165 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

It's hard to not use deus ex machina, when he literally IS a deus ex machina.

Not to mention that, unless he used some sort of hypnosis on Shepard, Shepard just sort of follows his circle logic.

"Yo dawg, I heard you don't want to be killed by synthetics, so I made some synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you won't get killed by synthetics!"

He says the created will *always* rebel against the creators, without giving any evidence, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Every time a synthetic has attacked an organic, it was because of organic hostility or Reaper influence. Geth and zha'til respectively.

[SupR G]

He's a random space god used as a plot device to give some "greater understanding" to everything but fails in every way possible.

[NM_Che56]

YukiFA wrote...

Yes they rebelled, after the Quarians attempted to exterminate them. Are you going to blame them for not laying down and accepting death?

This still does not validate the Catalyst's reasoning nor its assertion that the created will always rebel against the creator. The Quarians fired the first shot in the Morning War. And the Geth were perfectly willing to let the Quarians return to their homeworld once peace was made between them. Hell, they even helped them reacclimate to their native environment.

The word rebel implies that there is something to oppose.  The Geth opposed extinction, thus they rebelled against it. The Catalyst did not put restrictions on the nature of the rebellion.  It merely stated they will always rebel.

[Der Bibliothekar]

In fact, this line of reasoning is even worse:

"because organics will try to kill AIs that start to question their place in the Universe and these AIs won't forego their right for self defence, it's better to commit a universal near-Omnicide before such an situation comes up."


It's a little like defending Chairman Mao for the killing of intellectuals during the "cultural revolutions" because these intellectuals would have rebelled against a totalitarian regime...

Modifié par Der Bibliothekar, 06 avril 2012 - 04:15 .

[NM_Che56]

o Ventus wrote...

It's hard to not use deus ex machina, when he literally IS a deus ex machina.

Not to mention that, unless he used some sort of hypnosis on Shepard, Shepard just sort of follows his circle logic.

"Yo dawg, I heard you don't want to be killed by synthetics, so I made some synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you won't get killed by synthetics!"

He says the created will *always* rebel against the creators, without giving any evidence, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Every time a synthetic has attacked an organic, it was because of organic hostility or Reaper influence. Geth and zha'til respectively.

I said try not to use the term because people are throwing it around as it to say "that's why it's bad".  Circular reasoning. I wanted an explanation of why it's bad, not a thesis on the plot device itself.

Rebellion does not mean that the rebel is the antagonist or instigator.  Rebel implies there is something to oppose.  The Reapers did not influence the Geth in the Morning war.  So that belies the "every time" argument.  Also, the Catalyst did not restrict the concept of rebellion based on it's impetus either.

[NM_Che56]

Laurencio wrote...

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. So, why is this bad?
2. What would be the argument against it?  Why do you need an explanation? How does the origin of it's exsistence affect the fact that it exists and you have to interface with it to solve the problem?
3. Shepard would not have picked "destroy"?
4.Why do you need to know this in order to make your decision? How is it relevant to the main story arc?
5. Controversy does not equate to "wrong".  Why is seeing him at the end bad?
6. I understand this.  He is a scapegoat for misdirected disappointment and anger.

[YukiFA]

Master Che wrote...
The Catalyst did not put restrictions on the nature of the rebellion.  It merely stated they will always rebel.

Actually, yes it did. It's exact line was "The created will always rebel against the creator." But keep trying to move those goalposts.

And you're still trying to argue that the Geth are at fault for fighting to save themselves after the Quarians fired the first shot.

Modifié par YukiFA, 06 avril 2012 - 04:22 .

[NM_Che56]

Joccaren wrote...

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.

Subjective and repeats the definition of deus ex machina.  Individual validity understood; however.

Joccaren wrote...
His existence also opens a couple of plot holes that will likely be explained in the upcoming DLC. Hopefully.

I hope so too.

Joccaren wrote...
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.

Shepard has a choice to stop the Reapers.  The Catalyst does not act independently of Shepard's will.  So no.
The logic is somewhat circular, granted (the Catalyst did not say ALL organics.  It's like sustainable harvesting or hunting which we do everyday); however, that could just mean that the Catalyst is dellusional.  In 2001 Space Odessy, did we need to sympathize with HAL 9000's motives?  Skynet in Terminator? No.  They just need to be stopped. 

[NM_Che56]

YukiFA wrote...

Master Che wrote...
The Catalyst did not put restrictions on the nature of the rebellion.  It merely stated they will always rebel.

Actually, yes it did. It's exact line was "The created will always rebel against the creator." But keep trying to move those goalposts.

And you're still trying to argue that the Geth are at fault for fighting to save themselves after the Quarians fired the first shot.

And the Geth rebelled.  I fail to see your argument.  It merely stating that there will be rebellion belies your argument of imposed restrictions as the Catalyst did not define the conditions under which the rebellions must occur in order to be valid.  You are imposing your own criteria to define "rebel" and to discern validity.

Modifié par Master Che, 06 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[NM_Che56]

CarparkC wrote...

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.

