Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing". Explain WHY. I'm not the President of the star brat fan club, but I see little reasoning behind what now just looks like mindless mob mentality.
Why does Star Child get hate mail?
Débuté par
NM_Che56
, avril 06 2012 11:15
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:22
YukiFA
-
- Members
- 295 messages
Him being a deus ex machina introduced literally in the last 5 minutes of the game and changes the central conflict from "stop the Reapers" to "stop synthetics from ALWAYHS turning on organics" (even if we've previously proven this is not true and we get no chance to point that out) is a perfectly valid reason to hate him.
#3
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:28
Sparse
-
- Members
- 1 292 messages
At no point in the series up until ME3 had Shepard shown any real interest in children, no real guilt about the various innocents who got killed, no trauma whatsoever from everything he had been through and then all of a sudden he becomes totally obsessed with a child he doesn't know even to the extent an AI (presumably) uses it as the one thing in the entire universe that he relates to.
If it had have been star-penguin it would have made more sense.
If it had have been star-penguin it would have made more sense.
#4
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:30
Laurencio
-
- Members
- 968 messages
Where to begin.
1. He turns the reapers into toys, instead of menacing unfathomable machines from deep space.
2. He is essentially a deus ex machina, presenting you with a logic that could easily be argued against, and the logic behind his existence is never at any point explained or even given a second of thought or deliberation. He simply exists, and that's that.
3.He gives you three options you would never in good conscious have accepted in the previous games, options you can not argue against or refuse. Personally I'm not too hot on that one, but I believe it's a poignant point for the hatred.
4. His appearance is never really explained. The shape this VI has supposedly taken does not have any logical reasoning behind it, unless you readily accept that the owner of the reapers has invaded your mind and yet you are willing to follow its orders.
5. The method of introducing him is also highly controversial. He supposedly lived in the citadel, and you can only see him as you are brought up by a floating platform after you've sort of fainted?
6. He is the representation of the "artistic integrity" argument, in that his appearance appears to be mostly, if not exclusively an artistic and metaphorical representation of symbolism, rather than you know, logical. (that sentence got away from me, hope you understood it regardless).
1. He turns the reapers into toys, instead of menacing unfathomable machines from deep space.
2. He is essentially a deus ex machina, presenting you with a logic that could easily be argued against, and the logic behind his existence is never at any point explained or even given a second of thought or deliberation. He simply exists, and that's that.
3.He gives you three options you would never in good conscious have accepted in the previous games, options you can not argue against or refuse. Personally I'm not too hot on that one, but I believe it's a poignant point for the hatred.
4. His appearance is never really explained. The shape this VI has supposedly taken does not have any logical reasoning behind it, unless you readily accept that the owner of the reapers has invaded your mind and yet you are willing to follow its orders.
5. The method of introducing him is also highly controversial. He supposedly lived in the citadel, and you can only see him as you are brought up by a floating platform after you've sort of fainted?
6. He is the representation of the "artistic integrity" argument, in that his appearance appears to be mostly, if not exclusively an artistic and metaphorical representation of symbolism, rather than you know, logical. (that sentence got away from me, hope you understood it regardless).
#5
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:30
CarparkC
-
- Members
- 73 messages
He makes no sense. At all. His words make no sense. Him using a child's image makes no sense. His inclusion in the game in general makes no sense. And worst of all, the fact that you can't say NO to him makes no sense. Shepard doesn't trust TIM who basically resurrected her, yet she believes this brat immediately.
#6
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:32
Maimh
-
- Members
- 38 messages
It removed the focus from the Reapers as the main threat, diminishing their role in the story. Suddenly the monsters who creates horrible robot zombies are reduced to mere pawns, and Synthetics suddenly become the true villians.
For instance, I had believed HArbringer would have a larger role, based on how focal he was in ME2, and yet he is nothing but a two second cameo.
For instance, I had believed HArbringer would have a larger role, based on how focal he was in ME2, and yet he is nothing but a two second cameo.
#7
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:32
MadMatt910
-
- Members
- 456 messages
If the citadel is part fo the starchild, why bother with saren or sovereign or the keepers. Why bother with ME1, why does anything in ME2 have any relevance to the overall plot?
