Not in my copy of the game. Seriously, there was no foreshadowing for the Star Child at all, maybe there was in the EC. Yes they said there was a catalyst mentioned but there was nothing about it being a magical godly being.
Joseph Harrison said:
Ooh, so many messages in my inbox I feel so popular.
Anyway to defend my points, I do agree that the Crucible is a Macguffin and it is poor writing but I'm still not convinced that the Crucible, or the Catalyst for that matter is a DEM. The way I see it The options that the Star-Child offer you aren't easy, in fact they are stupidly bad like one of the whole reasons there was an outcry was because of how dark people thought that the original ending was. Either you homogenize all of life, mind control an entire population or wipe them all out. Plus no matter what the Mass Relays are destroyed. It doesn't really fit in with the too easy thing. Plus DEM sucks because the characters aren't solving the problem some other wordly force is but Shepard and the crew make the Catalyst and Crucible possible and it is super difficult for them so no I still don't think that it is Deus Ex Machina.
Also for all you people who are calmly discussing this, thank you I was afraid I would have to put up my flame-shield.
PS: I know that my definition isn't the official one or anything its just the one my English teacher told me.
People weren't mad about how dark the ending was. I was a little but it was the nonsensical that pissed people off. Also Shepard didn't make the Catalyst, they built the Crucible but the Catalyst was built by whatever built the Reapers, however it was not revealed until the end and it had godlike powers so Deus Ex Machina(God from the Machine) is very, very fitting.
A deus ex machina is tool used by playwrights to summarise plots to the audience and make connections that they might not have seen, in short to 'cheat' a way out of a complex plot. Gandalf plays a deus ex machina when he comes back to Gimli, Aragorn and Legolas in The Two Towers and fills them in on just about everything.
An example of a deus ex machina in gaming? Uh, I can't think of one right now, it'd be someone who comes along and suddenly explains everything that is happening in one go. I suppose it might be possible in a game being told as a long flashback with narration from someone in the future, because that someone would be able to tell you what was going on, but I don't think anyone ever gives up everything and glues it all together...
I remember getting unreasonably rubbed the wrong way when someone declared that the end of the Incinerator bit in Toy Story 3 was deus ex machina. I thought it was plenty forshadowed- it just did a better job than most of making us forget the forshadowing while it was busy holding us spellbound in horror.
Besides the LGM's obsession with the almighty "claw" throughout the entire trilogy, almost as soon as the toys arrive at the junkyard they see the giant crane in the distance. The LGMs run for it and are taken by a garbage plow, but do not show up with the other toys when they are taken by a separate plow.
I don't think that's the definition. 1. it doesn't have to be at the end 2. it doesn't have to be "not foreshadowed". It is a sudden unexpeced solution, yes, but tell me, who the fuck expects a seemingly omnipotent being to show up and do actual fucking magic? It completely breaks the rules of...well, everything, to do things that are not supposed to be possible. OK, unless the EC fixed it, I see no way, in hell, aside from magic/deus ex machina to merge organics and synthetics. Across the whole universe. At once. Synthetics suddenly growing DNA. Yeah. Sudden - check, unexpected - fucking check.
While you're right about a DEM not having to be at the end of the story, they are generally found at the end of stories as it's just the worst possible place to have one. But, as for your second point, DEM have to have no foreshadowing at all to be a DEM. Basically a DEM has to be something that, at no point in the plot's progression was this 'solve everything' thing ever explained. hence the term God out of the Machine. At the end game point, when all seems lost a random for no explained reason what-so-ever thing comes out, saves the day and then leaves with it never being explained.
And as for the whole Synthesize ending and your perception that it makes no sense, it's a Sci-Fi fantasy, so far if you're willing to believe that a fake element called Element Zero can cause people to be telekenetic, massive machines have an ability to dominate and control minds of others with just a whim, AND you're willing to believe that future science that is never explained has basically ridden the human race of most sickness and extended our lifespan to 150 years, THEN WHY DOES THE SYNTHESIS ENDING NOT MAKE SENSE? I mean honestly, while it's not most likely plausible out of the three examples given, you still have to see that to accept that stuff to be ok in universe but the effects of the catalyst and the crucible are just too farfetched is kinda stupid. Hell, people seem to accept the Asari mind mold more than the Crucible, AND THAT MAKES NO SENSE OTHER THAN "Deal with it...they're blue magic space chicks".
Doom972 said:
You misunderstood, people refer to the Ghost Child, which is almost a literal god from the machine, not the crucible.
It's a new character that appears at the end of the story to bring resolution to the plot. Fits the definition of Deus Ex Machina perfectly.
The ghost child IS the catalyst, and while we didn't know about the catalyst until the Thessia mission (it may even b earlier I think) it is not a DEM. We know we need the Crucible AND the Catalyst to stop the Reapers, so while we did not expect the catalyst to be
Reaper grand mind controller I guess we could call it
we new about it's existence and what it could do long enough so as that it cannot be considered a DEM.
