88 réponses à ce sujet

[Tim van Beek]

@angol fear: Sorry, then it won't make much sense to continue the conversation (between us, in this thread). So this will be my last posting responding to you.

 

And deus ex machina isn't inherently bad. Only ignorant people think that.

 

Well, I pretty much agree with what Wikipedia has to say about it (e.g. "It is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author"). Instead of calling names, I would prefer a factual discussion. If you want to do this (without me interfering, see above), you could for example explain why you like the ending of ME3 or cite an example of a story with a DEM which got positive reviews (which would take the thread somewhat off topic, this is just an example of how a "factual" response could have looked like instead of the "everyone disagreeing with me is just too stupid to understand" variation you gave).

[Excella Gionne]

@Tim, imagine whatever you want, I'm talking about deus ex machina, if you can't understand that device, deal with your misunderstanding. You're not a writer and you don't know what is a deus ex machina, that's obvious. You didn't understand anything of what I was saying or what writing is. You should really learn the basis before trying to sound smart.

Is the Deus Ex Machina not applicable in some way to the Crucible? I know DEM is meant to give a Happy Endings through sudden miracles, and ME3 does not actually do that because none of the endings are what you call a "Happy Ending".

[Tim van Beek]

Harbinger is the Catalyst. The Catalyst controls all of the Reapers.

Not sure if that is a reaction to my post(s), just in case: No, it is well established within the ME3 storyline that the citadel (or some part of it) is the catalyst, and that the catalyst is needed to make the crucible effective (using Harbinger in that way seems a bit off :-). In my sketch of an alternative ending, the "intelligence" of the Leviathan DLC is never met (one would have to change this somehow to adapt the game to my sketch - of course, because the DLC was specifically designed to fill some of the plot holes of the spacechild). One could make Harbinger into the "master of the Reapers", though. Its existence is inferred only as reported by Vendetta, the VI met on Thessia, so AFAIK it could be a reaper, like the oldest one (it could also simply not exist or be a hive mind consisting of all reapers). The catalyst in this version is not an intelligence, but just a piece of tech.

 

I don't think there is much work to do to adapt ME3 to this new ending, which is precisely the point. Basically, let anything happen while Shepard is crawling towards the console, and all you have to change to prepare it are a few lines of dialog, mostly thanks to the Leviathan DLC :-)

 

I do also think that the possible endings, how they come to pass, and the motivation of the reapers behind them make much more sense in my version, of course, but there are a lot of possibly better alternatives. If one would like to have an ending with a final exposition of the reapers and their goals and how they are "defeated", without introducing a new character for just that, the best candidate is Harbinger IMHO. It is already well known from ME2. But of course one can also go for an ending without final exposition, that e.g. never explains what the reapers were truly after, and always ends with the defeat of the reapers, like the "happy ending mod" does.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Is the Deus Ex Machina not applicable in some way to the Crucible? I know DEM is meant to give a Happy Endings through sudden miracles, and ME3 does not actually do that because none of the endings are what you call a "Happy Ending".

 

I always thought Synthesis was a Happy Ending, because you get 'unimaginable' futures and stuff. That was much more than I ever expected.

[prosthetic soul]

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.

They're deconstructing it wrong then.  Catalyst is a DEM.  In every possible freaking way. 

[ShadyWizard]

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? 

     Probably, but it would have lacked a lot, and my thread would have been un-insightful(not saying I was insightful, but it would have been worse) questions more than proposed theories. There were a bunch of things that felt off, but I could not put my finger on it till I investigated other reviews. I am not sighting evidence for anything that did not bother me to begin with.

     First Harbingers laser, next the acid trip conflict with Anderson and the illusive man, finally the citadel.

     I screamed at my screen when I saw the laser and called BS when Shepard got back up (thought I had screwed up, which was strange because every other laser was clearly not a threat).

     I still feel like the next part seems so dream like and unbelievable from the perspective of Shepard actions and the illusive mans new found SPACE MAGIC (come on the reapers can indoctrinate not telepathically control someones physical movements, how do we get off giving him those powers and thanking the reapers for it.... am I wrong?.... seriously if I missed something here tell me because it really bothers me.)