If you play ME3 isolated then its ok, but it introduces so many plot holes in the trilogy.
If you play ME3 isolated then its ok, but it introduces so many plot holes in the trilogy.
#8
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:33
Pandaman102
-
- Members
- 1 103 messages
Can't speak for anyone else, but here are some of my reason for disliking the Starchild:
Manifestation: an extension of the shoehorned guilt that Shepard feels toward failing to save Random Child (or somehow focusing all his/her regrets into this child), the Starchild assumes a form that the writers assume our Shepard (and by extension the player) has an emotional connection to.
Out of the Blue (no, not Liara's backside): aside from one vague reference by Vendetta about the existence of a controlling force over the Reapers being inferred, the Starchild literally comes out of nowhere. Having TIM bogart the role of Primary Antagonist from Harbinger was bad enough, but the resolution of the Reapers doesn't come from defeating the Reapers... it comes from "confronting" (or rather, "listening to") a hitherto unknown boss. It's jarring and robs what remaining thunder the Reapers have in their final moments.
My word is God: if the final "fight" with TIM was a verbal debate, then the final "fight" with the Reaper Boss is one objection followed by Shepard dutifully committing suicide on its say-so. If this were a combat ending, Starchild would have been Kai-Leng - except he never stops being invulnerable. Nobody likes those kind of fights.
Bugwha Poot Poot (or Sodomizing the Reapers' Collective Reputation): the Starchild makes no sense. Its solution to the problem of synthetics threatening organics is to harvest organics? This elaborate, galaxy-wide, eon-spanning plot of manipulating organics to be easier to kill was to prevent the rise of synthetics? That whole "yo dawg" meme aside, if that was the motivation then why do the Reapers selectively preserve some civilizations (humans) but wipe out others (asari, volus, elcor, etc.)? Or why do they continue to use the Geth (the synthetics they do not want destroying organic life) when they no longer need the additional forces? Or why not just patrol the galaxy and slap down every potential synthetic threat like some angry synthetic god?
There are some more but I'll refrain from ranting any more than I have.
Manifestation: an extension of the shoehorned guilt that Shepard feels toward failing to save Random Child (or somehow focusing all his/her regrets into this child), the Starchild assumes a form that the writers assume our Shepard (and by extension the player) has an emotional connection to.
Out of the Blue (no, not Liara's backside): aside from one vague reference by Vendetta about the existence of a controlling force over the Reapers being inferred, the Starchild literally comes out of nowhere. Having TIM bogart the role of Primary Antagonist from Harbinger was bad enough, but the resolution of the Reapers doesn't come from defeating the Reapers... it comes from "confronting" (or rather, "listening to") a hitherto unknown boss. It's jarring and robs what remaining thunder the Reapers have in their final moments.
My word is God: if the final "fight" with TIM was a verbal debate, then the final "fight" with the Reaper Boss is one objection followed by Shepard dutifully committing suicide on its say-so. If this were a combat ending, Starchild would have been Kai-Leng - except he never stops being invulnerable. Nobody likes those kind of fights.
Bugwha Poot Poot (or Sodomizing the Reapers' Collective Reputation): the Starchild makes no sense. Its solution to the problem of synthetics threatening organics is to harvest organics? This elaborate, galaxy-wide, eon-spanning plot of manipulating organics to be easier to kill was to prevent the rise of synthetics? That whole "yo dawg" meme aside, if that was the motivation then why do the Reapers selectively preserve some civilizations (humans) but wipe out others (asari, volus, elcor, etc.)? Or why do they continue to use the Geth (the synthetics they do not want destroying organic life) when they no longer need the additional forces? Or why not just patrol the galaxy and slap down every potential synthetic threat like some angry synthetic god?
There are some more but I'll refrain from ranting any more than I have.
Modifié par Pandaman102, 06 avril 2012 - 11:35 .
#9
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:34
ShepnTali
-
- Members
- 4 535 messages
He comes out of nowhere and we're supposed to swallow he's the face of the Reapers. May as well have brought in Telletubbies. Dumb and tacky with a capital D and T. This is beneath the bulk of ME writing.
