Yes Shepard is on the earth the entire time, but his decision still affects the citadel.
That's the part I still don't understand. How is Shepard able to make a decision when he/she is not on the Citadel? If he/she can't make even make it to the Citadel what good is Shepard to the Catalyst? Why should the Catalyst care if Shepard defeated indoctrination or not? What would Shepard need to prove to the Catalyst to be worthy of making a choice for the galaxy if he/she wasn't indoctrinated?
They had the setup and material backed up by tons of lore pre-EC to make the ending truly great and a watershed moment in gaming.
But...... They pvssed out and decided to keep their Deus Ex Machina plot device and Matrix style ending.
So yeah..... Just accept it.
But TurianRebel212, I thought the ending was "CW" brilliance and anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot!
Does this post mean you have just been declaring yourself to be an idiot this whole time?? 
Can you elaborate on "What people don't get is why the Catalyst helps you and how is it is NOT a deus ex machina." I would really love to better understand your point of view here.
Easy.
The Catalyst talks to Shepard because when the Crucible is connected to the Citadel, the Catalyst realizes that organics are too resourceful to continue the cycle, that even if he continued the cycle and wiped out Shepards cycle, the next cycle will end it.
While starkid does not state this directly, its can be easily implied for two reasons: First: the refuse ending, where the Catalyst does continue the cycle, Liara passed down the info in a similar manner to how the Protheans passed it down to the current cycle (keeping wih the themes of the series) and the next cycle not only wins but avoids conflict entirely. Second, is low EMS endings.....in high EMS endings, the kid is friendlier to Shepard due to the fact that Synthesis, its ideal solution, can be enacted. In low EMS, he is resentful and more hostile to Shepard.
He is not deus ex machina because he doesn't solve the problem, Shepard does.
But TurianRebel212, I thought the ending was "CW" brilliance and anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot!
Does this post mean you have just been declaring yourself to be an idiot this whole time??
Seriously?? That was good. Don't get me wrong I understand everything is subjective.... but come on! That ending is short sided (only covering absolute essential story arcs and requiring the EC to manage it) bland (no depth or intricacy) and is general disliked even with EC. (is there sarcasm here that I am not seeing?)
Easy.
The Catalyst talks to Shepard because when the Crucible is connected to the Citadel, the Catalyst realizes that organics are too resourceful to continue the cycle, that even if he continued the cycle and wiped out Shepards cycle, the next cycle will end it.
While starkid does not state this directly, its can be easily implied for two reasons: First: the refuse ending, where the Catalyst does continue the cycle, Liara passed down the info in a similar manner to how the Protheans passed it down to the current cycle (keeping wih the themes of the series) and the next cycle not only wins but avoids conflict entirely. Second, is low EMS endings.....in high EMS endings, the kid is friendlier to Shepard due to the fact that Synthesis, its ideal solution, can be enacted. In low EMS, he is resentful and more hostile to Shepard.
He is not deus ex machina because he doesn't solve the problem, Shepard does.
I disagree. "The term has evolved to mean a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object." granted only quoted from the wiki, but this leads me to believe that an unheard of character is suddenly thrown into the mix and allows Shepard to solve the problem. The starchild is the very definition of this, since he is a suddenly introduced to help solve a problem that Shepard could not by taking him to the decision room and explaining his choices. If the starchild had not appeared Shepard would have failed. There is nothing noting the next cycle would have succeeded. The information for the crucible has existed in unkown number of cycles (pre-prothean). This cycle no one truly understands it, they don't even know how to make it work everything is done on faith. The freaking starchild has to explain how to use it!! It is more than possible that the next cycle will fair even worse then Shepard's and not find Liara's diary when it is needed (we barely found the prothean VI in time.) Seriously all the starchild had to do was wait and Shepard would have died from his wounds, the cycle would have repeated. I don't think that is why the starchild said he cannot have to continue the cycle.
Though what you say seems possibly there intentions since I do not see the alternatives, but that just demonstrates the terrible nature of the literal ending.