     Finally the choices... how neat and tidy.... "you have lost, you gave everything and in 5 min. you have lost.... Let me give you the key to the save the galaxy from the reapers"!!! How perfect that a Shepard barely able to walk since the laser suddenly has full stature (after you make your choice and Shepard resolve kicks in) when he has been bleeding out this whole time (must have been the shot from the shielded guy just before the beam that caused the bleeding). HE JUST PASSED OUT BEFORE MAKING IT TO THE DECISION CHAMBER!!! I mean seriously. I could go on. Look at everything from my original post. I was in full on WTF playing the ending of this game. I loved mass effect and I hope that it only gets better in the future, but my theories were based on my attempt to resolve issues that were merely questions and loud screams at my monitor till I did research.

[Tim van Beek]

@ShadyWizard: That's a pretty common reaction to the ending, here is what bioware and others have said about it (its a summary that mostly confirms and expands on your points, which I hope will help to settle this topic for you and maybe some others):

 

 

 

  I screamed at my screen when I saw the laser and called BS when Shepard got back up.

According to Bioware's extended cut DLC, everything here happens physically, so we have to assume that Shepard wasn't hit directly and that the beam supposedly destroyed his/her armour and wounden her/him in a way that prevens her/him from using any powers. Obviously there wasn't enough time/budget/patience (or maybe it's about game engine limitations) to create a "destroyed armour look" for Shepard, which is why the beam seems to magically redress Shepard from combat to casual outfit. This also does not explain why the his/her gun does not run out of thermal clips (there is no explanation for this).

 

 

 

 I still feel like the next part seems so dream like...

This is because Shepard suffers from a severe shock and obviously there wasn't much time/budget/patience (or maybe it's about game engine limitations) to make it look and feel noticably different from the dream sequences.

 

 

 

 the illusive mans new found SPACE MAGIC (come on the reapers can indoctrinate not telepathically control someones physical movements, how do we get off giving him those powers and thanking the reapers for it.... am I wrong?.... seriously if I missed something here tell me because it really bothers me.)

Nope, this simply goes unexplained, but IMHO it is within the bounds of the ME universe to assume that TIM uses some advanced kind of biotics, not indoctrination. This does somewhat contradict what Shepard and TIM say about it, though.

 

 

 

 Finally the choices... how neat and tidy.... "you have lost, you gave everything and in 5 min. you have lost.... Let me give you the key to the save the galaxy from the reapers"!

Yes, that's what is usually called a "deus ex machina" and is commonly considered to be bad writing (which is why you rarely see it anywhere anymore), even if some people obviously beg to differ. Whether or not we will be allowed to call it that does not really matter anyway. People will continue to be disappointed by this, even those who don't know about the DEM concept.

 

 

 

How perfect that a Shepard barely able to walk since the laser suddenly has full stature (after you make your choice and Shepard resolve kicks in) when he has been bleeding out this whole time...

Yes, it would seem that the spacechild wants Shepard on the Citadel and it heals him/her somehow (maybe Medigel when we weren't looking). It could have let Shepard die. Besides that: The Reapers could have deactivated the sol relay after getting the citadel to earth. The Reapers could have deactivated the citadel beam once the attack started. The Reapers could have deployed some ground forces to the citadel. All of this nullifies the spacechild's assertion that "Shepard being on the citadel" somehow proves that the cycles cannot go on, because it will be a piece of cake to prevent this situation during the next cycles.

 

Especially since the spacechild and the reapers now know about the crucible and the vulnerability of the mass relays and the citadel, they can erase all proof of that much more efficiently than before, can adapt their technology accordingly etc. 

 

Also, since no reason is given why the reapers always wait exactly 50 000 years from harvest to harvest, why let civilizations evolve to a point where they can build the crucible? Why not start the next harvest earlier?

 

 

 

 Finally the choices...

The destruction option is, from the point of view of the spacechild, i.e. by its own reasoning, an unwarranted extended suicide that will ultimately and inevitably lead to the destruction of all organic life in the galaxy by synthetics. So why offer this at all? 