#10
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:34
xXxPoopballs
-
- Members
- 52 messages
He is a kid. All his logic is void. Everything that comes from his mouth is pure stupidity. He limited the choices we had. I couldn't curb stomp him or skin him alive. Thats a pretty good list as to why he sucks.
#11
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:40
Startkabel
-
- Members
- 121 messages
ADD SPOILER ALERT TO THE TITLE ****!
#12
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:40
xXxPoopballs
-
- Members
- 52 messages
Startkabel wrote...
ADD SPOILER ALERT TO THE TITLE ****!
Its a spoiler allowed thread though...
#13
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:48
Ji99saw
-
- Members
- 227 messages
I don't hate him, I think of him as user interface for the crucible more than a god child to save everything like everyone else believes even though we knew we were building a weapon from the beginning of the game but they still say deus ex machina!!!
#14
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:48
darkiddd
-
- Members
- 847 messages
Because he is the most important character in the series (without counting Shepard) and he is introduced in the last 5 minutes of the last game.
Because we don't have the time to know him or trust him, so we don't really trust in the choices he gives to us. And these are the last choices are the last impact we will have on the game, an impact in which we have worked for three games and now that stupid kid ruins.
Because the reason he gives for harvesting organic civilizations is stupid and it infuriates me even more than Shepard doesn't argue that or that he doesn't tell him to **** off.
And because the choices he gives us are an almost complete lose-lose scenario.
Because we don't have the time to know him or trust him, so we don't really trust in the choices he gives to us. And these are the last choices are the last impact we will have on the game, an impact in which we have worked for three games and now that stupid kid ruins.
Because the reason he gives for harvesting organic civilizations is stupid and it infuriates me even more than Shepard doesn't argue that or that he doesn't tell him to **** off.
And because the choices he gives us are an almost complete lose-lose scenario.
#16
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:49
Joccaren
-
- Members
- 1 130 messages
He is a poorly contrived plot device added in literally at the last minute of the game [Until the end cinematic] that has 14 lines of dialogue and manages to ruin the villain that the Reapers were before his dialogue. He is also annoying as his looks and voice - that of a child - are made to make us feel sympathetic towards him, however we feel no such emotion and just simply dislike him.
His existence also opens a couple of plot holes that will likely be explained in the upcoming DLC. Hopefully.
In addition, he uses circular logic [Before someone pulls me up here - it is Circular logic. It feeds back into itself. I understand he is wiping out advanced organics to stop them making machines that would destroy all organics, but it is still circular logic that feeds into itself] and provides a pretty crap reason for the Reapers... uh. Reaping.
It also takes away the spotlight from Shepard in the final moments of the game - the most important moments. The main character of the game is Shepard, but where it matters he quite literally bends over and listens to a child telling him what to do. In addition, it is the Catalyst that stops the Reapers - not Shepard.
There is honestly nothing to like about him, and a lot to hate.
His existence also opens a couple of plot holes that will likely be explained in the upcoming DLC. Hopefully.
In addition, he uses circular logic [Before someone pulls me up here - it is Circular logic. It feeds back into itself. I understand he is wiping out advanced organics to stop them making machines that would destroy all organics, but it is still circular logic that feeds into itself] and provides a pretty crap reason for the Reapers... uh. Reaping.
It also takes away the spotlight from Shepard in the final moments of the game - the most important moments. The main character of the game is Shepard, but where it matters he quite literally bends over and listens to a child telling him what to do. In addition, it is the Catalyst that stops the Reapers - not Shepard.
There is honestly nothing to like about him, and a lot to hate.
Modifié par Joccaren, 06 avril 2012 - 11:51 .
#17
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:51
Laurencio
-
- Members
- 968 messages
Ji99saw wrote...
I don't hate him, I think of him as user interface for the crucible more than a god child to save everything like everyone else believes even though we knew we were building a weapon from the beginning of the game but they still say deus ex machina!!!
