5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Devil Mingy]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

A thought I had.

What's the purpose of the Catalyst taking the shape of the child? As far as the character of the Catalyst, I could see it as an attempt to manipulate Shepard in a "you wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you" sort of way, but that's really it. Its choosing of this shape doesn't seem to be related to the dreams, other than pulling imagery from such a strong subconscious experience, though that in itself only serves to highlight the manipulative nature of the Catalyst.

In terms of the narrative, the Catalyst choosing this shape is a mystery to me.

I also want to say, once again, the the Catalyst isn't a very good catalyst at all.

The impression I got from it is that, from a narrative standpoint, the Catalyst looks like the child simply as a means of emotional manipulation. We are supposed to listen and understand the Catalyst, and some people have a hard time hating an "innocent" child.

This reminds me of another problem I had.

Shepard is lifted up to the heavens by a ray of light and meets an (allegedly) all knowing, all powerful being of light. The Catalyst, from a symbolic standpoint, is basically God. I assume this is a ham-fisted attempt to make the Catalyst appear more credible. If we equate him to God, he would clearly know more than we, and therefore we would not question his logic or his solutions. We, like Shepard, would simply nod and accept that the Reapers are good and that everything we have worked towards is basically a futile diversion to the real problem.

This is, again, an assumption and there are several reasons why the Catalyst is what it is. However, this was the feeling I got from the ending after some, ahem, speculation.

[ghost9191]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well, I knew there was another thing that made me think Synthesis is abhorrent. The star kid's words about it are almost exactly what Sovereign says about the Reapers. He states that they are the end of evolution. But he also says that organic life is a mutation, an accident. So, whatever being is controlling reaper strings must think this as well and sees Synthesis is a way to correct that. It just makes it all the worse in my mind, that this seems to be what he wants you to choose.

i agree, i always felt that synthesis was just a prettier version of husks and such. I mean it seemed like that was what the reapers were trying to do in the first place with the whole "ascension" thing

[edisnooM]

Devil Mingy wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

A thought I had.

What's the purpose of the Catalyst taking the shape of the child? As far as the character of the Catalyst, I could see it as an attempt to manipulate Shepard in a "you wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you" sort of way, but that's really it. Its choosing of this shape doesn't seem to be related to the dreams, other than pulling imagery from such a strong subconscious experience, though that in itself only serves to highlight the manipulative nature of the Catalyst.

In terms of the narrative, the Catalyst choosing this shape is a mystery to me.

I also want to say, once again, the the Catalyst isn't a very good catalyst at all.

The impression I got from it is that, from a narrative standpoint, the Catalyst looks like the child simply as a means of emotional manipulation. We are supposed to listen and understand the Catalyst, and some people have a hard time hating an "innocent" child.

This reminds me of another problem I had.

Shepard is lifted up to the heavens by a ray of light and meets an (allegedly) all knowing, all powerful being of light. The Catalyst, from a symbolic standpoint, is basically God. I assume this is a ham-fisted attempt to make the Catalyst appear more credible. If we equate him to God, he would clearly know more than we, and therefore we would not question his logic or his solutions. We, like Shepard, would simply nod and accept that the Reapers are good and that everything we have worked towards is basically a futile diversion to the real problem.

This is, again, an assumption and there are several reasons why the Catalyst is what it is. However, this was the feeling I got from the ending after some, ahem, speculation.

The allusion is slightly marred by the fact that if you get there with the minimum EMS he angrily asks "Why are you here?". When I watched a video of that I figured Shepard was probably thinking "I don't know. You Brought me here!" 

[ghost9191]

Devil Mingy wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

A thought I had.

What's the purpose of the Catalyst taking the shape of the child? As far as the character of the Catalyst, I could see it as an attempt to manipulate Shepard in a "you wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you" sort of way, but that's really it. Its choosing of this shape doesn't seem to be related to the dreams, other than pulling imagery from such a strong subconscious experience, though that in itself only serves to highlight the manipulative nature of the Catalyst.

In terms of the narrative, the Catalyst choosing this shape is a mystery to me.

I also want to say, once again, the the Catalyst isn't a very good catalyst at all.

The impression I got from it is that, from a narrative standpoint, the Catalyst looks like the child simply as a means of emotional manipulation. We are supposed to listen and understand the Catalyst, and some people have a hard time hating an "innocent" child.

This reminds me of another problem I had.

