33 réponses à ce sujet

[corkyspetals]

I have to say that I have read the expression Deus Ex Machina more in the last six months (when I first played ME1) than in the last 10 years.  I'm not sure that DEM really applies in this situation.  Up until now I've only seen it used to describe a solution that the characters don't expect and aren't looking for.  Considering that Shepard, Liara, Hackett and the entire fleet talk about the Catalyst for all of ME3, the Catalyst isn't a surprise.  Yes, the Star Kid isn't what people expect (like a big red button that says End the War).  But the characters  are seeking this solution all through the game, they just don't know what form it will take.

 

Add to that all the AIs in the game (Vigil, Vendetta, Avina etc.), some sort of VI isn't a surprise.  And the Vancouver kid was in the beginning of the game and Shep has been dreaming about him the whole game. 

 

Just because you and I didn't expect the Star Kid at the end, it doesn't mean that the story wasn't dropping hints along the way.  All of ME3 has the characters working on the Catalyst and Crucible.  They are working on the solution.  And the solution is the Catalyst.  A surprise turn of events a isn't deus ex machina.  If a large pink glowing penguin suddenly appeared floating above London (or Armando-Owen Bailey's long lost identical twin)  and said "I am a multi-dimentional traveler who is curious about you and your galaxy.  I created this conflict to see how you would react.  I'm done now, conflict resolved.  Bye."  THAT would be a deus ex machina.

[NeroonWilliams]

Deus ex machina isn't necessarily something that is unexpected.  The term literally means "god out of the machine" and stems back to Greek drama where the plot got so messed up, that the only way to correct things was to have one of the gods (who were portrayed above the stage) to come down, out of their perches and set things right.  A deus ex machina is basically a plot device that suspends (or transcends) the normal rules in order to make the impossible possible.

 

BTW, the way that the Reapers were introduced all the way back in ME1 predicated the use of a deus ex machina in order to defeat them in the end.

[corkyspetals]

And when the DEM was used, a god would show up suddenly, would fix the conflict, and would leave.  The god wouldn't have been a character in the story, but would have suddenly appeared just in time to create the solution of a hopeless situation.  The characters in the play wouldn't have been constantly appealing to the god, asking for help or hoping that god would show up.   In other words, unexpected.  They are always a surprise.

[corkyspetals]

 

 

BTW, the way that the Reapers were introduced all the way back in ME1 predicated the use of a deus ex machina in order to defeat them in the end.

 

 

Why?

[angol fear]

Yes, actually the Deus Ex machina is an external intervention. In the Antiquity, it was a god who resolved the problem. Then it became just a character, or an event that solve a problem that couldn't be solved. The Deus ex machina was criticized because it breaks the internal logic of the writing (a tragedy written like a tragedy can't have a happy ending). 

So you're right about the fact that the ending isn't a deus ex machina, because the character isn't external to the situation (the A.I. is the one who created that solution, he is at the basis of the whole story because he is the origin), because this character doesn't solve the problem (the crucible changes him so he has new possibilities but it's Shepard who has to decide) and because it doesn't break with the internal logic (but that one is longer to explain because it's the writing of the whole trilogy that explains the writing of the ending).

 

Why do NeroonWilliams think that the reapers in Mass effect 1 predicated the use of a deus ex machina, it's because they are too strong. And if we take a look at the entire trilogy, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not real victories : Shepard failed to stop the reapers, he only delayed them. So the writing of the trilogy was done to lead to a Mass Effect 3 where the galaxy was not prepared for the reapers coming. An unprepared galaxy facing an unstoppable force, that's the story of Mass Effect trilogy. So there is no solution except a deus ex machina or to find another solution ( which isn't conventionnal victory because that's is impossible : that's totally incoherent!). The writing of the ending is about that another solution but with the feeling (for those who don't analyze things) of a deus ex machina (they also created an impression of god with the catalyst, they deliberatly wanted it.).

[KrrKs]

So you're right about the fact that the ending isn't a deus ex machina, because the character isn't external to the situation, because this character doesn't solve the problem and because it doesn't break with the internal logic.

I have to disagree with that.

 

Imo, that the Catalyst, expected the whole game over to be some sort of device becomes a character in the end qualifies as unexpected.