Communication requires a sender and receiver.  Any fault on either end creates conflict.  How do you know that you're understanding is not at fault?

[Vortex13]

Master Che wrote...

I don't think Bioware, per se, is making him out to be a good guy. But what does it benefit the story to put star child in a red suit with horns and give him a pitch fork? If star child doesn't think itself to be evil then why would it present itself as evil? Wouldn't that make the choice for Shepard too obvious?

The Star Child not thinking of itself as evil is besides the point, after all Hitler didn't think what he was doing was evil either.

In fact the inclusion of this character overall does not benifit the story (IMO).

But taken at face value, Shepard is still agreeing with the choices presented by a being that has precided over the deaths of billions if not trillions in this cycle and all the previous cylces, and while I would agree that the Star Child saying:

"I'm EVIL and you will do my evil bidding because I'm EVIL!"

would make the scene even less whatchable, just having the player put in the situation were they have to accept the logic (choice) of this character is painting the Star Child in a positive if not "Good Guy" light  by proxy as the protaganist goes along with one of it's descicions.

Looking at the Catlyst in that light means that Bioware does indeed want the player to view it in a positive light, or is an example of charater assassination (Shepard's agreeing to its logic) and overall bad writing IMO.

Modifié par Vortex13, 06 avril 2012 - 04:33 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

Star child? Who's that?
Do you mean BeiberReaper?

[Arik7]

The scene with the actual child, and the flash backs just did not have the emotional response the writer(s) was hoping for. Now, if it was a well known character who died (such Ashley/Kaidan/Wrex/Mordin/Legion), it MIGHT have worked. We also don't know what/who that being is, and we don't get a chance to ask.

The bottom line though, the star child is just uncool, and doesn't fit in the Mass Effect universe.

Modifié par Arik7, 06 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[NM_Che56]

Maimh wrote...

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.

Why is the new understanding of the Reapers inherently bad?  You're upset because your preferences were not met (i.e., no big show down with Harby).  How does that make the introduction of Star Child inherently bad?

If it's just because you wanted a big showdown with Harby and didn't get it, then I understand.  It's your personal preference that you are entitled to (no sarcasm intended). 

[MPSai]

Introducing a new character in the last 5 minutes of a story is pretty bad no matter which why you slice it. Our role in the game goes from stopping the Reapers to making these three decisions as if they were the most important thing all along. The Catalyst creates a number of plotholes with its mere existence (Why did Sovereign need to monitor life in the galaxy? Why did he need to manually open the Citadel relay at considerable risk to himself?), and contradicts everything the Reapers have done up until that point (if the point was to "preserve" organic life and stop it from being eventually killed by synthetics, why did the Reapers control the synthetic Geth and use them to kill organics? That just implies the Catalyst takes it upon itself to solve a problem it creates by killing everyone.) It also turns the Reapers from hyper-intelligent, merciless Lovecraftian machine horrors into mindless drones the Catalyst sends flying around. The free will and intelligence of the Reapers was already greatly diminished throughout the game, outside of the  time you speak to the one on Rannoch they just act almost like drones.

The heavy-handed religious symbolism and introducing a metaphysical element (like the Catalyst and the Synthesis ending especially) into a series that kept even its most fantastical elements pretty grounded with plausible sounding Sci-Fi science was just jarring and unneeded, like whoever wrote it didn't understand the game's universe. It also acted like the entire theme of the trilogy was "organics vs synthetics" rather than self determination, unity and will triumphing over adversity.

Modifié par MPSai, 06 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[NM_Che56]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

Star child? Who's that?
Do you mean BeiberReaper?

I LIKE IT! 

[YukiFA]

Master Che wrote...
And the Geth rebelled.  I fail to see your argument.

That they did not start the fight. You can not blame the victims of an ethnic cleansing if some members of the victim race decided that enough was enough and that they were going to fight back against the instigators of the conflict.

It merely stating that there will be rebellion belies your argument of imposed restrictions as the Catalyst did not define the conditions under which the rebellions must occur in order to be valid.  You are imposing your own criteria to define "rebel" and to discern validity.

I'll repeat myself. The exact line of the Catalyst was "The created will always rebel against the creators."

[NM_Che56]

Arik7 wrote...

The scene with the actual child, and the flash backs just did not have the emotional response the writer(s) was hoping for. Now, if it was a well known character who died (such Ashley/Kaidan/Wrex/Mordin/Legion), it MIGHT have worked. We also don't what/who that being is, and we don't get a chance to ask.

The bottom line though, the star child is just uncool, and doesn't fit in the Mass Effect universe.

I just attributed it to the fact that Shep was haunted by the image of seeing an innocent child vaporized and the Catalyst took on the visage as a tactic.

[Salfin]

Many people dislike the fact that a pivotal character was introduced in the very last few seconds of gameplay, and given only 14 lines of dialogue to explain who he is, what his goals are, what the purpose of the reapers is, and how to resolve the main issue in the story, which isn't what you are led to believe.

As a result there was suddenly an emotional disconnect with what was going on. You had no investment with this new character, and when he suddenly thrusts you forward into three choices it is a jarring experience that leaves you wondering why you have no say in what's going on. You aren't even given the ability to question it.

