165 réponses à ce sujet

[Salfin]

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.

Indeed, perhaps they assumed an investment with the child at this point. I understood where they were going with this child representing Shepards latent guilt for all those he had failed to save, but I felt the scenes with the kid were a little forced. They weren't bad, and at the time I felt they were more then satisfactory. But when it came time to cash in on all these scenes, I felt really no connection to the child.

[NM_Che56]

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.

Of course he did.  He's thinking "big picture".  I figures it just considers what you did a mere delay in the inevitable.

[NM_Che56]

Salfin wrote...

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.

Indeed, perhaps they assumed an investment with the child at this point. I understood where they were going with this child representing Shepards latent guilt for all those he had failed to save, but I felt the scenes with the kid were a little forced. They weren't bad, and at the time I felt they were more then satisfactory. But when it came time to cash in on all these scenes, I felt really no connection to the child.

Subjective, yet valid.  I understand this.

[NM_Che56]

Salfin wrote...

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.

So, for you, it was the abruptness.  Understood.  That didn't bother me, but I understand.

[MPSai]

Salfin wrote...

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.

Indeed, perhaps they assumed an investment with the child at this point. I understood where they were going with this child representing Shepards latent guilt for all those he had failed to save, but I felt the scenes with the kid were a little forced. They weren't bad, and at the time I felt they were more then satisfactory. But when it came time to cash in on all these scenes, I felt really no connection to the child.

Yeah really, when the ships exploded I wasn't thinking "oh no, that kid was on board" I was thinking "so many people were on those." 

There's thousands of people dying from the attack, and we can reasonably assume alot of kids are too, it's just like Shepard feels nothing until one kid dies. And we as an audience are meant to be shocked because a kid dies, even with everything else going on.

[NM_Che56]

MPSai wrote...

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.

Running in slow motion was annoying.  The kid looked like a young Eminem and I kept hearing "Lose Yourself" when I saw him and that stupid hooide or "Run to you" by Whitney Houston.

The kid did feel "forced".  The kids facial animations were too mechanical and he didn't seem that scared (IT...anyone? Nevermind...).

[YukiFA]

Master Che wrote...

You are also imposing a negative connotation on the word "rebellion".  I don't think you have a true understanding of the word.

No, I'm not. The Geth were in the right during their rebellion against the Quarians. The Catalyst is the one who refers to synthetics rebelling against their organic masters as "chaos" and thinks that it necessitates the Reaper cycle wiping out all organics.

[NM_Che56]

YukiFA wrote...

Master Che wrote...

You are also imposing a negative connotation on the word "rebellion".  I don't think you have a true understanding of the word.

No, I'm not. The Geth were in the right during their rebellion against the Quarians. The Catalyst is the one who refers to synthetics rebelling against their organic masters as "chaos" and thinks that it necessitates the Reaper cycle wiping out all organics.

So, we do agree that the Geth rebelled against their creators.  good.

As for the Catalyst's logic...eh... I think it's busted and that it's just a rouge AI with some bad code. I mean, could Skynet really give me a compelling reason why it wants to kill us (Terminator)?  I can't imagine where I would say,"you know, when you put it like that...it kinda makes sense". 

[The Valiant Knight]

As a trained writer, yes his introduction to the story is quite poor. The way he explains things is also very poor, as many have said more eloquently before me. The entire Crucible could have been handled better in my opinion as it comes of as far too convenient.

However, I don't outright dislike the character or his appearance in the story, he just wasn't well implemented. Likewise his explanations could have been much more thorough. We might disagree with his overall assessment but the simple fact is that the 'organics vs synthetics' angle has been heavily lamp-posted throughout the entire series. The idea of cycles etc. etc. are everywhere from main quests to side quests. I'm honestly shocked that anybody didn't already think that this was the ultimate goal.

I didn't mind the Catalyst, I can't call it the star child, because that's not even close to what he really represents. His logic is quite sound, if poorly voiced. I find it odd that everyone always assumes that the Catalyst sees synthetic life as the problem, and not Organic life. I've always understood it to be purely the stupidity of organic life which causes the cycle.