The jump from it being a 'device', to it being 'the citadel' is rather small, while the one resulting in it being the 'intelligence' is not and completely changes the narrative.

And while it is not completely external to the 'situation' (at least with Leviathan), the fact that it only appears in the very last minutes makes it external enough to the story in my book.

 

It is true that the Intelligence does not directly 'solve' the problem. But (in a game claiming to be about 'choice')  the difference between something directly solving the problem or it presenting the (only) means to do so is rather marginal.

(At least that's my pov --> Yes, I'm telling you the Weaponslocker is great at dispatching enemies... )

 

About the Intelligence not breaking the internal logic (disregarding the end choices themselves); at least it does not break ME3s internal logic.

(ME3 and internal logic: Did I really just write that?!?! )

If you take ME1 into account and the reason for Sovereign waiting, I'd say it does break the logic.

Vazgen came up with a possible explanation, but even with extensive headcanon it's still rather sketchy, imo.

 

Fun fact:

Athene in the 'Oresteia' is also considered a DEM, while being logically about as close to that story as the Intelligence is to ME, maybe even closer.

AFAIK she also does not break the internal logic of that tragedy and can hardly be called unexpected, as several (demi) gods appear before that.

 

TL;DR: I still consider the intelligence to be a DEM.

[fraggle]

Imo, that the Catalyst, expected the whole game over to be some sort of device becomes a character in the end qualifies as unexpected.

The jump from it being a 'device', to it being 'the citadel' is rather small, while the one resulting in it being the 'intelligence' is not and completely changes the narrative.

And while it is not completely external to the 'situation' (at least with Leviathan), the fact that it only appears in the very last minutes makes it external enough to the story in my book.

 

Hm, we may argue that the real Catalyst is not the AI, but truly the Citadel, and here's why:

1. The Citadel is the last component for the Crucible, because it makes use of the Citadel as mass relay so the energy can be dispersed through it to the other relays (I hope it really does what I say here, but it seems to work with dark energy and using the mass relays to its advantages).

2. The AI cannot act. It might say it is the Catalyst, but then it is part of the Citadel... so technically yes, it is the Catalyst, but it does not function as the Catalyst used with the Crucible. The AI alone is not a concept/option in the Crucible's plans, but its physical part is.

3. The Protheans did consider the Citadel as the Catalyst and no organic race ever working on the Crucible knew about the AI, so how could it have been incorporated or acted as a catalyst?

[spockjedi]

The Catalyst is not a Deus ex Machina. It's actually the opposite: a Diabolus ex Machina.

Think about it: a Deus ex Machina device is a solution. The Catalyst's sudden appearance is not a solution to any problem, but rather a unexpected evil twist when the problem - the Reaper war - was apparently solved!

If the Catalyst was a solution to anything, how could MEHEM have completely scrapped it without creating more problems? The opposite happened: the ending became simpler and much more elegant.

[angol fear]

I have to disagree with that.

 

Imo, that the Catalyst, expected the whole game over to be some sort of device becomes a character in the end qualifies as unexpected.

The jump from it being a 'device', to it being 'the citadel' is rather small, while the one resulting in it being the 'intelligence' is not and completely changes the narrative.

And while it is not completely external to the 'situation' (at least with Leviathan), the fact that it only appears in the very last minutes makes it external enough to the story in my book.

 

It is true that the Intelligence does not directly 'solve' the problem. But (in a game claiming to be about 'choice')  the difference between something directly solving the problem or it presenting the (only) means to do so is rather marginal.

(At least that's my pov --> Yes, I'm telling you the Weaponslocker is great at dispatching enemies... )

 

About the Intelligence not breaking the internal logic (disregarding the end choices themselves); at least it does not break ME3s internal logic.

(ME3 and internal logic: Did I really just write that?!?! )

If you take ME1 into account and the reason for Sovereign waiting, I'd say it does break the logic.

Vazgen came up with a possible explanation, but even with extensive headcanon it's still rather sketchy, imo.

 

Fun fact:

Athene in the 'Oresteia' is also considered a DEM, while being logically about as close to that story as the Intelligence is to ME, maybe even closer.

AFAIK she also does not break the internal logic of that tragedy and can hardly be called unexpected, as several (demi) gods appear before that.

