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.
So in other words, explain it without using legitimate reasons? Sounds like classic "if you don't agree with me you're a troll" logic.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.
1) This is bad because it trivializes the main source of conflict of all 3 games.Master Che wrote...
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.
Modifié par FamilyManFirst, 06 avril 2012 - 09:31 .
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?
This is the only correction I would make. Control is what TIM would do, and TIM stood for everything Renegade. I don't believe for a second that Starbaby is being honest about Destroy wiping out all synthetics, thus genocide against the Geth and EDI.FamilyManFirst wrote...
3) Some Shepards would pick Destroy, yes, notably Renegades, who are focused on saving humanity at any cost. However, there is no ending that a Paragon would pick.
drewelow wrote...
My point was that everything is subjective, and good or bad are always ultimately either personal or societal values. And that includes plague, heart attack, and DEM. But I don't want to derail here.
The reasoning isn't "it's bad because it's bad", rather it's: it's bad because it's contrived and arbitrary (and doesn't fit with the logic and rules developed throughout the story).
There's a general rule in story-telling, "show, don't tell". The idea is that the writer needs to work to develop the framework of the story, and this is usually a good approach because it enhances drama and invests the reader. The use of a DEM bypasses that process, and thus feels cheap and like cheating (or even lying) to the reader.
Modifié par thefallen2far, 06 avril 2012 - 10:20 .
Gives no explanation as to how or why he obtained control over the Reapers Modifié par Tovanus, 06 avril 2012 - 10:27 .
Okay, I'll grant you that argument; a Renegade might, indeed, pick Control. For that matter, a Renegate might pick Synthesis, too, since that ending also saves humanity, albeit in a changed form. However, I still maintain that there is no Paragon ending (sounds like you agree?).Caz Tirin wrote...
This is the only correction I would make. Control is what TIM would do, and TIM stood for everything Renegade. I don't believe for a second that Starbaby is being honest about Destroy wiping out all synthetics, thus genocide against the Geth and EDI.FamilyManFirst wrote...
3) Some Shepards would pick Destroy, yes, notably Renegades, who are focused on saving humanity at any cost. However, there is no ending that a Paragon would pick.
drewelow wrote...
Like everyone who tries to rationalize the ending, you are doing a whole lot of work and making a lot of assumptions that should have been demonstrated in the game. You're a writer, so you should be familiar with "Show, don't tell".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...
And, umm, "saving them from their own emotional stupidity" according to the immensely intelligent AI god in the game means killing them. You don't think that's hilariously awful writing? That an AI god can't come up with reasonable logic and a viable solution?
Actually, back tracking to the start of the same paragraph, you think the Catalyst was spontaneously generated? If the Catalyst was the first synthetic race, where did it come from if not organics?
Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but all of the posts I've seen that try to rationalize the ending seem to either skip or embrace and extend the gaping plot holes created by the ending.
I think my biggest personal problem with star kid and the conclusion is in its execution. For three games and several years, this has been the story of the Protheans. The story of the Turians, the Krogan, the
Salarian, the Asari, the Humans, the Batarians, Vorcha, Quarian, Hanar, Drell, Volus, and Geth.
It was a story of struggle, and persistence, of tragedy and triumph over nigh impossible odds, the
overthrowing of a cycle of tyrrany, pain and destruction that has destroyed civilizations time and time again.
And all of the sudden it became a story about some creator, some higher power we had
never been exposed to, never expected to exist and had no attachment to, reverance for, or understanding of.
This is a long standing rule of creative writing; "Do not introduce an important character in the last 1/4th of the book." I suggest BioWare take this lesson to heart. And recite it daily.
The god in the machine should have been a prothean. The choices given to us should have been explained as philosophy and concept that the prothean engineers didn't all agree on. A lack of consensus, a lack of certainty. A change was needed, but none were quite certain of what change would be best.
That, at least, would have been palatable. It also would have worked with the current set of ending choices, kept the artistic integrity and been better storytelling.
Modifié par Asrayl, 07 avril 2012 - 12:30 .
Modifié par Marta Rio II, 07 avril 2012 - 12:38 .
OK, I can accept an insane AI god (though it's still one that is not particularly bright, IMO). Or one that has bizarre motivations. But the feeling that I get from the game is that Bioware thinks, and tries to convey, that this AI IS a brilliant, omniscient god-like being (i.e. take it at face value).The Valiant Knight wrote...
drewelow wrote...
Like everyone who tries to rationalize the ending, you are doing a whole lot of work and making a lot of assumptions that should have been demonstrated in the game. You're a writer, so you should be familiar with "Show, don't tell".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...
And, umm, "saving them from their own emotional stupidity" according to the immensely intelligent AI god in the game means killing them. You don't think that's hilariously awful writing? That an AI god can't come up with reasonable logic and a viable solution?
Actually, back tracking to the start of the same paragraph, you think the Catalyst was spontaneously generated? If the Catalyst was the first synthetic race, where did it come from if not organics?
Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but all of the posts I've seen that try to rationalize the ending seem to either skip or embrace and extend the gaping plot holes created by the ending.
I don't think you quite understood me. I don't believe the Catalyst just appeared out of thin air. I was suggesting that the Catalyst was the very first AI created (at least in our galaxy) by an organic race.
I think many are making the mistake of belieiving that the Catalyst is some all knowing god-like figure. The Catalyst is wrong, it is a machine that cannot understand why we think it's wrong. I still have issues with the way the character is introduced and presented, but ultimately I cannot question his motivations and conclusions.
For a machine, they would be logical.
I don't hate the Star Child for being the Star Child; if it had been eluded to more distinctly than one off-branch response from a specific team-mate during an optional quest, I would have been fine with it. I can reason why he looks like the kid from the beginning, I can deal with that.Master Che wrote...
Explain your hatred without saying deus ex machina or "bad writing"
Retour en haut