Shepard is lifted up to the heavens by a ray of light and meets an (allegedly) all knowing, all powerful being of light. The Catalyst, from a symbolic standpoint, is basically God. I assume this is a ham-fisted attempt to make the Catalyst appear more credible. If we equate him to God, he would clearly know more than we, and therefore we would not question his logic or his solutions. We, like Shepard, would simply nod and accept that the Reapers are good and that everything we have worked towards is basically a futile diversion to the real problem.

This is, again, an assumption and there are several reasons why the Catalyst is what it is. However, this was the feeling I got from the ending after some, ahem, speculation.

well if it is some kind of "god" let us use his logic and rebel against him, i got the feeling like there might be some religious meaning behind the end but i did not care, figured i have worked at this game to destroy the reapers and damn it that is what i will do.. that and i didn't trust the little guy. i smell shenanigans.

but as i was saying, his intentions might be good but there has to be a better way right

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Ashley or Kaidan wouldn't work as dream material because players new to ME don't know who they are.

Yes, but the characters of Ashley and Kaiden, and their emotional importance to Shepard, is explored over the course of the game. The young boy isn't expounded upon at all.

In fairness, it's not exactly as if ME3 spent much (if any) effort to make the rest of the game comprehensible to newcomers.

edisnooM wrote...

It could have been a narrative attempt to bring the story full circle, the child from the beginning is now at the end. But it does seem rather manipulative.

I think it was exactly that, including the manipulative aspect. With a dash of the nonthreatening aspect you mention, as well.

[Cplhunter]

First off, thanks to everyone for putting words what I could not on the ending.
Second thanks for keeping it civil, nice to know that's still possible these days (Glares at Internet in general).
I have very little to add since everything has been said and for that I apologize, but another thing that makes the endings wrong for me is that the only ending I consider 'canon' for my Shepard is the ending that is the opposite of his behavior the whole time. I play a Paragon Shepard and in the end what choice do I make? Destroy. I regret killing EDI and the Geth, especially since I stopped the war by yelling but you know what? I also hate the Reapers for what they do and I really want them to die, not go away because I said so or everyone now being part machine part organic, no I want them to die. I also want to live because I've fought hard and I've been willing to put up with just about anything but I really want to live at the end and I want to continue my relationship with Tali and see all my friends, only that isn't going to happen. In a way though it illustrates how human my character is in that he is makes choices that don't make sense from an outside perspective or indeed a logical perspective but maybe make sense to him at the time.

[ghost9191]

Cplhunter wrote...

First off, thanks to everyone for putting words what I could not on the ending.
Second thanks for keeping it civil, nice to know that's still possible these days (Glares at Internet in general).
I have very little to add since everything has been said and for that I apologize, but another thing that makes the endings wrong for me is that the only ending I consider 'canon' for my Shepard is the ending that is the opposite of his behavior the whole time. I play a Paragon Shepard and in the end what choice do I make? Destroy. I regret killing EDI and the Geth, especially since I stopped the war by yelling but you know what? I also hate the Reapers for what they do and I really want them to die, not go away because I said so or everyone now being part machine part organic, no I want them to die. I also want to live because I've fought hard and I've been willing to put up with just about anything but I really want to live at the end and I want to continue my relationship with Tali and see all my friends, only that isn't going to happen. In a way though it illustrates how human my character is in that he is makes choices that don't make sense from an outside perspective or indeed a logical perspective but maybe make sense to him at the time.

 i agree, personally i picked destroy in my first play through, and at that time i was 98% sure my character was gonna die. so through the manly tears i pushed for destroy because i believe it is the paragon  choice, partly because if you just convinced the illusive man to shoot himself control would be against what you believe. if you destroy then it ends today but what if you cant control them, something like that.

So i think that destroy is exactly what you have been fighting for, and you survive so there is still a chance (small chance) that the geth and edi will also. and there is no reason this "child" would tell you the truth, he just gets done saying that humans cannot keep their form and this is the only way but then gives you 3 option to stop the cycle, synthesis is what it always wanted and well control, "do you think you can control us" why risk it . i think synthesis goes  against everything you have fought for in the games, just a prettier version of husks and such. And control,. shepard says "you are messing with power you don't understand, you shouldnt be able to have" something like that. so i think taking the power for yourself not knowing for sure if it will work and going against everything you just get done saying to the illusive man as a paragon is the renegade choice. and synthesis is just stu[id.  my opinion though

so again i agree with you

Modifié par ghost9191, 07 mai 2012 - 09:28 .