 

TL;DR: I still consider the intelligence to be a DEM.

 

Ok, you consider it to be a deus ex machina because you want it to be a deus ex machina.

If take ME1 into account the logic isn't broken. You really think that the team who worked on Mass Effcet 1 and who worked on Mass Effect 2 and 3 didn't understand their own logic of writing? You would say that a player knows better than the writer what they were doing?

Seriously, it's not the first time they have been creating a higher level based on paradox, but it's the first time it became the basis of the writing (if you have played jade empire written by Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters, you should have noticed that there is a part using high level concept and paradox to create that high level). Anyway a paradox doesn't break the logic, it gives that illusion!

 

You have to explain for your Oresteia example because I don't see how this is connected to what we are saying about the A.I. in the end of Mass Effect 3.

-Athena doesn't appear only in the end, while the A.I. does.

-Athena changed the rules and acted to defend Oreste, while the A.I. do nothing except saying what it's all about, and telling about the choices. Athena is active while the A.I. is passive.

- Oresteia has a happy ending thanks to Athena, while Mass Effect 3 has an ending which isn't happy or sad, it's both. At least we can all agree that Mass Effect 3 doesn't have a happy ending. Oreste's story is supposed to be tragic but it ends happily (everything is ok for Oreste and everyone else) while Mass Effect said to the player that Shepard would die (the dreams made it explicit!), and he died. The original ending insisted on a devasted galaxy, no feeling of victory, just people who survived the harvest, I don't see how it can be a happy ending.

 

I don't understand your comparison.

 

Just like I already said, it give the impression of a deus ex machina, it was written to create that impression, but it is not.

[Fayfel]

In my experience those who invoke deus ex machina aren't always referring to the plot device itself, but rather the quality of the story telling. The thing is, DEM is very often associated with stories that fall apart in areas similar to how ME3 did. The overwhelming sentiment, which perhaps isn't clearly or specifically expressed, is that ME3 is contrived. If this is indeed the spirit of the argument, then whether or not ME3 employs DEM is irrelevant.

[angol fear]

In my experience those who invoke deus ex machina aren't always referring to the plot device itself, but rather the quality of the story telling. The thing is, DEM is very often associated with stories that fall apart in areas similar to how ME3 did. The overwhelming sentiment, which perhaps isn't clearly or specifically expressed, is that ME3 is contrived. If this is indeed the spirit of the argument, then whether or not ME3 employs DEM is irrelevant.

 

Ok but when a word is use, it has a meaning. And if it is a word used in literature, it has a specific meaning.

So if the post are just about "I feel it is a deus ex machina" (which actually should be "I feel it is like a deus ex machina) to say that "i didn't liked and felt it was contrived", why people are trying to use specific vocabulary? To sound more "objective"? To pretend that their feeling is objective?

 

So I agree with you : if it's the spirit of the argument, then whether or not ME3 employs deus ex machina is irrelevant. So here we will be only talking about feelings, sensations, etc... it's just about his reception.

But if we are talking about the writing, then the fact that it looks like ( it creates that impresssion) a deus ex machina, but it actually isn't a deus ex machina, it really important. I've already insisted on an important theme : representation. Mass Effect 's writing can't be understood if you don't get that. And the ending is all about that : the player reach the ending with his own representations of the reapers and the story. But the writing of the whole trilogy is like a trap. Actually the player is trapped by his own representations : he thinks that the reapers are evil ( and we can't see that a lot of people here can't admit that they are not evil, they don't want to change their mind, their representation of the story) etc... We have to leave our own representations  (reapers aren't evil, reapers are controlled, the catalyst isn't what we thought, the crucible isn't a superweapon etc...), we have to understand the details about the writing we didn't pay attention.

A twist is supposed to be surprising and to make the reader read again (a new reading oppsoed to the first reading). The whole trilogy is based on retroactive reading (Mass Effect imposed a new reading of Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3 imposed a new reading of ME1 and 2). The ending just works the same way the whole trilogy did.

Saying that it's a deus ex machina when it is not, it is just saying that you want to stay with your own representations ignoring the writing of the game (how it was written and why it was written this way).