 

For the control ending, the spacechild would have to make the point how and why Shepard's conscience is supposed to be better at the job than itself, which it never does. (Of course, Shepard needs to abandon everything he/her fought for to accept this, but that's a different point and up to the player.)

 

For the synthesis ending, there is no way this could possibly work, even in the ME universe with its forgiving bendable physics and scientific surprises. The consequences this has for surviving reaper ground troops is scary to consider. Besides that, to give it credit, it does seem to solve the central conflict.

 

Many players and reviewers (including me) disapprove that the reapers are supposed to prevent the "inevitable" annihilation of organics by synthetics, which seems to be contrived, but to be fair, if the spacechild was programmed with this as an unchangeable premise, it does make sense from its point of view and within the logic of the story and universe.  

[Rhaenyss]

I just finished the trilogy, and I wasn't surprised or taken aback with the so-called starchild. It didn't even occur to me that it was a new character, I just assumed he was Harbinger/Reaper consensus made to look like something that would appeal to Shepard, like an interface of some sort. Or alternatively, something like Legion, who claims is an independent platform for the Geth consensus. When the Crucible was activated & also through Shepard, he was presented with new solutions to something he thought had only one (destruction). He is not opposed to Shepard choosing these solutions, because basically they solve the very problem he was trying to solve in the first place. 

 

The only thing that puts me off is the fact that he's presented as a child, which is a big no-no in movies since they're usually not competent enough to carry heavy roles, creating animosity towards them (see: young Anakin Skywalker). If it was Harbinger saying those things, would you feel different?

[Tim van Beek]

 

 

I just finished the trilogy, and I wasn't surprised or taken aback with the so-called starchild.

To be fair to the game and its creators, it is good enough to make players forgive some if not all of the plot holes, especially while playing it for the first time. The starchild blew it for me, but obviously that's subjective.

 

 

 

It didn't even occur to me that it was a new character, I just assumed he was Harbinger/Reaper consensus made to look like something that would appeal to Shepard, like an interface of some sort.

Yes, that would make more sense, but does not comport with both what it says itself and with what the Leviathan says about it in the Leviathan DLC. But, again, the game is too good for many people to think about stuff like that :-) Especially on the first playthrough.

 

 

 

Or alternatively, something like Legion, who claims is an independent platform for the Geth consensus.

Strictly speaking Legion is a platform used by a very limited number of Geth  programs (it says 1,183 in ME2), not for the whole Geth consensus.

 

 

 

When the Crucible was activated & also through Shepard, he was presented with new solutions to something he thought had only one (destruction). He is not opposed to Shepard choosing these solutions, because basically they solve the very problem he was trying to solve in the first place. 

Given that we accept a) the problem and that the Reapers are a solution to it (which is debatable and was debated extensively during the ending controversy in 2012 and 2013): How does the destroy option solve the problem for which the starchild created the Reapers by its own logic? It does not, in its own words: "But the probability of singularity occurring again in the future is certain."

 

This is what I referred to earlier, when I wrote "The destruction option is, from the point of view of the spacechild, i.e. by its own reasoning, an unwarranted extended suicide that will ultimately and inevitably lead to the destruction of all organic life in the galaxy by synthetics. So why offer this at all?"

 

 

 

 If it was Harbinger saying those things, would you feel different?

Yes. I think the starchild as a new character is objectively bad (but many people have explained that already, see many reviews and criticism of the endings on youtube, in forums, blogs etc.). But besides that, subjectively in my first playthrough, when it said "This is the Citadel. Where I live." my first thought was "OMG, the first cycle that destroys the citadel, by accident, war, during a coup attempt or terrorism will solve the Reaper threat without even knowing about it". 

 

Having Harbinger doing the final exposition does also solve that problem, among many others,. 

 

In case you don't know: One of the first player mods was to cut out the starchild entirely and cut from Anderson's death to the destroy ending directly. It is abrupt, but works. Since most of ME is told from Shepard's perspective, it is narratively coherent not to answer all the questions that the audience may have, like what the true goal of the reapers is or what the catalyst is or how the crucible works, if Shepard never gets a chance to find out. But I find that disappointing. Better than the starchild, true, but still.