And the only ending that was unheard of until ME3 was synthesize. The first game it was shown that Reapers could be destroyed, second it was theorized that they could be controlled. But, with synthesize it wasn't entirely thrown in from the side with no warning, and here is what I mean by that:
The third game is about unifying the entire galaxy against a common threat...synthesize unifies both organics and synthetics. While it can seem like a sudden curve ball to the face, it was alluded to from the begining of the game through the stories heavy focus on unifying the galaxy.
People tend to use Latin and Greek words to make themselves sound smarter than they relly are, and this is nothing new. George Orwell mentioned this in his essay "Politics and the English Language," back in the 1940s. Deus Ex Machina just means: "The workings of God" or "An act of God." Though often you can just say that something is "contrived" or even "came out of nowhere" and actually have a clearer meaning to what you are saying.
It's pretty much like red herring, MacGuffin and Chekhov's gun. It's vague as is and maybe little pretentious but when used among people who know it's meaning, it's simpler than explaining what you're talking about. I don't think the fact that it happens to be a Latin phrase matters.
Of course, if Orwell could not stem the tide of English Language abuse, I doubt that I can either, but I'll give it a shot:
"Canon" cannot refer to fictional occurences. Please stop using it to make yourself sound like someone who cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality.
And as for the whole Synthesize ending and your perception that it makes no sense, it's a Sci-Fi fantasy, so far if you're willing to believe that a fake element called Element Zero can cause people to be telekenetic, massive machines have an ability to dominate and control minds of others with just a whim, AND you're willing to believe that future science that is never explained has basically ridden the human race of most sickness and extended our lifespan to 150 years, THEN WHY DOES THE SYNTHESIS ENDING NOT MAKE SENSE?
Because IT BREAKS THE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY! Duh. One break from reality does not justify all of them. Yes, Element Zero exists - it's well documented and the effects are explained. But there is absolutely nothing that can justify machines suddenly start being organic. Or let's get another example - take a classical fantasy setting, like D&D or Dragon Age. It has, like, elves, dwarves, magic, dragons and stuff, right? You're OK with that. What if, as you were going on your merry way, to kill goblins or something, completely out of nowhere, Robocop arrives and is like "Sup, guys" and that's it. The game doesn't feature any other robots or any space travel or anything. Would you argue that because there are dwarves, therefore Robocop's place is also there? Or let's take a cyberpunk setting, like Deus Ex (no, not Shadowrun) - and as you're playing, a dragon eats your face. Just because there are nanobots there can't be dragons, right? Or...wait how are the two related?
Many people's criticize Mass Effect 3 by saying that the Crucible is Deus Ex Machina when simply that isn't that case. The Crucible is foreshadowed in Lair of the Shadow Broker.
Then why didnt Vigil told us about it in ME1? "Hey listen up because there is no enough time in this cycle, we have this super weapon from previous cycles that the worked on and we prepared everything for you to finish it up before the Reapers come"
Why forget their best asset for war for future cycles? why wouldnt Vigil or ANY other beacon know about it.
I remember getting unreasonably rubbed the wrong way when someone declared that the end of the Incinerator bit in Toy Story 3 was deus ex machina. I thought it was plenty forshadowed- it just did a better job than most of making us forget the forshadowing while it was busy holding us spellbound in horror.
Those little Pizza Planet aliens have been obsessed with anything claw-like for a good three movies now, and when the gang gets to the tip they detach from the group and run off... in the direction of a giant claw... that looks just like the sort you'd use to pick up objects around the tip itself. The time between then and the part where they're all holding hands is plenty of time for the aliens to get to the claw... which is exactly where they said they were going... and take the opportunity to use the claw for the exact job it is designed for- which is just as well considering Woody and the others have ended up in the perfect spot for a claw of that type to be used.
Y'see? plenty forshadowed, with the details brilliantly downplayed while we're all worried about other things.
Yes, it's still a McGuffin. I wouldn't matter if the Crucible was a giant spaceship, or a planet, or a gun, or a ring. It's defined by it's story purpose, and nothing else, which makes it a mcguffin.
I always thought that for something to be a McGuffin, everybody needs to know about it from very near the start of the story, and everyone concerned needs to be actively seeking it, and have a good idea of either: where to look/what it's called/what it looks like/how to find it etc. McGuffins don't just appear at the end of stories. After all, something like, say, the bridge in LOTR where Gandalf fights the Balrog is absolutely crucial to the story too- nobody would have escaped the mine without it, yet the bridge itself is not a McGuffin.
As for the crucible, it's a mix between Maguffin and DEM. The way that it is revealed in the third game without any kind of foreshadowing, and is presented as the only thing that can stop the Reapers... that's Deus Ex Machina. The fact that the entire game is pretty much a series of fetch-quests to make this thing work which you have no idea about, or how it works... that's Maguffin. An item important to the plot simply because the plot says so. Devoid of any thematic or narrative value in and of itself. The Crucible is important only because the last game in the trilogy springs it on us that it's the only way to defeat the Reapers. How and why is left unexplained until the end. Which then ruined everything.