A simple example would be iRobot, a distillation of a greater work no doubt but still a valid example most are familiar with. The AI decides that organic life is simply too primitive to understand the universe, destroying them for their own protection.

No matter how we spin it in our Utopian ideals, organic life will always resent Synthetic life, we will never see them as 'like us'. The logical outcome of this is that organics will attempt to destroy synthetics. Synthetic life stands the best chance of winning such a conflict, a point the synthetics can ultimately predict down to a very accurate equation.

I also don't understand why people believe the Catalyst was created by Organics, we have after all seen that Synthetics are capable of understanding the value in organic life. Can we not assume then that the Catalyst was simply the first synthetic race who chose to save the first organics rather than eliminate them. Once again, saving them from their own primitive emotional stupidity. A common theme in a lot of Science Fiction is about synthetic life caring more about organic life than organics do. Perhaps this was just the ultimate conclusion such an AI came to.

Sorry, that went on a bit...

[DeathScepter]

Star Child was too much out of Left Field for Mass Effect. If it was a different series, it would be good.

[Busternated]

Joeyv wrote...

YukiFA wrote...

Joeyv wrote...
Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?

Both massive screw ups at the hands of organics.

There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

Okay, I'll try to run with this. Even if it does happen in the future. It has been proven that it can be resolved without wiping out all advanced organic races in the galaxy and saving both parties at war. So yes, the argument of the Catalyst can be dismissed.

1. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but a rogue AI as a result of a screw up by organics could also turn and eventually dominate organics? And well, just listen to Javik's stories of AI's, although he is a little extremist.

2. I agree that the reapers could be used some other way, like galactic police destroying the rogue synthetics instead of murdering organics. I am just saying that the point people make that synthetics won't turn, is not true

There is a possibility AI's turn on organics, just as there's a possibility for organics to turn on organics. Seriously, look at humanity's history. Has there ever been a time when there was no war? Look at World War 2. We killed eachother there.

As for eradicating all organics. You really believe that other organics cannot do that? It isn't just synthetics that can dominate organics. Organics themselves are perfectly capable of that aswell. So why would we need some kid to say, you know what, you're gonna make synthetics that kill everything (how he gets this logic, I have no clue), so we're gonna kill everything instead.

The kid says he's seen it before. Really? When you influence the geth to fight along side you? It's a bit nonsensical to me. Sure, there might have been an idea behind it, but it's not well explained to say the least.

To be honest, I think another issue lies at the heart of the ending. Autodialogue. Who at Bioware thought, gee, last 2 games we had a lot of dialogue and people found that to be fun, let's put in LESS this time. With more dialogue options we might have been able to discover exactly why the ending goes as it's going. 

[RIGELVINTO]

The way he says "but you have to choose" is really annoying

Besides, the biggest bad ass ever existed in the entire Universe presents itself like an innocent child, and a explain his actions with no logic at all and Shepard even believes him, CMON

[NM_Che56]

The Valiant Knight wrote...

As a trained writer, yes his introduction to the story is quite poor. The way he explains things is also very poor, as many have said more eloquently before me. The entire Crucible could have been handled better in my opinion as it comes of as far too convenient.

However, I don't outright dislike the character or his appearance in the story, he just wasn't well implemented. Likewise his explanations could have been much more thorough. We might disagree with his overall assessment but the simple fact is that the 'organics vs synthetics' angle has been heavily lamp-posted throughout the entire series. The idea of cycles etc. etc. are everywhere from main quests to side quests. I'm honestly shocked that anybody didn't already think that this was the ultimate goal.

I didn't mind the Catalyst, I can't call it the star child, because that's not even close to what he really represents. His logic is quite sound, if poorly voiced. I find it odd that everyone always assumes that the Catalyst sees synthetic life as the problem, and not Organic life. I've always understood it to be purely the stupidity of organic life which causes the cycle.

A simple example would be iRobot, a distillation of a greater work no doubt but still a valid example most are familiar with. The AI decides that organic life is simply too primitive to understand the universe, destroying them for their own protection.