[fraggle]

This is what I referred to earlier, when I wrote "The destruction option is, from the point of view of the spacechild, i.e. by its own reasoning, an unwarranted extended suicide that will ultimately and inevitably lead to the destruction of all organic life in the galaxy by synthetics. So why offer this at all?"

 

The Catalyst for some reason has to present this option. When Shepard asks why it would help him/her, it says the crucible changed it, created new possibilites, but it cannot act on it, Shepard needs to be the one to do it.

It's clear it doesn't want Destroy (even more so in Low EMS, where it is more hostile towards Shepard), but this option has to do with the Crucible's energy. At some point earlier in the game Hackett and/or Anderson and Shepard talk about how to find out to target only the Reapers with the Crucible's energy to destroy them. The Protheans also believed the Crucible could be used to both destroy or control the Reapers.

Something happened when the Crucible docked that forces the Catalyst to present these options, it seems.

[txgoldrush]

They're deconstructing it wrong then.  Catalyst is a DEM.  In every possible freaking way. 

Except that he is the antagonist of the entire series, the root of the problem, and is incapable of solving the problem himself.

[Tim van Beek]

The Catalyst for some reason has to present this option. When Shepard asks why it would help him/her, it says the crucible changed it, created new possibilites, but it cannot act on it, Shepard needs to be the one to do it.

It's clear it doesn't want Destroy (even more so in Low EMS, where it is more hostile towards Shepard), but this option has to do with the Crucible's energy. At some point earlier in the game Hackett and/or Anderson and Shepard talk about how to find out to target only the Reapers with the Crucible's energy to destroy them. The Protheans also believed the Crucible could be used to both destroy or control the Reapers.

Something happened when the Crucible docked that forces the Catalyst to present these options, it seems.

Right, so to be more precise/complete I should say that the catalyst would never offer this option on its own, but has to be forced to do so. And it is, by its own words, without explaining how this happend - by a device that was designed without any knowledge about the very existence of the catalyst or any insight into its nature. Still does not score on my convice-o-meter 

 

As many others have said before: In a fantasy sci-fi universe, writers can bend their own rules to some extend. The audience will tolerate that, if the story is good enough. But not to an extend unseen before (and completely unexplained) to achieve the solution to the central conflict within the final minutes: It's more or less that mix of factors that blows it. 

 

Example: Most players (including me) did not complain that Shepard was able to take down both a hades cannon and a Reaper in the final mission with what seems to be pretty mundane and widely available weapons. People have come up with many other examples that fly below the radar of an enchanted audience 

[fraggle]

Right, so to be more precise/complete I should say that the catalyst would never offer this option on its own, but has to be forced to do so. And it is, by its own words, without explaining how this happend - by a device that was designed without any knowledge about the very existence of the catalyst or any insight into its nature. Still does not score on my convice-o-meter 

 

The audience will tolerate that, if the story is good enough. But not to an extend unseen before (and completely unexplained) to achieve the solution to the central conflict within the final minutes: It's more or less that mix of factors that blows it.

 

The concept/plans/info for the Crucible has been there who knows how long. I would just assume that some cycles actually did find out/gather information on the Catalyst. Even the Protheans knew about the Catalyst.

 

The implementation of the Crucible and finding a solution was a topic much earlier in the game, plus talk about how it could be used against the Reapers, how it would target only them. And the search for the Catalyst was also indicated quite early.

[Tim van Beek]

 

 

The concept/plans/info for the Crucible has been there who knows how long. I would just assume that some cycles actually did find out/gather information on the Catalyst.

Okay, in order to make this work one would have to assume that no understanding of this is needed to construct the crucible, as humanity learns about it rather late (see below). And also, that earlier cycles learned quite a lot about the crucible without being able to act on this information.

 

 

Even the Protheans knew about the Catalyst.

But only that it is the citadel, not that it is an AI. Well, at least the VI encountered on Thessia does not, but maybe others did.

 

 

The implementation of the Crucible and finding a solution was a topic much earlier in the game, plus talk about how it could be used against the Reapers, how it would target only them

Sure, but that's also not part of the problem with the ending. I'm okay with the crucible part, even if it is just a big plot device. 

 

 

And the search for the Catalyst was also indicated quite early.

