. The TriFirce is a MacGuffin because everyone says it is?

The Triforce is a MacGuffin because it is. It fits the trope.

Ah, but that's the clever deceit. You don't know that it's a macguffin, you just believe it is. And because you believe it to be, you take it as a fact. Personally, I've never been motivated by tri-forces in any of the Zelda games, so... I don't really think it is.

[dreamgazer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I understand perfectly fine what both are, Hanar, and you stating "False" and claiming I don't doesn't work, old sport. Also, read my previous responses and think about nuanced usage of the tropes.

No you don't understand what both are, as is very clear in your responses.

And it's very clear in your responses that you don't understand what they are either, especially a MacGuffin.

PS:

Hence why it's a hybrid instead of a verbatim DEM, why it's a quasi-MacGuffin until the plot needs it to ultimately fix the problem. The timing of its use, and the way it exploits the info-dump from Vigil about where it leads, borders on that line.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 05 juin 2013 - 05:37 .

[Dubozz]

Damn right OP. Ending sucks big time. 

Modifié par Dubozz, 05 juin 2013 - 05:33 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You seem to be assuming what you're trying to prove, there. The TriFirce is a MacGuffin because everyone says it is?

The Triforce is a MacGuffin because it is. It fits the trope.

Ah, but that's the clever deceit. You don't know that it's a macguffin, you just believe it is. And because you believe it to be, you take it as a fact. Personally, I've never been motivated by tri-forces in any of the Zelda games, so... I don't really think it is.

What the hell have you been smoking? 

I advice you too to look up the definition of MacGuffin, because you don't seem to understand it either.


Here, I'll help you out:

"In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist (and sometimes the antagonist) is willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to pursue, protect or control."


I can basically copy-paste that text and swap "MacGuffin" for "triforce" and it will perfectly sum up the plot of The Legend of Zelda.


Behold:

"In The Legend of Zelda, the triforce is a plot device in the form of a desired object that the antagonist Ganondorf is willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to pursue and control it, while the protagonists Zelda and Link are willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to protect it."

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 05 juin 2013 - 05:39 .

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I understand perfectly fine what both are, Hanar, and you stating "False" and claiming I don't doesn't work, old sport. Also, read my previous responses and think about nuanced usage of the tropes.

No you don't understand what both are, as is very clear in your responses.

And it's very clear in your responses that you don't understand what they are either, especially a MacGuffin.

I do understand what they are, especially a MacGuffin. I've been taught all this crap at film school way back when I still studied audiovisual-media design.


Edit:

PS:

Hence why it's a hybrid instead of a verbatim DEM, why it's a quasi-MacGuffin until the plot needs it to ultimately fix the problem. The timing of its use, and the way it exploits the info-dump from Vigil about where it leads, borders on that line.

Yes, the Conduit is a quasi-MacGuffin (personally I'd say it's a full-fledged MacGuffin, but whatever) but no, it's not a verbatim DEM.


That does not mean that ME1 is without DEMs. Vigil itself is borderline-DEM. The Conduit isn't.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 05 juin 2013 - 05:44 .

[dreamgazer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I do understand what they are, especially a MacGuffin. I've been taught all this crap at film school way back when I still studied audiovisual-media design.

And I know what they are through my own academic experience and exposure to classic and modern fiction, namely film noir cinema where the trope is heavily prevalent.

[Nerevar-as]

Auld Wulf wrote...

BioWare wanted their game to not be just another Space Invaders-like game with the most basic plot imaginable. ("I am mass murdering gud guy! I blow up bad guy! I get ceremony! Hooray!") I actually appreciate that. We've had far too many black & white plots of late -- but there's a thing, see. If you want a black & white plot, there are plenty of games out there that would sate your desire for that, including the very first Mass Effect.

Pfffff...

Out of context one would say you´re commenting Spec Ops: The Line. ME3 is exactly B&W until the last 5 minutes, when we are asked to agree to the terms of one of the greatest murderers in fiction. Most people don´t like out of context shocking swerves in the last 1% of a narrative, and it has nothing to do with happy endings (which you should appreciate more, life being what it is any light is worth it). Hope you have money to buy 2M ME4 games, as it looks that´s what it´ll take for the next game to succeed.

[AlanC9]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You seem to be assuming what you're trying to prove, there. The TriFirce is a MacGuffin because everyone says it is?

The Triforce is a MacGuffin because it is. It fits the trope.

It fits the trope only if the trope is what you say it is. 

But maybe this battle's already lost and your sloppy usage has won. Come to think of it, I believe George Lucas uses the term your way.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juin 2013 - 05:46 .

[jstme]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

BioWare owes you nothing, don't be so entitled. The product was offered, as-is, and it was your choice to do what you like with it. If you don't like the product, don't buy future products of theirs. You are, however, not entitled to demand that they create any game content "just for you."

I'd love for a Geth vanguard in multiplayer (and I have the lore down for that, too), but they didn't do that. Whilst it would have been neat, they don't owe me that, and I don't hold a grudge against them (at all) for not giving me that. We all have things where we think 'hey, this might be kind of neat.' But you have to understand that there's a line you should cross when it comes to demanding that they sacrifice the thing they were creating just to please you.

It's kind of like watching a film and then demanding that the creators refilm it because your favourite character died. In Fullmetal Alchemist, my favourite character died, so I just lost interest in that show. It was a horrible development, but it was the story they wanted to tell. It's not my business to dictate to anyone how to tell a story. I can have my likes or dislikes, but again, you cross a line when you start making demands.