No matter how we spin it in our Utopian ideals, organic life will always resent Synthetic life, we will never see them as 'like us'. The logical outcome of this is that organics will attempt to destroy synthetics. Synthetic life stands the best chance of winning such a conflict, a point the synthetics can ultimately predict down to a very accurate equation.

I also don't understand why people believe the Catalyst was created by Organics, we have after all seen that Synthetics are capable of understanding the value in organic life. Can we not assume then that the Catalyst was simply the first synthetic race who chose to save the first organics rather than eliminate them. Once again, saving them from their own primitive emotional stupidity. A common theme in a lot of Science Fiction is about synthetic life caring more about organic life than organics do. Perhaps this was just the ultimate conclusion such an AI came to.

Sorry, that went on a bit...

Tell me you see bits of "The Architect" here.

[NM_Che56]

RIGELVINTO wrote...

The way he says "but you have to choose" is really annoying

Besides, the biggest bad ass ever existed in the entire Universe presents itself like an innocent child, and a explain his actions with no logic at all and Shepard even believes him, CMON

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

[MPSai]

Master Che wrote...

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

To end the game with our brave hero being too tired to even argue with the ultimate enemy and just do what he says isn't really a good thing... 

[NM_Che56]

I see validity in the "not very well explained/executed" argument. It requires you to make assumptions that we have not been asked to do for the first 99% of the series; thus, making it appear out of sorts.

It would be like imposing an M. Night Shyamalan type ending to Return of the Jedi.

[Fireblader70]

Yeah, understanding the Catalyst's logic requires one to push aside their emotions and look at it from a different perspective. That's why it needs more clarification - it took me until now to figure it out, and many other people are still confused.

By preserving organic life in 'immortal' casings (that are still classed as organic by Legion), it is saved and therefore eliminates the possibility of a war with synthetics. It merges the two into one. If the Reapers simply destroyed synthetics that rebelled, organics might create more, and that creates a higher risk than the first option.

Yes, there are arguments against this, and that is one of the main problems with the ending. You do not get to point them out. In a game that focuses on choice, there is no option to just disagree with the Catalyst and make a big deal out of it.

The Catalyst, however, makes sense - from a certain perspective. Just not what we humans would call the 'best' solution.

[NM_Che56]

MPSai wrote...

Master Che wrote...

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

To end the game with our brave hero being too tired to even argue with the ultimate enemy and just do what he says isn't really a good thing... 

No, but does that make it unrealistic?  When you've been in pain, exhausted (i.e. under extreme physical distress), isn't it hard to make the most basic rationalizations?

[MPSai]

Master Che wrote...

MPSai wrote...

Master Che wrote...

I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

To end the game with our brave hero being too tired to even argue with the ultimate enemy and just do what he says isn't really a good thing... 

No, but does that make it unrealistic?  When you've been in pain, exhausted (i.e. under extreme physical distress), isn't it hard to make the most basic rationalizations?

Things don't always work out in real life, but this is fiction, and Space Adventure fiction at that. In an escapist, interactive medium. I don't see what's wrong with having a conventional "good guys win, bad guys lose" ending like the first two games.

Modifié par MPSai, 06 avril 2012 - 05:14 .

[KustomDeluxe]

Master Che wrote...

I see validity in the "not very well explained/executed" argument. It requires you to make assumptions that we have not been asked to do for the first 99% of the series; thus, making it appear out of sorts.

It would be like imposing an M. Night Shyamalan type ending to Return of the Jedi.

Precisely.

Or, to extend the analogy. It would be like the end of 2001: A Space Oddyssey at the end of Return of the Jedi. It has the capacity to be a good ending with the proper handling and care, but it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for the series.

[The Valiant Knight]

Busternated wrote...

Joeyv wrote...

YukiFA wrote...

Joeyv wrote...
Well what about the luna mission in Mass effect 1 and the money stealing AI in the presidium?

Both massive screw ups at the hands of organics.

There is no proof it won't happen in the future, so the argument of the kid can't be dismissed.

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

Okay, I'll try to run with this. Even if it does happen in the future. It has been proven that it can be resolved without wiping out all advanced organic races in the galaxy and saving both parties at war. So yes, the argument of the Catalyst can be dismissed.

1. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but a rogue AI as a result of a screw up by organics could also turn and eventually dominate organics? And well, just listen to Javik's stories of AI's, although he is a little extremist.

2. I agree that the reapers could be used some other way, like galactic police destroying the rogue synthetics instead of murdering organics. I am just saying that the point people make that synthetics won't turn, is not true

There is a possibility AI's turn on organics, just as there's a possibility for organics to turn on organics. Seriously, look at humanity's history. Has there ever been a time when there was no war? Look at World War 2. We killed eachother there.

As for eradicating all organics. You really believe that other organics cannot do that? It isn't just synthetics that can dominate organics. Organics themselves are perfectly capable of that aswell. So why would we need some kid to say, you know what, you're gonna make synthetics that kill everything (how he gets this logic, I have no clue), so we're gonna kill everything instead.

The kid says he's seen it before. Really? When you influence the geth to fight along side you? It's a bit nonsensical to me. Sure, there might have been an idea behind it, but it's not well explained to say the least.

To be honest, I think another issue lies at the heart of the ending. Autodialogue. Who at Bioware thought, gee, last 2 games we had a lot of dialogue and people found that to be fun, let's put in LESS this time. With more dialogue options we might have been able to discover exactly why the ending goes as it's going. 

I agree, but we are viewing this from the incorrect perspective. We are not, nor can we fully understand, the perspectives of a machine. We view these things as taking away our freedoms, our basic right to choose. As organic life we have ideologies and a sense of hope even against the greatest odds. These are things a machine most likely cannot understand.

The plan implemented by the Catalyst is perfectly logical. It's solves the problem, Organic life will continue to exist until the end of the universe if the cycle continues. A being of pure logic, without empathy or emotion will most likely see this as correct. The Catalyst is imposing order on chaos, organising what it can't understand into something that it can understand. That's really all there is to it...

[Toxic Waste]

Joeyv wrote...
........ and I don't believe the Catalyst even says it that way, but it just takes one AI with the purpose of exterminating organics to infiltrate the extranet, change other VI's and AI's, take over security systems, to do a lot of damage and possibly dominate civilisations.

so if I understand this right the reapers eliminate synthetics because they might be a problem.

In ME1 I let Ash kill Wrex so I could deal with Wreave and feel better that I did'nt cure the genophage. Point being that Wreave made it clear that he was going to cut across the galaxy and show everyone there the true power of the krogen. He was going to take his revenge out on anyone and everyone. Seems that the Krogen (organics) would be a much bigger problem then the Geth (synthetics). But yet the reapers want to kill the organics to stop synthetics.

That's the logic the starkid is giving me and it makes no sence to me....sorry.


*edit - took out a quote that didnt fit in right*

Modifié par Toxic Waste, 06 avril 2012 - 05:21 .

[NM_Che56]

MPSai wrote...

Master Che wrote...

MPSai wrote...

Master Che wrote...
I don't think Shepard's physical condition or mental exhaustion puts him in any shape for a deep philosophical argument.  No?

To end the game with our brave hero being too tired to even argue with the ultimate enemy and just do what he says isn't really a good thing... 

No, but does that make it unrealistic?  When you've been in pain, exhausted (i.e. under extreme physical distress), isn't it hard to make the most basic rationalizations?

Things don't always work out in real life, but this is fiction, and Space Adventure fiction at that. In an escapist, interactive medium. I don't see what's wrong with having a conventional "good guys win, bad guys lose" ending like the first two games.

Neither do I but a well executed alternative isn't inherently bad either...SUMMER 2012!!

[HawkOfMay]

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.

I don't understand you reasoning.    A  "plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. " 
is pretty universally agreed upon as bad writing.    If ME3 was a story written for a university professor; then the writers would be marked down heavily for resorting to the 'god-child' in the closing paragraphs.

[Kayawyn4]

The star child is the embodiment of everything that went wrong in ME3. Even if Bioware fixed every issue and released a perfect ending, I think that the majority of people who dislike the current ending would be predisposed to dislike the new ending if they keep him in it.