So yeah... maybe you should stop calling people out for using perfectly valid terms to describe the omnishambles that was Bioware's finale to the Mass Effect trilogy?
I think the crucible in itself makes perfect sense within the context of the plot of ME3. It's about the different races of the galaxy, setting aside their differences and working towards a common goal to end the annihilation of all intelligent life.
And, they do that by working on and defending a device that different races of the galaxy has worked on across an unknown amount of extinctions with a common goal to end the annihilation of all intelligent life.
It could have been implemented better, sure. But it goes along fine with the themes of the game.
if I'm reading your comment right, that actually doesn't make much sense. People can read all about something without paying much attention to the proper pronunciation of it and still be fairly well versed on it. I realize you were trying to be funny, btw. I'm just responding to that general thought process.
Not in my copy of the game. Seriously, there was no foreshadowing for the Star Child at all, maybe there was in the EC. Yes they said there was a catalyst mentioned but there was nothing about it being a magical godly being.
Joseph Harrison said:
Ooh, so many messages in my inbox I feel so popular.
Anyway to defend my points, I do agree that the Crucible is a Macguffin and it is poor writing but I'm still not convinced that the Crucible, or the Catalyst for that matter is a DEM. The way I see it The options that the Star-Child offer you aren't easy, in fact they are stupidly bad like one of the whole reasons there was an outcry was because of how dark people thought that the original ending was. Either you homogenize all of life, mind control an entire population or wipe them all out. Plus no matter what the Mass Relays are destroyed. It doesn't really fit in with the too easy thing. Plus DEM sucks because the characters aren't solving the problem some other wordly force is but Shepard and the crew make the Catalyst and Crucible possible and it is super difficult for them so no I still don't think that it is Deus Ex Machina.
Also for all you people who are calmly discussing this, thank you I was afraid I would have to put up my flame-shield.
PS: I know that my definition isn't the official one or anything its just the one my English teacher told me.
People weren't mad about how dark the ending was. I was a little but it was the nonsensical that pissed people off. Also Shepard didn't make the Catalyst, they built the Crucible but the Catalyst was built by whatever built the Reapers, however it was not revealed until the end and it had godlike powers so Deus Ex Machina(God from the Machine) is very, very fitting.
it's kind of subtle, but they mention a few times that there seems to be something greater going on behind the reapers. It's been a while since I've played it, so I can't remember the exact words used, but it is foreshadowed
Because IT BREAKS THE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY! Duh. One break from reality does not justify all of them. Yes, Element Zero exists - it's well documented and the effects are explained. But there is absolutely nothing that can justify machines suddenly start being organic. Or let's get another example - take a classical fantasy setting, like D&D or Dragon Age. It has, like, elves, dwarves, magic, dragons and stuff, right? You're OK with that. What if, as you were going on your merry way, to kill goblins or something, completely out of nowhere, Robocop arrives and is like "Sup, guys" and that's it. The game doesn't feature any other robots or any space travel or anything. Would you argue that because there are dwarves, therefore Robocop's place is also there? Or let's take a cyberpunk setting, like Deus Ex (no, not Shadowrun) - and as you're playing, a dragon eats your face. Just because there are nanobots there can't be dragons, right? Or...wait how are the two related?
How does it break the internal consistency? In ME2 we find out that Reapers are both organic and synthetic creatures, and we have already accepted things such as the Asari mind meld creating new life without the need of a second party's genetic material. In other words, we have accepted that the Asari are able to magically create a map of other creatures DNA and then, without ANY genetic material from the opposite party, they are able to begin a gestational process which gives birth to an Asari child that's DNA has been randomized because of the magical DNA map created when the Asari mind molded with the other creatures mind. THIS is impossible and makes no sense in reality because you can't create new genetic traits from a completely different species using your own genome, however we can suspend our disbelief due to Mass Effect being a Sci Fi/Fantasy video game set in space. So let us re-cap.
From game 2 it is shown that Reapers are both organic and synthetic lifeforms, and from game one we understand that a species in the game is able to pro create without the need of a partners genetic material and do so by magically melding minds and creating anon tangiable DNA map of the other species to help randomise genes that ARE NOT BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. So tell me, how is it that the synthesis ray is a jarring and unconnected theme towards the Mass Effect series when we have examples of synthetic/organic life forms AND creatures that can magically randomise the DNA of their offspring with help from a participant. Because the way I saw it, the synthesis ray took Shepard's organic/synthetic structure and used that as the basis to change everything else. It sounds silly, but so does most things in Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres, it's all about suspension of disbelief.
And as for your Robocop in Dragon Age scenario, yeah that would be f'd up, but to say that synthesis is on par with that is ludicrous. If they brought in a literal god and began talking about souls and where we go afterwards THAT would be jarring and stupid.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