[Reorte]

The original deus ex machine referred to a god that was never part of the story (although arguably is part of the setting), but these days is generally used to refer to anything that appears out of the blue just when it's needed. As far as the sudden appearance goes then the Catalyst fits; whether or not it's claimed to have always been there but unseen is, IMO, beside the point.

What stops it from being one is that it doesn't actually have anything directly to do with the resolution. Really all it does is appear, deliver a bit of exposition, then disappear. It has no direct influence (arguably even less so if EMS isn't high enough for Synthesis).

[KrrKs]

I had a response written up, but for some reason BSN is telling me that there is a not allowed image extension in the plain text....

 

Edit: Lol, it was the :usure smiley (second one) that caused the error message 

 

I reassembled this bit by bit, shifting the important part to the end:

 

>>Ok, you consider it to be a deus ex machina because you want it to be a deus ex machina.

1.: I don't want the Intelligence to be anything. 2.: What I want or not is basically irrelevant.

 

>>If take ME1 into account the logic isn't broken.

Says who? And more importantly: Why? Just look at Vazgen's thread again; at the extensive ME Lore knowledge and headcanon required to try to fix the created mess.

 

>>You really think that the team who worked on Mass Effcet 1 and who worked on Mass Effect 2 and 3 didn't understand their own logic of writing? You would say that a player knows better than the writer what they were doing?

Apart from being Irrelevant, I don't even know what this is supposed to mean? That the writers are in-fallible?

Just looking at the things that don't make sense -thread is enough to notice that they indeed don't always follow the logic of their writing. What makes things worse for ME3 is the rewrite that seems to have happened near the end of production cycle, leaving thinly covered traces like the Cerberus Coup.

 

>>Oresteia has a happy ending thanks to Athena, while Mass Effect 3 has an ending which isn't happy or sad, it's both. At least we can all agree that Mass Effect 3 doesn't have a happy ending. Oreste's story is supposed to be tragic but it ends happily (everything is ok for Oreste and everyone else) while Mass Effect said to the player that Shepard would die (the dreams made it explicit!), and he died. The original ending insisted on a devasted galaxy, no feeling of victory, just people who survived the harvest, I don't see how it can be a happy ending.
Now you lost me completely: What does a 'happy ending' (or not) have to do with the Catalyst/Intelligence being a DEM or not?

About the Oresteia's 'happy ending': While I don't know much about greek tragedies, I believe they don't necessarily have to end in a bad way as long as there is enough drama (for the lack of a better word) in the play.

>>Just like I already said, it give the impression of a deus ex machina, it was written to create that impression, but it is not.

Are you saying the Catalyst was intended in to look like a bad design choice stylistic device on purpose?

 

----------------------------------------------

Here are the more important bits:

 

>>Athena doesn't appear only in the end, while the A.I. does.

That was kindof my point: She is close to the story and the entire setting, but still considered a deus ex machina.

>>Athena changed the rules and acted to defend Oreste, while the A.I. do nothing except saying what it's all about, and telling about the choices. Athena is active while the A.I. is passive.

What stops it from being one is that it doesn't actually have anything directly to do with the resolution. Really all it does is appear, deliver a bit of exposition, then disappear. It has no direct influence (arguably even less so if EMS isn't high enough for Synthesis).

This is the what I see different:

 

Athena only came into action after she was implored to do so,

but it was the AI that initiated the transport of Shepard to the tower base. It acted in making them meet in the first place.

Presenting the End choices is also an action.

And as I already wrote, I find that the difference between presenting the only means to achieve something in a game and 'just achieving it' is rather negligible.

Without the AI, the game would literally end a sentence after "Nothing happens".*

(*Or require the crucible+citadel to work on their own, which they do not.)

 

About Athena being a game changer: Yes she is, but she acted within the cultural norms. The Catalyst is also a game changer of sorts, staying within the games (meta-)ruleset of allowing playerchoice.

[sortiv]

Before one digresses into all these semantics, we should consider the difference between primary and connotative meanings. 

 

The way that a majority of people use the term "deus ex machina" it means that something "came out of nowhere" or that they found it abrupt and sudden. In that respect, if someone calls the ME3 ending a DEM, it makes total sense and everyone would at least understand their meaning, even if they don't agree with the assertion. 