Modifié par Salfin, 06 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[ericjdev]

He break the narrative flow and my Shep accepts what he says even though every decision and action my Shep has ever made over her entire career informs me that she would not accept a word of the nonsense he spews. He is a super lazy, incredibly derivative plot device yanked from someones ass as a substitute for writing an intelligent, sensical ending that is consistent with the theme and tone of the series. It's a total slap in the face, disgusting and insulting. There is no way something that flawed and wrong occurs with peer review, it is complete and utter fail with no aesthetic or artistic value at all. It looks like they cut the ending from another story and spliced it on.

Modifié par ericjdev, 06 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[Arik7]

Master Che wrote...

Arik7 wrote...

The scene with the actual child, and the flash backs just did not have the emotional response the writer(s) was hoping for. Now, if it was a well known character who died (such Ashley/Kaidan/Wrex/Mordin/Legion), it MIGHT have worked. We also don't what/who that being is, and we don't get a chance to ask.

The bottom line though, the star child is just uncool, and doesn't fit in the Mass Effect universe.

I just attributed it to the fact that Shep was haunted by the image of seeing an innocent child vaporized and the Catalyst took on the visage as a tactic.

And this is where the writer(s) went wrong.  The dream sequence with the child was the most annoying part of the game, except for the ending. Shepard has seen millions of innocent people get vaporized.  Personally, Mordin's death touched me much more than some kid I don't know.   If the Reaper's Leader AI was projected as an image of Mordin, I would be somewhat shocked....   Also, the catalyst has said nothing about himself/itself and we do not get to ask.

Modifié par Arik7, 06 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[VerdantSF]

I spent a significant portion of the game brokering peace between organics and synthetics.  I finally manage to do it in one of the best cinematic sequences of ME3.  Then I meet Star Child, and he tells me that none of that mattered.

[NM_Che56]

YukiFA wrote...

Master Che wrote...
And the Geth rebelled.  I fail to see your argument.

That they did not start the fight. You can not blame the victims of an ethnic cleansing if some members of the victim race decided that enough was enough and that they were going to fight back against the instigators of the conflict.

It merely stating that there will be rebellion belies your argument of imposed restrictions as the Catalyst did not define the conditions under which the rebellions must occur in order to be valid.  You are imposing your own criteria to define "rebel" and to discern validity.

I'll repeat myself. The exact line of the Catalyst was "The created will always rebel against the creators."

Show me where in the definition of "rebel" does it state that the rebel has to start the fight.  You are also imposing a negative connotation on the word "rebellion".  I don't think you have a true understanding of the word.

Here are some facts to consider:

• The colonists in the U.S rebelled against the British in the late 1700's.  The founding fathers did not wish to fight.  They merely wished to exist in peace. 
• People in various parts of Europe rebelled against ****'s in the 1940s
• Native Americans rebelled against rellocation and mistreatment.

Here's a list of rebellions where I'm sure you'll find many of them were not initiated by the rebels.
http://en.wikipedia....ebellions#1900s

[MPSai]

Arik7 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Arik7 wrote...

The scene with the actual child, and the flash backs just did not have the emotional response the writer(s) was hoping for. Now, if it was a well known character who died (such Ashley/Kaidan/Wrex/Mordin/Legion), it MIGHT have worked. We also don't what/who that being is, and we don't get a chance to ask.

The bottom line though, the star child is just uncool, and doesn't fit in the Mass Effect universe.

I just attributed it to the fact that Shep was haunted by the image of seeing an innocent child vaporized and the Catalyst took on the visage as a tactic.

And this is where the writer(s) went wrong.  The dream sequence with the child was the most annoying part of the game, except for the ending. Shepard has seen millions of innocent people get vaporized.  Personally, Mordin's death touched me much more than some kid I don't know.   If the Reaper's Leader VI was projected as an image of Mordin, I would be somewhat shocked....   Also, the catalyst has said nothing about himself/itself and we do not get to ask.

Yeah, even after playing the demo I thought that scene with the kid was contrived and manipulative. Well, it would have been manipulative if it was at all effective. With so much death and destruction around us we're supposed to care because a kid dies? Caring about the Earth being invaded and systematically destroyed isn't enough?

Even then I thought that was it for Vent Boy. I just went "meh, the opening was still good, and the kid was probably there to give new players an anchor point to get them into the world".

Then I played the game and the dream sequences start. Despite being really excited about the game, and enjoying it, and having my fears that they would cater too much to new players blown away my reaction was to say out loud to myself "Really? We're doing this?"

It was a mistake to try and make us care about a character that had no introduction. You can't make me care about a kid just because it got killed in the opening scene, guys. And then to have him so tied to the ending was even more annoying.

[Arik7]

VerdantSF wrote...

I spent a significant portion of the game brokering peace between organics and synthetics.  I finally manage to do it in one of the best cinematic sequences of ME3.  Then I meet Star Child, and he tells me that none of that mattered.

Yes, thank you saving the Geth..... now they die OR you can chose space magic!