Finally Shepard passed out face down bleeding to death onto the magic platform that carries him to the starchild. Then all the sudden he is on his knees and the starchild simply says "wake up" to which Shepard is able to get up. If all that is purely the literal interpretation then its pretty bad.
Not really.
The ending uses established items in the story, even the Catalyst was sought throughout the game. Deus ex machina it is not.
There IS info that the next cycle succeeded. Watch the refuse ending again, especially the alternate Stargazer sequence.
The Starchild helps Shepard because he defeated his plans and needs him to activate new solutions. He doesn't just come and solve Shepards problems, two options being explained all game long.
Add to the fact that he is the main antagonist of the series as well.
The catalyst is sought all game long, not the starchild. It as a personality is never expected before its arrival. Shepard has no idea how to work this super mega death ray work. This is the impossible problem, the starchild solves it for him. That makes him deus ex machina. Your right that the observer scene explains that the reapers were stopped without conflict the next time around though (I just re-watched the scene), but I also fail to see how this qualifies the starchild as not being deus ex machina, since it was introduced purely to give Shepard explanations to things they had yet to explain, thus giving the ways to fight the reapers and save the day at the last minute.
The Reaper master was foreshadowed on Thessia, so through process of elimination, the Catalyst can be reasonably expected to appear in the end as the master. While the Catalyst BEING the master was NOT foreshadowed, the master of the Reapers WAS.
Shepard even asks Vendetta "Who is the master?"
The Catalyst is also the main villain who "surrendered" when his goals are no longer attainable, that's not deus ex machina.
I still want to know if you came up with this theory before reading theories.
@ShadyWizard, Deus ex machina "plot device" works the same way deus ex machina was in Antiquity. If you don't see it, you don't know what is a deus ex machina. If you don't know what is a deus ex machina you'll fail to see that the ending is NOT a deus ex machina. People on the forum complain about the ending being a deus ex machina (while it's wrong! it's far more complicateed that people can read it) in order to say that it's lazy. Analyze first what is a deus ex machina with literature dictionary.
Starbrat couldn't have been more of a DEM even if his name was literally God From the Machine.
Starbrat is quintessentially a deus ex machina. Deal with it.
I disagree. "The term has evolved to mean a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object." granted only quoted from the wiki, but this leads me to believe that an unheard of character is suddenly thrown into the mix and allows Shepard to solve the problem.
I still want to know if you came up with this theory before reading theories.
I already stated that I finished the game without reading the theories, but could not place why it felt so messed up. Then I read the theory and watch the documentary, decided they were not right either. Then came up with the OP in an attempt to reconcile the issues.
@ShadyWizard, Deus ex machina "plot device" works the same way deus ex machina was in Antiquity. If you don't see it, you don't know what is a deus ex machina. If you don't know what is a deus ex machina you'll fail to see that the ending is NOT a deus ex machina. People on the forum complain about the ending being a deus ex machina (while it's wrong! it's far more complicateed that people can read it) in order to say that it's lazy. Analyze first what is a deus ex machina with literature dictionary.
If my understanding of Deus ex machina is wrong then I apologize. The starchild is still ham fisted, since they painted shepard into a corner with a alien machine that he did not know how to run. Then threw the starchild in there at the last moment to forgive the fact that no one could have explained how the machine was suppose to work.
But this isn't what happens. The Crucible solves the problem when Shepard activates it. All the kid does is complicate things.
Unless you want to define the problem as synthetic/organic conflict. In that case the kid's relevant, but if that's the case then Shepard might not solve it at all.
My argument here is that the crucible itself is the problem.... without starchild Shepard was sitting on the galaxies most expensive paperweight, that is the problem he solved.
And with the starchild you have a biased guide trying to pull a fast one who doesn´t make any sense the moment he started to talk. 
I felt more like "someone seriously needs a big patch."
Then I read the theory and watch the documentary, decided they were not right either. Then came up with the OP in an attempt to reconcile the issues.