 

The literal, or primary, definition of DEM is being discussed at length here -- which is fun. I've been interested to read everyone's take on it. 

 

The real question is: if it's accurate to say ME3 ending is a DEM, in a general connotative sense, but it's not technically accurate to the literary meaning of the term, why does that ultimately matter to people's opinion? Those folks shouting "DEM! DEM!" -- while potentially wrong -- aren't going to like the ending anymore if you school them on the history of overused plot devices. For those who care about being technically accurate, there's this thread. =)

 

Nonetheless, interesting discussion. If I can add my two cents... controlling the Reapers or merging with their technology was mentioned several times throughout the trilogy, mainly by The Illusive Man, but typically painted as a negative option. I think the first time it was ever presented as a viable, positive solution, was by Starchild, which obviously rubbed people the wrong way, and felt so jarring, it leads to the DEM comparison. But when you consider Leviathan DLC, reference to the Citadel having functions no one understood (Keepers subplot), and certain Reaper dialogue ("Each of us a nation...") - it seems the ME3 ending was hinted at throughout the series, just haphazardly executed at the last minute. 

[Applepie_Svk]

I have to say that I have read the expression Deus Ex Machina more in the last six months (when I first played ME1) than in the last 10 years.  I'm not sure that DEM really applies in this situation.  Up until now I've only seen it used to describe a solution that the characters don't expect and aren't looking for.  Considering that Shepard, Liara, Hackett and the entire fleet talk about the Catalyst for all of ME3, the Catalyst isn't a surprise.  Yes, the Star Kid isn't what people expect (like a big red button that says End the War).  But the characters  are seeking this solution all through the game, they just don't know what form it will take.

 

Add to that all the AIs in the game (Vigil, Vendetta, Avina etc.), some sort of VI isn't a surprise.  And the Vancouver kid was in the beginning of the game and Shep has been dreaming about him the whole game. 

 

Just because you and I didn't expect the Star Kid at the end, it doesn't mean that the story wasn't dropping hints along the way.  All of ME3 has the characters working on the Catalyst and Crucible.  They are working on the solution.  And the solution is the Catalyst.  A surprise turn of events a isn't deus ex machina.  If a large pink glowing penguin suddenly appeared floating above London (or Armando-Owen Bailey's long lost identical twin)  and said "I am a multi-dimentional traveler who is curious about you and your galaxy.  I created this conflict to see how you would react.  I'm done now, conflict resolved.  Bye."  THAT would be a deus ex machina.

 

For all we know without metagame perspective, aswell the messed up ending, ending could be explained rather in far - far different paths. Problem of Crucible´s concept is, that is not enough explained with story. First thing that I thought about, is that how is possible that all those species before our cycle were somehow possible to build something which was supposed to work with some AI that noone had knowlendge about. 

 

The way I see it, plans for Crucible were set either way by Leviathans or some ancient species that found about Catalyst and evolved and expand enough to connect dots and create this Crucible plan.

 

But there is a chance that Crucible purpose was totally different, it may be that we were thinking was an end of trilogy was rather Sheppard´s near death or death experience, while Crucible was connected with Citadel and fired by Anderson or just by some automated system. I am somehow missing a point of creating something (Crucible) that is supposed to connect with Citadel and stop a Reapers, without knowing how that thing works, it´s just too big leap of faith. And to have those choices at the end, they were either built on Citadel by Catalyst or someone who was design it before us had some knowlendge to know what will be purpose of outcomes, yet it seems highly unlikely that all of three endings are methaporically altars of sacrifice, why not just simple button rather then death traps

[gothpunkboy89]

Sovereign some how overloads because Shepard killed the body he was controlling. Allowing the 5th fleet to destroy him

 

Shepard dies. Is dead for couple of years and yet is some how able to be brought back. Even though that goes against all established medical science in game. Which holds similar to real world medical science.

 

The Mars Archive happens to be the only Prothean Ruin that has the Crucible data on it. Despite it being one of the least studied. Time wise of all Prothean data sites. Including the one on Thessia which is odd because Protheans specifically manipulated the Asari for this cycle.

 

 

Mass Effect isn't the first game to pull stuff like this.