The crucible is the definition of Deus Ex Machina. Something that gets rid of a problem without any real explanation as to how, or why, in one fell swoop.
#18
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:52
chuckles471
-
- Members
- 608 messages
I think it was the part when Shepard got on all fours and said "I like it rough".
#19
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:53
Joeyv
-
- Members
- 62 messages
YukiFA wrote...
Him being a deus ex machina introduced literally in the last 5 minutes of the game and changes the central conflict from "stop the Reapers" to "stop synthetics from ALWAYHS turning on organics" (even if we've previously proven this is not true and we get no chance to point that out) is a perfectly valid reason to hate him.
While I don't like the idea of that kid, I can't agree with this. It was stated earlier in the game, on Thessia actually, that the reapers are probably controlled by a higher entity of some sort.
It isn't just thrown in in the last minutes; you could see it coming.
Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.
#20
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:54
_RT
-
- Members
- 73 messages
What, aren't "deus ex machina" and "bad writing" enough? You gotta say why do you hate him BESIDES those thing?Master Che wrote...
Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing". Explain WHY. I'm not the President of the star brat fan club, but I see little reasoning behind what now just looks like mindless mob mentality.
What the flying f*ck is wrong with people here?
#21
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:55
Mandemon
-
- Members
- 781 messages
He comes in during that last 5 minutes, create a whole new plot in 14 lines, never explains itself, is never foreshadowed before, destroys plot of the 1st game and is painful to look at.
#22
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:56
Mandemon
-
- Members
- 781 messages
Joeyv wrote...
YukiFA wrote...
Him being a deus ex machina introduced literally in the last 5 minutes of the game and changes the central conflict from "stop the Reapers" to "stop synthetics from ALWAYHS turning on organics" (even if we've previously proven this is not true and we get no chance to point that out) is a perfectly valid reason to hate him.
While I don't like the idea of that kid, I can't agree with this. It was stated earlier in the game, on Thessia actually, that the reapers are probably controlled by a higher entity of some sort.
It isn't just thrown in in the last minutes; you could see it coming.
Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.
Actualy, it's said that Reapers serve the cycle, but there is no reference to higher power itself. VI on Thessia refers to cyclical nature of the history, not the Star Child.
#23
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 11:56
Pandaman102
-
- Members
- 1 103 messages
To be fair requesting people to articulate their objections is perfectly reasonable. For example it's easy to say "space magic" when referring to the ending, as many people familiar with the issue understand the myriad of objects it refers to, but for the less informed it sounds like a nonsensical cop-out.RT wrote...
]What, aren't "deus ex machina" and "bad writing" enough? You gotta say why do you hate him BESIDES those thing?
What the flying f*ck is wrong with people here?
#24
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 12:00
YukiFA
-
- Members
- 295 messages
There was also no proof that that would always be the case. The Morning War? Quarian agression against the Geth during their awakening. Eden Prime? A splinter faction from the True Geth. Overlord? Organic meddling in an attempt to enslave a synthetic race. Priority: Rannoch and the Geth seeking help from the Reapers? The Quarians started that, and were willing to send their race to extinction in a useless war with the Geth.Joeyv wrote...
Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.
#25
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 12:02
Joeyv
-
- Members
- 62 messages
Mandemon wrote...
Joeyv wrote...
YukiFA wrote...
Him being a deus ex machina introduced literally in the last 5 minutes of the game and changes the central conflict from "stop the Reapers" to "stop synthetics from ALWAYHS turning on organics" (even if we've previously proven this is not true and we get no chance to point that out) is a perfectly valid reason to hate him.
While I don't like the idea of that kid, I can't agree with this. It was stated earlier in the game, on Thessia actually, that the reapers are probably controlled by a higher entity of some sort.
It isn't just thrown in in the last minutes; you could see it coming.
Also, there is no proof that synthetics would not turn at organics eventually. In all games there are cases of rogue AI's.
Actualy, it's said that Reapers serve the cycle, but there is no reference to higher power itself. VI on Thessia refers to cyclical nature of the history, not the Star Child.
4 minutes and 45 seconds. I think this can be interpreted as there being some sort of a leader of the reapers.
