236 réponses à ce sujet

[Sgt Stryker]

Yes, and it's not because he's an "annoying kid." It's because good storytelling does NOT introduce a brand new antagonist in the very last scene.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 31 mars 2012 - 12:18 .

[Tarkus 5]

Carlthestrange wrote...

I certainly think so. But I think some open debate is in order, to find out what the overall opinion of the BSN is.

This lovely character turns up in the last 5 minutes of the game, steals the limelight, and forces Shepard to do his bidding. He doesn't even get a chance to say no. Removing the Star Child, and replacing him with a different ending that has logic, would be the best move in my book.


So... think the game would be better without the Starchild being in the game at all?

Yes,the best would be no Star child or...... perhaps have "it" turn into some sparking "VI" like Nomad from the Star Trek series-(error,error must complete primary function)-where Shepard could cause some kind of virus code to be installed or convince it how faulty "its" logic is.Some ending where the Citadel remains and mass effect relays go inactive (not destroyed maybe recalibrated at a later time),then after Reapers vacate the planet and either self- destruct or merge to become some kind of metallic 2nd moon or floating kind of space debris.

Modifié par Tarkus 5, 31 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[Yuzna75]

No, if Bioware wanted him he stays. Just fix the dialogue or something. The whole changing to much is getting out of hand. Yes the ending sucked and yes they are giving us more closure, but somewhere enough has the be enough. Give a reason for him being there rather than just writing him out.

[-Skorpious-]

The removal of the star child is the sole reason why the indoctrination theory is so damn appealing in my opinion. =p

[Powerpetzi]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

I don't get not liking spacebrat because he's a "kid" (except that it's something to take out people's anger on for the endings). Who cares what form the Catalyst takes? The kid in the beginning is just a kid, that haunts Shepard's dreams throughout the story as the symbol of those he/she is fighting for...and of course, failing. It's obvious the Catalyst chooses the appearance of the kid because it will get at Shepard the most.

Star Child and Catalyst are equivalent. The common grievance isn't about what form it takes, but about what it is (for the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the kid itself and the dream sequences, they're fine in my book).

I think the other reason, being that it's a new twist character is more valid. I disagree with it as well however. The Catalyst is actually a very compelling character (or more specifically, an entity). The problem many have with the ending is the lack of dialogue/choice in relation to the interaction and a lack of explaination and/or closure of things after. Many who are upset today would have been more accepting of it if the Catalyst dialogue was handled more like Vigil, if you ask me.

The Catalyst is not a character. It's exposition in shape of a hologram. It needlessly comes out of nowhere to create plotholes the size of small countries and lore inconsistencies the likes I've never seen before in the franchise. Add to that the other, well known issues (Shepard completely out of character, fallacies in its reasoning, lack of logic in the function and effects of the Crucible etc. etc.).
Lack of dialogue and choice is part of the problem, yes, but turning it more Vigil-ish wouldn't salvage it.

I do see what the writers were doing though and why the dialogue was rushed. Post Anderson it looks like Shepard is mortally wounded and almost unconscious. This is supported by the fact that Shep's bleeding a lot and you get a critical mission failure if you wait too long to making a decision. Only in the easter egg ending does Shepard survive, but it's suggested that Shep is a dead man/woman walking for all others. So with Shepard about to die and Sword and Hammer getting wiped out as the Catalyst explains Shep's choices, there isn't a lot of room for major dialogue for 10+ minutes.

Shep made it through the most memorable encounter with Marauder Shields, a long, slow, tedious walk through a hallway and a long talk with TIM without dying. It's hard to reason that some more dialogue would kill her at this point - the critical mission failure is due to the Crucible getting destroyed if you wait too long, but this is a completely arbitrary design decision, there's no reason the allied fleets couldn't hold out long enough for dialogue to take place. Remember the finale of ME1? You could talk for minutes and minutes on end with Avina (most amusing, that), take your sweet time walking up to the Citadel Tower then talk some more with Saren, all while the Citadel fleet was *supposedly* getting obliterated by the geth fleet. Again, there is no reason the dialogue would have needed to be rushed.