[AlanC9]

But there is a chance that Crucible purpose was totally different, it may be that we were thinking was an end of trilogy was rather Sheppard´s near death or death experience, while Crucible was connected with Citadel and fired by Anderson or just by some automated system. I am somehow missing a point of creating something (Crucible) that is supposed to connect with Citadel and stop a Reapers, without knowing how that thing works, it´s just too big leap of faith. And to have those choices at the end, they were either built on Citadel by Catalyst or someone who was design it before us had some knowlendge to know what will be purpose of outcomes, yet it seems highly unlikely that all of three endings are methaporically altars of sacrifice, why not just simple button rather then death traps

This sounds like a desperate attempt to deny the reality of the endings.

[Applepie_Svk]

This sounds like a desperate attempt to deny the reality of the endings.

 

I am not in denial, I just don´t get if the design behind endings was just of very poor choce ( literal art-fart style), or it was done on purpose. No matter the path, I just can´t grip myself from that whole elephant in a room, that is sitting there and spilling watter all over the table

 

My problem with that is, that even if they wanted to do it in ARTISTIC way, they still could involve a bit, small tiny bit of logic in story.

 

TL:DR - It seems that to make BioWare´s story works, you´ll need big chunk of drugs...

[Undead Han]

I agree that ME3 doesn't conclude with a Deus Ex Machina.

 

I think a lot of people just use it as shorthand for, "twist ending I didn't like," without really knowing what a DEM is. It is sort of how people commonly use Mary Sue to describe characters they don't like, even when those characters aren't literally Mary Sues. 

 

Even though they're wrong in describing why Mass Effect 3's ending is bad however, I'm in agreement with them on it being a bad ending.

[corkyspetals]

I understand that many people are dissatisfied with the ending (for many reasons).  If the Star Kid weren't part of it, would that make a difference?

 

If, instead of a VI that Shepard can talk to, the catalyst had only a big panel with three buttons on it labeled Destroy, Control, Synthesis, would that have fixed the ending?

 

Rather than argue about the original use of the term in greek plays, the modern use in which some random event or a new character resolves the problem,  what about this, is the Star Kid is the main complaint?

 

To me the Star Kid is just a voice to give some reaper background and to explain to Shepard (and us) that there will be no happy ending. The characters spend the whole game/series trying to do one thing only to find out that ***SURPRISE***  it won't work.  War is Hell.  Winning is complicated.  There could have been some endless discussion between Anderson and Shepard about what the choices really meant.  My headcanon is that the Catalyst read Shepard's mind and constructed the image of the Vancouver boy that Shep couldn't save and had nightmares about. It was the way the Catalyst was communicating to Shep (and us) on an emotional level while giving the player one last surprise.

 

Would no Star Kid have made the three color ending better?

[KaiserShep]

I don't think it really matters what the Star Kid is, because I know what it does: suck.  

[AlanC9]

If, instead of a VI that Shepard can talk to, the catalyst had only a big panel with three buttons on it labeled Destroy, Control, Synthesis, would that have fixed the ending?

It would have done some good for some of us, yes. One of the common complaints is feeling that we "don't really win," which is basically an emotional reaction to hearing about the options from the Reaper intelligence. Sure, this makes no rational sense -- the Catalyst didn't create the choices and can't control the choices-- but it's about feelings, not sense

[corkyspetals]

the Catalyst didn't create the choices and can't control the choices--

 

The writers created the choices. And they got emotional reactions.

[Esthlos]

If, instead of a VI that Shepard can talk to, the catalyst had only a big panel with three buttons on it labeled Destroy, Control, Synthesis, would that have fixed the ending?

Absolutely not.
The ending would still have been an awful and completely unnecessary asspull, for that 3 color choice with the bovine excrementary "explanation" is the core of the problem: even if it wasn't delivered by the Starbrat, it would still have been bad.

The ending is way better with MEHEM installed, and all it does is cut the last 10 minutes... just saying.

And what's even worse, when they tried to retroactively fix that asspull with a DLC to me it looked like they were mocking us.

[fraggle]

And what's even worse, when they tried to retroactively fix that asspull with a DLC to me it looked like they were mocking us.

 

Why? Because it is so hard to believe that something created this AI...?

Leviathan had answers for those who wanted them, for others that don't want them, it's still optional.