Memory fails me, I think the first time the catalyst is mentioned is by the VI on Thessia, right? And that it is the citadel is revealed on the Cerberus base. That' also not the core of the problem for me, although I wonder why the Reapers did not secure the citadel earlier if it is such a central component for them, namely home of their, ugh, master or hive mind or what I am supposed to call it.

 

But you're right: My point about the catalyst being affected by the crucible is not the strongest one, I can see now how one could make it work. The exposition in the game is still rather sloppy for my taste:

 

The major problem is that ME3 tries to fit this twist (beginning with "the crucible is an AI" and everything it says after that) into a couple of lines of dialog at the very end for the very purpose to construct an end. I can see that you for example would be able to add to the story to turn it into a logical build-up of the finale 

 

P.S.: So the crucible is forced to wait for Shepard to act, but in the refusal ending it seems all it needs is seeing Shepard walk away. Seems to be a contradiction to me, but since the refusal ending was added later, after a lot of feedback by fans, I'm willing to let that slide 

[fraggle]

Okay, in order to make this work one would have to assume that no understanding of this is needed to construct the crucible, as humanity learns about it rather late (see below). And also, that earlier cycles learned quite a lot about the crucible without being able to act on this information.

 

Well basically we don't need to know what the Crucible exactly is, it's a desperate attempt to win the war, that was said pretty early too. And Hackett throws in at some point that some of their, I believe it was engineers think the Crucible's energy can be used for their purposes of dealing with the Reapers, but I don't remember the exact wording.

I imagine it as something like that: At some point a civilization learned about the Reapers earlier than they could strike (maybe due to warnings left behind by former civilizations), and they begin to research how they could fight the Reapers. I guess we could speculate that at some point any of the older civilizations just knew/found out that the Citadel had to be the Catalyst, seeing how it perfectly fit when it docked there. And so the plans were left behind for future cycles to discover. The thing about civilizations never being able to finish the Crucible in time could be tied to the Reapers usually striking at the heart of their civilization, the Citadel. From what we know about the Prothean cycle, the war lasted a long time, yet still they couldn't finish, thanks to indoctrinated agents from within. I guess indoctrination might be a big factor in other cycles, too.

 

But only that it is the citadel, not that it is an AI. Well, at least the VI encountered on Thessia does not, but maybe others did.

Sure, but that's also not part of the problem with the ending. I'm okay with the crucible part, even if it is just a big plot device.

 

So your problem is more or less only the AI? That it was not foreshadowed enough? I mean, yeah, Thessia was pretty late, but I think the VI talks about a master of the Reapers, that was the first clue that there is something else behind the Reapers.

 

Memory fails me, I think the first time the catalyst is mentioned is by the VI on Thessia, right? And that it is the citadel is revealed on the Cerberus base. That' also not the core of the problem for me, although I wonder why the Reapers did not secure the citadel earlier if it is such a central component for them, namely home of their, ugh, master or hive mind or what I am supposed to call it.

 

Ok, I had forgotten HOW early it was, but I checked some videos and it's already after Mars Archives, where Liara presents the Crucible plans to the Council. She says that the Protheans were missing a component, "something only referred to as the Catalyst".

 

But you're right: My point about the catalyst being affected by the crucible is not the strongest one, I can see now how one could make it work. The exposition in the game is still rather sloppy for my taste:

 

The major problem is that ME3 tries to fit this twist (beginning with "the crucible is an AI" and everything it says after that) into a couple of lines of dialog at the very end for the very purpose to construct an end. I can see that you for example would be able to add to the story to turn it into a logical build-up of the finale 

 

Maybe I'm alone here, but I never saw it as a twist. Shepard and Co. pretty much never knew enough about the Reapers, it was always mysterious and cryptic whenever they talked to one. It would be the same if you didn't know enough about one topic, and in the end you would find out more. Doesn't mean it's a twist. You just have access to information late.

And I think it makes sense. The Catalyst needs to hide, stay a secret, it cannot reveal itself. If it would, maybe the Citadel races would've learned much earlier about Reapers and the citadel basically being a trap. Then their element of surprise would be gone.