Bottom line: I think the game would be better off with the Catalyst entirely retconned out of existance. If BioWare wants to pull off some dialogue as climax of the game, sweet, make it Harbinger. I'd be totally cool with that.
But Star Child is a no-go IMO.

[Asepsis]

I hated Starchild because I see him as the reason we were FORCED to pick between three choices I personally did not want to pick (except destroy, I don't believe Starchild when he says the Geth die).

I'd like him to be removed, but since that's probably not going to happen they could at least explain a little more WHY we should even listen to the little homicidal maniac.

Modifié par Asepsis, 31 mars 2012 - 12:28 .

[10K]

If Bioware decides to fix the ending I wouldn't care if the star child is still present or not. I Just would like Harbinger to be the real antagonist. Because how the game ends now just makes the star child seem like a quick addon.

Modifié par mosesarose, 31 mars 2012 - 12:31 .

[Fliprot]

Yes. I'll be happy to pretend he never was.

[Atomsk Rex Pirata]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Yes, and it's not because he's an "annoying kid." It's because good storytelling does NOT introduce a brand new antagonist in the very last scene.

[Emphasis mine.] This distinction may be the biggest problem with the way the Catalyst is presented.

He controls the Reapers. He's clearly nothing but the primary antogonist. And yet he's presented by the game as our saviour and we can do nothing but comply with his new "solution."

Drop him.

[Gmandam]

Either get rid of him or let us fry him.

[RustyMcBlade]

Oh hell yeah!

[bpzrn]

Yes that was aweful and ruined this series

[Pain Train]

To me, the starchild is not the real problem, but the writing. It is the logic and story he presents that is the problem along with the lack of real user choice.

[ibage]

I would rip my pants off and run around streaking in my neighborhood if they did.

However, I believe my pants will sadly remain intact...

[turian_rage]

Better yet, keep the starchild in, but write his character off in some way that turns him into bullsh*t. Whether you use the indoctrination theory to justify his presence, or have a limping anderson trudge forward and kill it with his pistol, or hell, have the Normandy drop a bomb on the thing. Either way, I'd love to see that thing get owned.

[RyanDMC]

Yes.

[Faded-Myth]

Catalyst Kid needs to go. All he did for me was make the Reapers go from one of the most menacing, mysterious and terrifying space creatures since the xenomorphs in the first two Alien films (and the upcoming Prometheus film), to mere puppets. All aspects of scariness got sucked right out of them, and I can't play the game again with the same sense of tension or interest in them any more because of that.

It's literally a case of, "Oh look. Reapers. How...uh...nifty looking," when they used to elicit feelings of, "Oh ****. It's a goddamn Reaper."

Modifié par Faded-Myth, 31 mars 2012 - 01:04 .

[JoeLaTurkeyII]

He's become the new face of bad writing.

[Big Jack Shepard]

Yes.

[thesnake777]

I want somebody to shoot that damn Reaper Kid in the mouth.

[Baldrick67]

Yes he needs to go.

As he allows you to pick one (after explaining what the coloured buttons do) of the 3 endings it cheapens everything you have done in the trilogy.

[ShepardTheHopeful]

I don't want him gone...no that's too easy. I want the child to burn in fire screaming "AHHHH HELP ME I'M BURNING" then I get a renegade option to laugh long and hard at his suffering. I want to be able to actually program pain into all the reapers and the child so every reaper that get's blown up causes the child severe searing pain. Then I want him to cry. Then I want the person who suggested the child to be programmed into the game be feasted upon by Vaaren while he's still alive. Rather dark but that's what I feel he deserves for sticking me with that little jerk and his smug attitude I could do NOTHING about.

[DanSbez]

I wouldn't mind him removed, but going with the Indoctrination Theory I would like to just say no to him and then turns out to be Harbinger or something. XD That be a good twist.

[Solduri]

 this sums up how i feel about it

 

[fainmaca]

I think it should go, yes. Its the introduction of a new antagonist after the story's climax, right when the resolution of the conflicts with the previous antagonists should be resolved, and then he goes on to introduce a new concept that you don't have enough time to fully explore/resolve. all in the space of a few dialogue lines. It's clumsy storytelling at best, carelessly bad at worst. There's nothing artistic about it.

Fainmaca Out.