That's the problem right there. I would have liked a theory not consisting of elements borrowed from other theories. I would have been more impressed. Now I'm disappointed. This is what I meant about "contaminating" your theory. Your theory is basically IT, but alternated to fit in the way you'd understand it. But then your ending is also as flawed as the IT. It already feels ridiculous for the Catalyst to accept Shepard's decision through a dream.
In IT, Shep is indoctrinated and only Destroy saves him, but then the Reapers and the Galaxy are still at war. There are no proper conclusions. The only difference I see between yours and the IT is that the choices do impact the galaxy without Shepard actually being on the Citadel.
Starbrat couldn't have been more of a DEM even if his name was literally God From the Machine.
Starbrat is quintessentially a deus ex machina. Deal with it.
Negative, he is not. It's been deconstructed a variety of times on why the Catalyst is not a DEM.
On that note, I think there's a fundamental divide on what we define as a DEM. With you defining it inaccurately.
That's the problem right there. I would have liked a theory not consisting of elements borrowed from other theories. I would have been more impressed. Now I'm disappointed. This is what I meant about "contaminating" your theory. Your theory is basically IT, but alternated to fit in the way you'd understand it. But then your ending is also as flawed as the IT. It already feels ridiculous for the Catalyst to accept Shepard's decision through a dream.
In IT, Shep is indoctrinated and only Destroy saves him, but then the Reapers and the Galaxy are still at war. There are no proper conclusions. The only difference I see between yours and the IT is that the choices do impact the galaxy without Shepard actually being on the Citadel.
disappointed?!? how short sited. IT was not the only theory, I read and reviewed a number of them. One stated that games 2 & 3 were both fake. Many things from all of them nit pick more than a dev would use for foreshadowing or clues to a deeper meaning. There are many clues though to a deeper meaning that I have stated, and if they were from a different story that was reconstructed later so be it. Of course I took council and investigated others insights, to do less would be egotistical and obnoxious. How many people restated IT as "OMG I discovered the real ending" because they put 1+2 together without further investigation?
disappointed?!? how short sited. IT was not the only theory, I read and reviewed a number of them. One stated that games 2 & 3 were both fake. Many things from all of them nit pick more than a dev would use for foreshadowing or clues to a deeper meaning. There are many clues though to a deeper meaning that I have stated, and if they were from a different story that was reconstructed later so be it. Of course I took council and investigated others insights, to do less would be egotistical and obnoxious. How many people restated IT as "OMG I discovered the real ending" because they put 1+2 together without further investigation?
I never said it was the "only" theory. I mainly said it was disappointing that the template of your theory is of another theory. If you were to make this thread after you played through the trilogy but before you started investigating other theories, would your "take" on the series differ or not?
Seriously, calling the Catalyst a deus ex machina is simply put not getting it.
How can it be a deus ex machina when its the root of the problem in the first place? Makes no logical sense.
If my understanding of Deus ex machina is wrong then I apologize. The starchild is still ham fisted, since they painted shepard into a corner with a alien machine that he did not know how to run. Then threw the starchild in there at the last moment to forgive the fact that no one could have explained how the machine was suppose to work.
You don't need to apologize but a deus ex machina is an external intervention (in antiquity it was a god, then it turned into an event, etc...) that solves something that can't be solved. It was used in tragedy to create a happy ending because people wanted a happy ending. So the deus ex machina originally breaks the coherence of the writing (the writing of a tragedy lead to a "tragic" ending).
First, the A.I. isn't external but internal (just like txgoldrush said it's the root of the problem).
Second, the A.I. doesn't solve the problem, it only gives a choice.
Third, it doesn't break the logic of the writing, it's the opposite : it confirms the logic that the writing is creating since the first game (foreshadowing, structure and themes show that the A.I. isn't something that comes from nowhere, and it explains how the themes are tied together).
And finally, it doesn't create a happy ending (the purpose of the deus ex machina is to create a happy ending).