Plus, the ending is made in a way to give people something to speculate about, and I think there's only two options. Either you like something like that or you don't (I'm sure there are people that are indifferent about that as well, but you know what I mean ).

 

P.S.: So the crucible is forced to wait for Shepard to act, but in the refusal ending it seems all it needs is seeing Shepard walk away. Seems to be a contradiction to me, but since the refusal ending was added later, after a lot of feedback by fans, I'm willing to let that slide 

 

That seems indeed odd. I don't know if there's a way to tie everything together to make sense completely, but I don't fret about Refuse. For the reasons you said, that it was only added as for the fans. I might investigate this ending a bit more though

[Rhaenyss]

When you mentioned Thessia & Prothean/Reaper lore in game, it just occurred to me that I've played Leviathan DLC pretty early in game, so the "faulty logic AI" thing didn't throw me by surprise. Maybe that's also one reason that I've accepted it easily? I guess Leviathan DLC came out later after the release of the game, so it wasn't the same for people that played ME3 right after release.

[prosthetic soul]

Except that he is the antagonist of the entire series, the root of the problem, and is incapable of solving the problem himself.

Yes, but he isn't revealed to be until the last 10 minutes of the ENTIRE TRILOGY.  As for the last part, that could be argued both ways. 

 

He's called the Catalyst.  He's the CATALYST to Shepard's change.  Without the CATALYST's direct intervention, Shepard wouldn't have been able to make one of the four choices.  Let's take a look at another DEM in a popular film: The Matrix Revolutions.   Was he not an DEM?  Of course he was.   Would you argue that he wasn't a DEM simply because he didn't directly fight Agent Smith in that last battle?  No.  But it allowed Neo to fight Agent Smith while still connected to the source, which then let Neo defeat him.

[angol fear]

Chronoid you have to define what is a deus ex machina. I am pretty sure we will learn a lot !

[Tim van Beek]

 

 

Well basically we don't need to know what the Crucible exactly is...

Agreeing with everything you say in that paragraph.

 

 

So your problem is more or less only the AI? That it was not foreshadowed enough?

Sorry for being imprecise. There are a lot of aspects about the ending that I think are very problematic, some of which I mentioned here, lots of which I did not bring up because the OP didn't. For example the question of why Shepard has to die the way he/she does, e.g. in the control ending, which is currently discussed (again and again...one might say  ) in the "The stupidest reason to hate the ending." thread. 

 

I was referring to the question of "why does the catalyst allow the control ending?" which I think can be explained as you did (with some stretches, as mentioned in previous posts, but that's okay). 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm alone here, but I never saw it as a twist. Shepard and Co. pretty much never knew enough about the Reapers, it was always mysterious and cryptic whenever they talked to one...

It does not seem to contradict the information available before, but that is not a point of criticism (AFAIK). 

 

 

Plus, the ending is made in a way to give people something to speculate about, and I think there's only two options. Either you like something like that or you don't...

Hey, glad to see that somebody liked it 

 

I think that a "lack of closure" actually has been brought up as a point of criticism, but on this I agree with you that this is rather subjective. Do we need to see Tali in her house on Rannoch, with the stone Shepard gave her in a display cabinet? It would have been a better slide than her (or another Quarian) simply standing around, but, well...

 

I also agree that a "lack of exposition" is not a valid criticism for an ending that is coherent, quoting myself: "Since most of ME is told from Shepard's perspective, it is narratively coherent not to answer all the questions that the audience may have, like what the true goal of the reapers is or what the catalyst is or how the crucible works, if Shepard never gets a chance to find out."

 

My problem is that the ending does try to give an exposition that results in a factor of 20 to 50 more open questions than it tried to answer. There are several ways to cope with that as a player:

 

1. Ignore everything the catalyst says as a lie and choose the destroy ending (or install a mod that does that for you, automatically).
2. Accept lots and lots of new open questions thrown at you right at the ending, because it's all a big mystery anyway (the biggest being: how can blue aliens with squid hair be so attractive? I mean, really?  )
3. Make up answers on your own, lots of answers, with ingenuity. Maybe proves that you should try to write your own sci-fi novel? (That would seem to apply both to you and the OP  )
4. Complain. (That's me.).