[Hawk227]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

A thought I had.

What's the purpose of the Catalyst taking the shape of the child? As far as the character of the Catalyst, I could see it as an attempt to manipulate Shepard in a "you wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you" sort of way, but that's really it. Its choosing of this shape doesn't seem to be related to the dreams, other than pulling imagery from such a strong subconscious experience, though that in itself only serves to highlight the manipulative nature of the Catalyst.

In terms of the narrative, the Catalyst choosing this shape is a mystery to me.

I also want to say, once again, the the Catalyst isn't a very good catalyst at all.

That is a good point, and one I had forgotten. Bioware has been fairly straightforwared in their naming conventions. The crucible really is a test for the galaxy, shepard really is a shepherd, sovereign really was a nation unto itself, Harbinger really was did announce the approach of the Reapers, Legion really was many minds in one platform, but the catalyst was not a catalyst in any real sense. He was just a narrator.

However, I think the original catalyst, the citadel, would have fit the definition, more or less. It's energy reserves and connection to the relay network were needed to precipitate the Crucible's function, and if it had survived the reaction it would have fit really well. I think it's odd that they deviated from their fairly reliable naming conventions at the end.

[delta_vee]

Hawk227 wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

[...]

I also want to say, once again, the the Catalyst isn't a very good catalyst at all.

That is a good point, and one I had forgotten. Bioware has been fairly straightforwared in their naming conventions. The crucible really is a test for the galaxy, shepard really is a shepherd, sovereign really was a nation unto itself, Harbinger really was did announce the approach of the Reapers, Legion really was many minds in one platform, but the catalyst was not a catalyst in any real sense. He was just a narrator.

However, I think the original catalyst, the citadel, would have fit the definition, more or less. It's energy reserves and connection to the relay network were needed to precipitate the Crucible's function, and if it had survived the reaction it would have fit really well. I think it's odd that they deviated from their fairly reliable naming conventions at the end.

In the leaked script, the being at the top of the elevator was called "Guardian", and the Citadel was referred to as the Catalyst. Perhaps it was just a last-minute name change for the sake of familiarity on the player's part.

Then again, this was the same script which described the third ("perfect game") choice as "become one with the Reapers", so take that for what its worth.

[M.Erik.Sal]

You know, Shepard really fits the "role" of a Catalyst much better (not in any sense that's analogous to chemistry, but in a purely "this is a thing that causes change" sense) than anything else in narrative.

[drayfish]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
 
I can actually picture the dreams becoming a lot more emotional for both Shepard and the player just by replacing the child with the so-called "Virmire Victim".

"Why did you kill me?"

"Ash, I-..."

"It wasn't enough that I had to die for your stupid cause? Now you have to drag the rest of the galaxy down with you?!"

"I... I don't-..."

"YOU'RE KILLING US ALL, COMMANDER!"

Boom. Awake in a cold sweat.

Oh... I like that. I like that a lot. I must say I am loving the version of Mass Effect that you are all playing out in my head. Although I can probably see how that might not play as successfully for new players, for the returning ones that surely must have more punch than Random-In-Hoodie.
 

edisnooM wrote...
 
And yeah he doesn't really do anything Catalysty, considering he just gives info and points things out to us he could have been called the Signpost.

Ha. Nice. I completely agree. 
 
I suspect that the premise was for this character and this moment in the plot to act as a kind of evolution in the narrative – and for a number of responders in this thread that premise seems to have worked quite well, shifting the paradigm of the decision making to a grander scale – but personally, I felt really uncomfortable with Shepard ascending from her position as the universe's most reactive agent to the role of demigod – and certainly one that would leave behind one of those three options as her legacy.
 
To use a shamefully stupid analogy, for me, at present, he reminds me of Bill Cosby. 
 
Wait – let me finish...
 
I remember as a kid I would watch the Fat Albert cartoons, and at the end of every episode Bill Cosby (the real live Bill Cosby), would step into the program, usually in some kind of nondescript garden shed, with a garishly coloured skin-tight t-shirt, and recount the moral of the tale: 'And that's how Weird Harold learned not to judge people on appearances,' he would say, or, 'And so Rudy Davis learned not to try and fool his friends again,' or, 'And that was when the boys found the human skin suit in Mushmouth's basement...' (admittedly that was a weird episode, and may have been imaginary).
 
And then, delighted that we had been 'shown a thing or two' Bill would happily wave us on our way. Roll credits. 
 