Then you have to consider that Bioware didn't throw at the last moment the ending (Bioware said it! And if you pay attention to the writing you'll see that it's impossible to create such an ending at the last moment!). If they wanted to have no problem they would have done a super weapon easy to use, most people would be happy because it's very basic, but no Bioware never intended to do such a thing. They never wanted to do an "Independance Day" ending. If they didn't explained how it works it's because they wanted to create that kind of ending : make people think that it is a super weapon when it's not. You have to consider that the super weapon ending is easy to write and please the majority of the players. That's the easiest option to end, that's the "lazy writing". Now why didn't they choose that option? It's not because they were stuck in a corner, because they were not.
First, the A.I. isn't external but internal (just like txgoldrush said it's the root of the problem).
IMHO it's not really relevant if the entity is known to exist beforehand, or is known to be important to the central conflict somehow. We could take a story with a DEM in your sense, like a Greek god in a Greek tragedy, say Poseidon. Then we change it and let a character say at the end of act 2 "Oh, BTW, Poseidon is somehow involved in this". You are free to define your concept of DEM so strictly, that this change allows the author to claim that she's got no DEM anymore, but that does not really improve the overall effect on the audience :-)
Second, the A.I. doesn't solve the problem, it only gives a choice.
It hands three buttons to Shepard that he/she has to push. Again, in the same situation as above, changing the play from "Poseidon solves the conflict" to "Poseidon asks protagonist, solves the conflict according to the answer" does not really improve the effect the ending has on the audience.
Third, it doesn't break the logic of the writing, it's the opposite : it confirms the logic that the writing is creating since the first game...
It's appearence throws many players out of the immersion.
And finally, it doesn't create a happy ending...
...which would have been even cheaper. Of course, making this a defining aspect of the DEM concept isn't helpful, because then we just have to find a new concept that adequatly describes this kind of writer's solution to "OMG, I have to finish the story in 10 minutes and have no idea how to resolve the central conflict" :-)
If they didn't explained how it works it's because they wanted to create that kind of ending : make people think that it is a super weapon when it's not.
In the destroy ending it pretty much does what I would have expected from a super weapon.
You have to consider that the super weapon ending is easy to write and please the majority of the players. That's the easiest option to end, that's the "lazy writing".
Yes, that's even lazier, although, paradoxically, it might have provoked less protest. But I think it is quite possible to avoid some of the problems of the ending, without making many changes to the game and the overall story. Let me try (I'm not a writer):
This is before Shepard collapes at the control panel: The crucible does not fire because Harbinger has taken control of the catalyst (no need to explain exactly what that is, but can be added of course). A projection of Harbinger (like Sovereign in ME1) appears and explains: The reapers are programmed to protect life in the galaxy from anihilation by technologically but unstable advanced civilizations. Every civilization evolves from beings that have to fight for basic survival, so each has the roots of aggression in it. The reapers are waiting for a civilization that is capable to control these roots while advancing to a stage where it could wipe out all life and all life-supporting planets in the galaxy for ever, yet in the previous cycles the risk was deemed too great. In this cycle, the rise of humanity with its great potential has prompted the reapers to act. The reapers have waited longer and longer in each cycle in order to give the rising civilizations more time to prove their worth, but this cannot continue, as the current harvest has already turned out to be too much of a fight for the reapers with significant losses.
Then, depending on the EMS value
high: Harbinger believes that the unification of all races that humanity and Shepard achieved, demonstrated in the suicide run on Earth, proves their worth. The harvest ends and the reapers leave the galaxy forever (maybe after helping rebuild somewhat).
medium: Harbinger is sceptical, the harvest ends, but the reapers announce that they will be watching...
low: Harbinger continues the harvest, the human fleet and their allies are destroyed.
Obviously needs some more work :-) But obviously we don't need to introduce a new character within the last minutes that resolves our central conflict in three alternative ways of which one does not make any sense and another contradicts everything Shepard ever stood and fought for.
Harbinger is the Catalyst. The Catalyst controls all of the Reapers.
Retour en haut