Why? In short: If somebody (like an author) tells me they are going to buy sweets for me at the supermarket (do an exposition that answers some of the biggest questions of their plot), and then come back empty handed (or with green vegetables), I'm like "you did not have to promise that, you did not have to try it at all, but if you do and fail, I can point out that that's a failure, alright? By your own standards".

 

ME3's ending is unpopular. Being unpopular does not prove that an ending is badly written. In case of ME3, all the open questions/plot holes/inconsistencies/contrivances that have been brought up, they do. I don't think this is merely a matter of taste, but choosing how to cope with it certainly is, meaning that it doesn't have to trouble everyone playing the game, of course.

[prosthetic soul]

Chronoid you have to define what is a deus ex machina. I am pretty sure we will learn a lot !

Loaded question.  Not feeding your vanity.   Oh and how is that Ph.D going in Fairy Tales? 

[txgoldrush]

And deus ex machina isn't inherently bad. Only ignorant people think that.

This...as well.

 

See Earthbound.

[txgoldrush]

Yes, but he isn't revealed to be until the last 10 minutes of the ENTIRE TRILOGY.  As for the last part, that could be argued both ways. 

 

He's called the Catalyst.  He's the CATALYST to Shepard's change.  Without the CATALYST's direct intervention, Shepard wouldn't have been able to make one of the four choices.  Let's take a look at another DEM in a popular film: The Matrix Revolutions.   Was he not an DEM?  Of course he was.   Would you argue that he wasn't a DEM simply because he didn't directly fight Agent Smith in that last battle?  No.  But it allowed Neo to fight Agent Smith while still connected to the source, which then let Neo defeat him.

Wrong.

 

Matrix Revolutions did not have really have a deus ex machina. The reason why the machines helped Neo is Smith was a threat to BOTH of them.

 

And in Matrix revolutions, the head machine was NOT the main antagonist, Agent Smith was. In Mass effect 3, the head machine IS the main antagonist.

 

How can the main antagonist even be a deus ex machina? That is simply not a logical connection.

[fraggle]

Sorry for being imprecise. There are a lot of aspects about the ending that I think are very problematic, some of which I mentioned here, lots of which I did not bring up because the OP didn't. For example the question of why Shepard has to die the way he/she does, e.g. in the control ending, which is currently discussed (again and again...one might say  ) in the "The stupidest reason to hate the ending." thread. 

 

I was referring to the question of "why does the catalyst allow the control ending?" which I think can be explained as you did (with some stretches, as mentioned in previous posts, but that's okay).

 

As to the question why Shepard dies the way he/she does... because Bioware chose it

But seriously, I think these endings need to be looked at with a certain emphasis on transcendence. In both Control and Synthesis, Shepard becomes a whole different thing. There may not be any explainable, or even logical reason for why it happens the way it does, but the crucial points still stand: Shepard has to give up the physical form, in order to either become the new consciousness of the Reapers or to sacrifice his whole essence of who he/she is.

I'm not saying I like these two options btw, but these two happen on a "higher" level than Destroy imo and need to be taken in that way I think. Maybe this could also be why it feels so out of place for many, I don't know. A lot of the ending just has to do with this whole "Energy" thing. The Crucible is able to deploy a huge amount of energy, Shepard's energy is what's needed for Synthesis. It's not really something you can grasp, if you know what I mean.

 

Why it allows Control, yes, same as with Destroy I guess. Something prevents it from acting against the Crucible, it keeps saying that Shepard (or all organics) has altered the variables, that the Crucible changed it and made new possibilities available. It says "It is now in your power to control us" (Low EMS).

I think it's funny because when you preserved the Collector Base in ME2 Control makes so much sense imo. You'll get the Human Reaper mind from Cronos when you preserved the base, and this is what makes Control actually possible in Low EMS.

For High EMS I'm just gonna assume that one of your assets was also capable of controlling Reapers. AFAIR the Protheans were convinced the Crucible could be used to both destroy and control the Reapers as well.

In conclusion, I think we might never know why exactly the Catalyst can't act on the Crucible changes, but it is what we got.