TotalBiscuit has spoken about this before. It's fine to boycott and vote with your wallet, but what's not fine is making demands that go beyond your rights as a consumer. If you feel that they've really betrayed your rights as a consumer under the laws of your country, then do what you want in that regard and claim a refund as you so desire. But your rights go as far as the law dictates. Your rights stop at the rights of the next person.

You have no right to claim that BioWare should have made your perfect, happy ending, just for you. You have no right to claim that it should have been a choice.

I've bought terrible games in the past, many of them. One has disposable income and one takes risks. But again, the only thing one can do in that case is perhaps hopefully claim a refund. You can't tell them what kind of game they should be making. That's arrogant, ignorant, egotistical, and entitled -- the worst qualities of any person, which gamers unfortunately seem to possess in abundance.

BioWare wanted their game to not be just another Space Invaders-like game with the most basic plot imaginable. ("I am mass murdering gud guy! I blow up bad guy! I get ceremony! Hooray!") I actually appreciate that. We've had far too many black & white plots of late -- but there's a thing, see. If you want a black & white plot, there are plenty of games out there that would sate your desire for that, including the very first Mass Effect.

A consumer has a right to demand EVERYTHING! For ME3 to come with over 9000 endings,to come in a gold box ,to have a live size squad mate robotic figure saying "i should go" every 5 seconds. Everything, no matter how correct or how silly the demand is.
EA/Bioware have the right to ignore the demands ,unlesss legally obliged to do otherwise.
And ME3 ending, that was so bad they actually had to release EC for, is certainly a legit reason for the outcry.   

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I do understand what they are, especially a MacGuffin. I've been taught all this crap at film school way back when I still studied audiovisual-media design.

And I know what they are through my own academic experience and exposure to classic and modern fiction, namely film noir cinema where the trope is heavily prevalent.

I just edited my previous post to reply to your "PS" that you added later.


I already see your problem and why you mistake the Conduit for a borderline-DEM even though it isn't. You directly link Vigil and his info-dump to the Conduit. But you shouldn't. Vigil and the Conduits are two seperate entities.


Vigil is a DEM, or comes pretty close to it. The Conduit is not a DEM, while it is indeed a (quasi) MacGuffin.

[Eryri]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Eryri wrote...

You have my sympathies OP. 

Thanks to EA taking their time releasing the PC version of the EC on Origin, I got fed up and watched the Refuse ending on YouTube. I'm glad I did. If I had waited for the download to finish, then endured Priority Earth and sat through the Star-brat's drivel, before having my hopes raised by a speech where Shepard actually sounds like himself again, only to be rewarded with that one-fingered salute of an ending...

I would have been somewhat annoyed, to say the least.

And what the hell did you two expect?

Touchy, aren't we.

The reapers were already winning: they were obliterating your forces and started their harvest almost in all major worlds... they also had the Citadel. 

One massive fleet and a bunch of heroes are not enogh to defeat a much greater and a lot more powerful fleet with more advanced technology. 

But a device that spouts ill-defined magic, cobbled together from spare parts by people who didn't completely understand it's function, apparently is?

Yeah, that's gritty realism right there.

[KaiserShep]

Auld Wulf wrote...
BioWare wanted their game to not be just another Space Invaders-like game with the most basic plot imaginable. ("I am mass murdering gud guy! I blow up bad guy! I get ceremony! Hooray!") I actually appreciate that. We've had far too many black & white plots of late -- but there's a thing, see. If you want a black & white plot, there are plenty of games out there that would sate your desire for that, including the very first Mass Effect.

The irony is that the entire Mass Effect trilogy is essentially a destroy-the-enemy-to-save-the-day story. This path does not deviate in the slightest until the last few minutes.There's no hint or foreshadowing of anything that leads up to the conversation with the hologram. But it doesn't matter, because before this point, it was about the sum of the story, not just its conclusion. The game's biggest aspects are its world-building properties and characterization, not its main plot. You can claim that the first Mass Effect is simple black & white if you want, but in this regard, it's not detached from the other 2. All 3 games have instances where you can kill or spare the enemy, determine who to save or who to sacrifice to achieve a goal. Just because it's not necessarily part of the end game doesn't mean they should be ignored. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 juin 2013 - 05:55 .

[dreamgazer]

The Conduit and Vigil are entwined, Hanar. Without the AI to tell Shepard what it is and where it goes, the device is dead and the story broken. That info empowers the Conduit into an unlikely, abrupt plot solver after a major plot twist.

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

The Conduit and Vigil are entwined, Hanar. Without the AI to tell Shepard what it is and where it goes, the device is dead and the story broken. That info empowers the Conduit into an unlikely, abrupt plot solver after a major plot twist.

The Conduit is not the plot-solver, as it's existence is the very reason why this plot exists in the first place.

Without the Conduit, there is no Mass Effect 1. Think about that. The Conduit is not an abrupt plot-solver, it is the very center and core of the plot. It's the plot starter, the plot-climax and the plot-solver. It's all of that.

The abrupt plot-solver is Vigil himself. If anything is a DEM, he is. Vigil provided us with everything we needed to defeat Saren at the last minute. And I'm not even talking about his info-dump about the Conduit right now, I''m talking about his data-files that he gave us to override Saren's commands and regain control of the Citadel. Now THAT'S a Deus Ex Machina.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 05 juin 2013 - 06:09 .

[David7204]

The conduit is not a DEM. The Catalyst is not a DEM. Vigil is not a DEM.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

The conduit is not a DEM. The Catalyst is not a DEM. Vigil is not a DEM.

The Conduit is not a DEM, it's a MacGuffin.

The Catalyst is a DEM, or at least he was before the Leviathan DLC.

Vigil is a DEM and I just explained why he is.