It was a peculiar style, a little jarring (I never believed that corporeal Bill Cosby was really tossing that microphone to cartoon Fat Albert), but you bought into it because Bill really seemed to know what had been going on in the animated world. He remembered all the details of the story, tied all the thematic threads into a bow, and sent us on our way.
 
But the Catalyst seemed to have no idea what was going on in my story. Which is weird, because we are led to believe that Shepard's personal history is accessible enough for the creature to pick out a nice human-boy ensemble to wear from the memory collection, but doesn't bother to dig deeper and explore all the other experiences Shepard has had upon her journey.  The Geth; EDI; the armada of united organics and synthetics hovering outside, knocking on his window; he mentioned none of it, gave me some platitudes about 'making it this far', and then asked me to remake the universe while he stood in the corner pretending none of what I had done mattered.
 
Bill would have paid more attention.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 07 mai 2012 - 11:52 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Hah, thank you drayfish. I wrote that off the cuff, and after going back over it, I actually find that it applies to my analysis in a way.

I agree about Bill Cosby. He was always the go-to guy when it came to skin suits in the basement. I almost think the Catalyst should be replaced by a signpost.

"dis way 4 blu splosions lol"

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

Devil Mingy wrote...

The impression I got from it is that, from a narrative standpoint, the Catalyst looks like the child simply as a means of emotional manipulation. We are supposed to listen and understand the Catalyst, and some people have a hard time hating an "innocent" child.

 

Hmmm... I think that the star-child should get a little bit more credit than that.  The whole point of Shepard saving the galaxy is to ensure that life will go on. What better embodiment of human survival and tenacity than a child?

Furthermore, there's the scene in the very begining where the kid is playing with the model normandy. Shepard probably sees some of herself in that kid--a younger, more innocent self, sure, but herself, nonetheless. I mean, the kid's probably pretending that he's out in space, going on adventures and discovering new planets etc.. etc.. Which is really just a smaller version of what Shepard does throughout the games. 

If that's not foreshadowing, then I don't know what is.

And all this leads to the ending, where you've got two distinct ideas that help define the star-child: 1) he's a representation of the continuation of humanity and 2) he's a representation of Shepard herself. The irony behind it all is why I find the IT so compelling; you've got a child (i.e. representation of humanity's survival) telling Shepard that he controls the Reapers (which are designed to wipe out life).  And, if you take it one step further, you've got a representation of Shepard arguing with herself about the best way to save the galaxy. 

Anyway, that's my two-cents.

(I've also got a theory that because Shepard represents the player, and because the star-kid represents Shepard (by the transitive theory) the star-kid actually represents us.... (which is rather funny, because in the begining he's playing make-believe with the toy star-ship... ) and so the ending is supposed to indoctrinate the players themselves... Mess up the rigid Paragon/Renegade system... idk, just speculation... ) 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

Devil Mingy wrote...

The impression I got from it is that, from a narrative standpoint, the Catalyst looks like the child simply as a means of emotional manipulation. We are supposed to listen and understand the Catalyst, and some people have a hard time hating an "innocent" child.

 

Hmmm... I think that the star-child should get a little bit more credit than that.  The whole point of Shepard saving the galaxy is to ensure that life will go on. What better embodiment of human survival and tenacity than a child?

Furthermore, there's the scene in the very begining where the kid is playing with the model normandy. Shepard probably sees some of herself in that kid--a younger, more innocent self, sure, but herself, nonetheless. I mean, the kid's probably pretending that he's out in space, going on adventures and discovering new planets etc.. etc.. Which is really just a smaller version of what Shepard does throughout the games. 

If that's not foreshadowing, then I don't know what is.

And all this leads to the ending, where you've got two distinct ideas that help define the star-child: 1) he's a representation of the continuation of humanity and 2) he's a representation of Shepard herself. The irony behind it all is why I find the IT so compelling; you've got a child (i.e. representation of humanity's survival) telling Shepard that he controls the Reapers (which are designed to wipe out life).  And, if you take it one step further, you've got a representation of Shepard arguing with herself about the best way to save the galaxy. 

Anyway, that's my two-cents.

(I've also got a theory that because Shepard represents the player, and because the star-kid represents Shepard (by the transitive theory) the star-kid actually represents us.... (which is rather funny, because in the begining he's playing make-believe with the toy star-ship... ) and so the ending is supposed to indoctrinate the players themselves... Mess up the rigid Paragon/Renegade system... idk, just speculation... ) 

Point of order: the kid in the trailer playing with the Normandy is not the kid in the vents or the starchild.  The child in the trailer is a blonde girl, the vent kid is a boy with darker hair, who shares a silouette with the starkid.

So including the playing-with-the-normandy scene in any theory about the ending doesn't work. If it had been the same kid, I'd feel a lot different about the Starchild, I think.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 mai 2012 - 01:43 .

[delta_vee]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

Devil Mingy wrote...

The impression I got from it is that, from a narrative standpoint, the Catalyst looks like the child simply as a means of emotional manipulation. We are supposed to listen and understand the Catalyst, and some people have a hard time hating an "innocent" child.

 

Hmmm... I think that the star-child should get a little bit more credit than that.  The whole point of Shepard saving the galaxy is to ensure that life will go on. What better embodiment of human survival and tenacity than a child?

Furthermore, there's the scene in the very begining where the kid is playing with the model normandy. Shepard probably sees some of herself in that kid--a younger, more innocent self, sure, but herself, nonetheless. I mean, the kid's probably pretending that he's out in space, going on adventures and discovering new planets etc.. etc.. Which is really just a smaller version of what Shepard does throughout the games. 

If that's not foreshadowing, then I don't know what is.

And all this leads to the ending, where you've got two distinct ideas that help define the star-child: 1) he's a representation of the continuation of humanity and 2) he's a representation of Shepard herself. The irony behind it all is why I find the IT so compelling; you've got a child (i.e. representation of humanity's survival) telling Shepard that he controls the Reapers (which are designed to wipe out life).  And, if you take it one step further, you've got a representation of Shepard arguing with herself about the best way to save the galaxy. 

Anyway, that's my two-cents.

(I've also got a theory that because Shepard represents the player, and because the star-kid represents Shepard (by the transitive theory) the star-kid actually represents us.... (which is rather funny, because in the begining he's playing make-believe with the toy star-ship... ) and so the ending is supposed to indoctrinate the players themselves... Mess up the rigid Paragon/Renegade system... idk, just speculation... ) 

Point of order: the kid in the trailer playing with the Normandy is not the kid in the vents or the starchild.  The child in the trailer is a blonde girl, the vent kid is a boy with darker hair, who shares a silouette with the starkid.

So including the playing-with-the-normandy scene in any theory about the ending doesn't work. If it had been the same kid, I'd feel a lot different about the Starchild, I think.

Technically....

Having recently replayed the intro (ugh) the opening scene on Earth is Shep watching a boy on a rooftop park playing with, well, I think it was a fighter model, not the Normandy, but still a spaceship. I'm pretty sure it was ventkid.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Point of order: the kid in the trailer playing with the Normandy is not the kid in the vents or the starchild.  The child in the trailer is a blonde girl, the vent kid is a boy with darker hair, who shares a silouette with the starkid.

So including the playing-with-the-normandy scene in any theory about the ending doesn't work. If it had been the same kid, I'd feel a lot different about the Starchild, I think.

Errr... Maybe we're not talking about the same kid... This is the one I was refering to: Link. If you start at 1:20, you see a kid playing with a model space-ship. I also always assumed that the star-child used the same model as that kid. 

[Devil Mingy]

The kid at the beginning is also playing with a toy ship, but it's not the Normandy.

I admit that my interpretations of the Catalyst might be a bit biased, if only because of the form it takes. I always felt that the child was added for the purpose of emotional manipulation to the player. It didn't work for me because I'm not one to get sad just because the game is telling me I should be sad. To see this same figure show up (albeit in holographic form) and basically serve to manipulate Shepard (and me, by extension) to the Reaper's perspective while still not justifying what they do left a bad taste in my mouth.

Just as I was supposed to care about a character I don't know simply because I'm told I should care, I was supposed to accept the Reapers' philosophy simply because the Catalyst told me to and gave me no ability to object.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 08 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[delta_vee]

Devil Mingy wrote...

The kid at the beginning is also playing with a toy ship, but it's not the Normandy.

I admit that my interpretations of the Catalyst might be a bit biased, if only because of the form it takes. I always felt that the child was added for the purpose of emotional manipulation to the player. It didn't work for me because I'm not one to get sad just because the game is telling me I should be sad. To see this same figure show up (albeit in holographic form) and basically serve to manipulate Shepard (and me, by extension) to the Reaper's perspective while still not justifying what they do left a bad taste in my mouth.