(Btw I just remembered, there's also a really interesting thread with theories about exactly those things, the Catalyst, the Crucible and the Citadel, and how they work together, it's here.)

 

I think that a "lack of closure" actually has been brought up as a point of criticism, but on this I agree with you that this is rather subjective. Do we need to see Tali in her house on Rannoch, with the stone Shepard gave her in a display cabinet? It would have been a better slide than her (or another Quarian) simply standing around, but, well...

 

I also agree that a "lack of exposition" is not a valid criticism for an ending that is coherent, quoting myself: "Since most of ME is told from Shepard's perspective, it is narratively coherent not to answer all the questions that the audience may have, like what the true goal of the reapers is or what the catalyst is or how the crucible works, if Shepard never gets a chance to find out."

 

I've seen the "lack of closure" comment many times. I do get that people want to see their favourite characters once more, all together, united with Shepard etc etc, but they have to see that Bioware specifically chose to NOT spell out the outcome. That's why many times they sound just butthurt because THEY didn't get what they wanted. Reality is, not everyone can be pleased. Bioware does a lot to please fans and listens to a lot of feedback, but in the end there's always too many opinions on what should've or what shouldn't have been in a game. What's important is that they stick to their own vision.

Anyway, I completely agree with your second point. I really liked that I truly became Shepard in the end, there was no time to ask the Catalyst a million questions, it was only time to act and end the war!

 

My problem is that the ending does try to give an exposition that results in a factor of 20 to 50 more open questions than it tried to answer. There are several ways to cope with that as a player:

 

1. Ignore everything the catalyst says as a lie and choose the destroy ending (or install a mod that does that for you, automatically).
2. Accept lots and lots of new open questions thrown at you right at the ending, because it's all a big mystery anyway (the biggest being: how can blue aliens with squid hair be so attractive? I mean, really?  )
3. Make up answers on your own, lots of answers, with ingenuity. Maybe proves that you should try to write your own sci-fi novel? (That would seem to apply both to you and the OP  )
4. Complain. (That's me.).

Why? In short: If somebody (like an author) tells me they are going to buy sweets for me at the supermarket (do an exposition that answers some of the biggest questions of their plot), and then come back empty handed (or with green vegetables), I'm like "you did not have to promise that, you did not have to try it at all, but if you do and fail, I can point out that that's a failure, alright? By your own standards".

 

ME3's ending is unpopular. Being unpopular does not prove that an ending is badly written. In case of ME3, all the open questions/plot holes/inconsistencies/contrivances that have been brought up, they do. I don't think this is merely a matter of taste, but choosing how to cope with it certainly is, meaning that it doesn't have to trouble everyone playing the game, of course.

 

1. Well I choose Destroy anyway, any day. But I do believe the Catalyst is answering to its best knowledge when presenting the choices.

2. Hahaha, I don't really have that problem with the blue babes

3. Oh no no, I could never write something like that, but I do enjoy thinking about answers, and speculate with others

4. Believe me, I also complain, everyone complains, it's natural. Maybe not so much about ME (it's still only a game, hehe), but other things.

 

I guess we can agree on everything else you said here, I'm just thinking that maybe with trying to answer more of the questions that rise up, maybe some of them can be answered in a satisfying way and that it makes sense.

[prosthetic soul]

Wrong.

 

Matrix Revolutions did not have really have a deus ex machina. The reason why the machines helped Neo is Smith was a threat to BOTH of them.

 

And in Matrix revolutions, the head machine was NOT the main antagonist, Agent Smith was. In Mass effect 3, the head machine IS the main antagonist.

 

How can the main antagonist even be a deus ex machina? That is simply not a logical connection.

Someone didn't watch the credits! 

 

http://www.imdb.com/...53/fullcredits/

 

Scroll down a bit in the link and you'll see what I'm talking about.  The antagonist may be the Catalyst but for 98% of the trilogy, we thought the REAPERS were the antagonists.  Not some holographic starbrat. Then, all of a sudden, the starbrat appears out of NOWHERE and inserts itself into the story as the true antagonist.   And you still think that isn't DEM in action?  Really? 

[Vazgen]

Deus Ex Machina

 

The content of this page was created by users. It has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff.