Stop calling it Deus Ex Machina

[Joseph Harrison]

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.

 

[Eddie the head]

PS: I know that my definition isn't the official one or anything its just the one my English teacher told me.

So an appeal to a false authority? That's a grate argument.

 

[Kilo24]

I can't really agree with the Star Child quite being a Deus Ex Machina. The Crucible was pretty much the whole focus of the third game, and - while it was never explained in any way how it worked beyond it being Reaper-B-Gone - the Star Child did waggle his fingers and get rid of the reapers as its primary effect. It's still really crappy writing, but it's a case of the writers saying "It's magic! That needs a Star Child!" when asked how the Crucible works. It's neither a Prothean supercruiser of mass destruction time-traveling in to kill all the Reapers in the 11th hour, nor is it all the Reapers suddenly shutting down to a bug in their networking code - I'd consider those a Deus Ex Machina.

In other words, even though humanity and everyone else in the universe have no idea how the Crucible works, they do assume that it will eliminate the threat of the Reapers. And it did, with ample foreshadowing. The way in which it did made absolutely no sense: summoning a Star Child with 3 magic buttons that solved everything. But it wasn't a genie dropping in out of nowhere to grant a wish, it was everybody working together on a wish-making machine that worked by summoning a genie.

I'm probably splitting hairs here in the terminology. It's still terrible writing by any measure for many of the same reasons that Deus Ex Machina suck. I'd have personally been happier to have the Crucible end up not working at all once finished; as bad a writing move as that is, it can be used to pose an interesting statement about desperate last-resort plans being desperate and last resort for a reason. It'd be better than ending an unbeatable threat with a magic wand of unbeatable-threat-ending in true poorly written heroic fantasy style; it's a rather ignoble end for the threat so carefully built up in the first game and maintained in the second.

On a side note, if the third game wasn't mostly throwing resources and time at the Crucible until the writers decided it was finished, I'd consider the Crucible to be a Deus Ex Machina.

EDIT:

but back on topic, let's just go ahead and call it by it's proper name.

"A SHIT ENDING".

I thought it was a great ending, if you look at it from the Indoctrination Theory (I will consider that canon even if the developers won't!)

No. No, it wouldn't.

It would need a hell of a lot more foreshadowing, subtlety, and details about indoctrination before it'd be anything more than "It was just a (sci-fi) dream." The first game had enough of a basis to have indoctrination be a major story element, but the later games needed to expand more on it (especially 3.)

 

[Treblaine]

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 still useful because even saying "contrived" isn't enough as most stories by their vary nature are contrived, Deus Ex Machina is an exceptional level of contrivance at a critical point.

Most languages - English no less - are influenced significantly by other languages. And Latin was the language of the catholic church for

Greeks were studied as they were the seat of democracy which was the major political force in England and later Britain after the English Civil War. And it's eminently suitable to use a Greek term to describe what was most noted as happening in Greek plays.

It's like Coup D'Etat, that is just the term that is used in english, even if it does come from French.

 

[Joseph Harrison]

PS: I know that my definition isn't the official one or anything its just the one my English teacher told me.

So an appeal to a false authority? That's a grate argument.

So, ad hominem? That's a great argument

Since when was an English teacher with you know a degree in English a "false" authority?
And here I was, so glad at how polite people were being.

 

[direkiller]

PS: I know that my definition isn't the official one or anything its just the one my English teacher told me.

So an appeal to a false authority? That's a grate argument.

So, ad hominem? That's a great argument

Since when was an English teacher with you know a degree in English a "false" authority?
And here I was, so glad at how polite people were being.

it's not an ad homnem
he did not make a personal attack instead of an augment
He make an attack as part of the augment

Your English teacher is not right just because they are a teacher (his argument)
and he is saying they are a bad authority figure because they are wrong(the attack)

so yes he insulted your teacher but it's still an argument(ergo no ad hominem)

 

[Sutter Cane]

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...

Weird.

That's certainly not what a deus ex machina is. Gandalf returning from the dead may be, but I don't actually think it is. Deus ex machina has nothing to do with exposition.

An example from gaming is the last 5 min of Mass Effect 3. Bioware wrote themselves into a corner and could not resolve the plot. Thus they pull the star kid out from absolutely nowhere, he has no connection to the rest of the plot and he hand waves it all away with magic. It's one of the most literal uses of deus ex machina (it's an actual god from the machine) and a very clumsy one to boot.

Euripides was very fond of using this technique and was even poked fun of by Aristophanes for doing so in a great number of his plays. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing it, but you have to be a good playwright to do it.

You do realize that the star child was foreshadowed several times throughout the game right?

 

[Ryan Hughes]

It's still useful because even saying "contrived" isn't enough as most stories by their vary nature are contrived, Deus Ex Machina is an exceptional level of contrivance at a critical point.

Most languages - English no less - are influenced significantly by other languages. And Latin was the language of the catholic church for

Greeks were studied as they were the seat of democracy which was the major political force in England and later Britain after the English Civil War. And it's eminently suitable to use a Greek term to describe what was most noted as happening in Greek plays.

It's like Coup D'Etat, that is just the term that is used in english, even if it does come from French.

It is a matter of preference to be sure, but there is a reason that we do not use the Gaelic or Norse terms for many things, languages that have had as much influence on english as Greek and Latin. Or, for that matter, English terms. The reality is that Greece and Rome were seen as the seat of learning for so long by the British, that they adadpted terms from the language arbitrarity. The point that Orwell makes is that this has had residual influence on the culture, causing it to value Latin and Greek terms more highly, and that this is often used as camouflage (a French word, I know) to cover over flaws in reasoning and argument.

It is true that most of the lingo conscerning writing and poetry is greek: deus ex machina, in medias res, even words like Iam and Dipthong. Similarly, most of the lingo conscerning music is German or French, but there is really no reason I see to use most of these terms outside of an acedemic discussion. And I think you will agree that the vast majority of the uses of the phrase are far from acedemic.

 

[Doom972]

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.

Agreed.

Also, while the Crucible is not deus ex machina, it is a McGuffin - a magical device that, while never explaining how it works or why its necessary, is apparently completely necessary to drive the plot.

Why it's not explained how it works, it's explained that no one knows exactly what it does. Also, they explain why it's necessary - there is no way to defeat the Reapers conventionally, and the Curcible is the only solution they managed to find. Liara discovered its blueprints in her research.

I'm not sure if it's technically a McGuffin.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Mass Effect 3, you say?

That was more a severe case of Deus Ex Bunghole. Smelly, ?arty bunghole to be a wee bit more precise.

 

[The_Lost_King]

You do realize that the star child was foreshadowed several times throughout the game right?

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.

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.

 

[HigherTomorrow]

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...

Weird.

Perhaps Metal Gear Solid 2? Right before the final battle, the events of the entire preceding game is explained by the now-revealed Patriot AI, GW.

 

[HigherTomorrow]

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.

How is it foreshadowed?!

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.

 

[bug_of_war]

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".

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

Spoiler

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.

 

[Sande45]

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.

So meanings of words cannot change and people are just using them wrong? Do you also go around telling people they're using "gay" wrong?

 

[DoPo]

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?

 

[thiosk]

If you could just get people to stop pronouncing it "deuce," it would be nice. Definitions can wait.

But then how will we know who the people are who make references to things they have no idea about? HOW?

Well that's a laissez-faire faux pas for fiscal cliff diving irregardless of homeopathy. Forsooth!

 

[DioWallachia]

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.

 

[Professor James]

Why don't people just google search Deus Ex Machina and stop arguing semantics?

 

[Squilookle]

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.

How is it foreshadowed?!

It's really quite simple:

Spoiler

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.

I'm not sure if it's technically a McGuffin.

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.