Just as I was supposed to care about a character I don't know simply because I'm told I should care, I was supposed to accept the Reapers' philosophy simply because the Catalyst told me to and gave me no ability to object.

I wonder how much different your reaction would be if they'd used your Shepard's model with the holoskin, cut out the kid-voice and leave in the dueling Broshep/Femshep voices. (Although I suspect that would've driven IT adherents even further down the rabbit hole...)

[drayfish]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
 
Furthermore, there's the scene in the very begining where the kid is playing with the model normandy. Shepard probably sees some of herself in that kid--a younger, more innocent self, sure, but herself, nonetheless. I mean, the kid's probably pretending that he's out in space, going on adventures and discovering new planets etc.. etc.. Which is really just a smaller version of what Shepard does throughout the games.

If that's not foreshadowing, then I don't know what is.

That's lovely, JustifiablyDefenstrated. Indeed, that's why I agree with CulturalGeekGirl about that cinematic trailer – for some reason that girl getting blowed-up (off-screen) really effected me, all her childish abandon and wonder snuffed out by a dispassionate force of nature looming above her. But weirdly the boy – not so much. And I don't know why. There really is no explanation for my reaction; it's peculiar...  But I'm glad it did work for you, as that's clearly what was intended.  (And apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth.)
 

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
 
(I've also got a theory that because Shepard represents the player, and because the star-kid represents Shepard (by the transitive theory) the star-kid actually represents us.... (which is rather funny, because in the begining he's playing make-believe with the toy star-ship... ) and so the ending is supposed to indoctrinate the players themselves... Mess up the rigid Paragon/Renegade system... idk, just speculation... )

 
Oh, yes, please. Mmm hmm...
 
I must admit, I really don't know where I stand on believing Indoctrination Theory (Bioware's tepid response so far has seemed to somewhat dismiss it), but as I've ranted about in an earlier post, my goodness I would love if it were so... Having Shepard (and by extension the Player) awake from the most audacious (and in fact necessarily cruel) act of player trolling in the history of gaming, only to then fight on with a greater comprehension of the alluring pull of this mind-altering persuasive power that has rippled through the entire Mass Effect canon...
 
Well that would be...  Would be... Well there aren't even words to put into context what that would be, because it would necessitate a whole new descriptive language of player and text interaction. ('Cluster-Mind-frakafication' leaps to the tongue, but I'm currently working on very little sleep, and my last handful of thoughts have been about Fat Albert, so what the hell do I know?)
 
Mean?  Yes. Deceptive?  Yes. Misleading? Oh, my wordy, yes. But a rousing way in which to further bind the player to this character with whom they have journeyed, fought and loved? Sign me up.

Modifié par drayfish, 08 mai 2012 - 02:07 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Point of order: the kid in the trailer playing with the Normandy is not the kid in the vents or the starchild.  The child in the trailer is a blonde girl, the vent kid is a boy with darker hair, who shares a silouette with the starkid.

So including the playing-with-the-normandy scene in any theory about the ending doesn't work. If it had been the same kid, I'd feel a lot different about the Starchild, I think.

Errr... Maybe we're not talking about the same kid... This is the one I was refering to: Link. If you start at 1:20, you see a kid playing with a model space-ship. I also always assumed that the star-child used the same model as that kid. 

Oh yeah, sorry 'bout that... I thought you were talking about the girl from the trailer I linked earlier. I didn't even remember the kid in the intro, so I got confused.  My apologies.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 mai 2012 - 02:03 .

[Devil Mingy]

delta_vee wrote...

Devil Mingy wrote...

The kid at the beginning is also playing with a toy ship, but it's not the Normandy.

I admit that my interpretations of the Catalyst might be a bit biased, if only because of the form it takes. I always felt that the child was added for the purpose of emotional manipulation to the player. It didn't work for me because I'm not one to get sad just because the game is telling me I should be sad. To see this same figure show up (albeit in holographic form) and basically serve to manipulate Shepard (and me, by extension) to the Reaper's perspective while still not justifying what they do left a bad taste in my mouth.

Just as I was supposed to care about a character I don't know simply because I'm told I should care, I was supposed to accept the Reapers' philosophy simply because the Catalyst told me to and gave me no ability to object.

I wonder how much different your reaction would be if they'd used your Shepard's model with the holoskin, cut out the kid-voice and leave in the dueling Broshep/Femshep voices. (Although I suspect that would've driven IT adherents even further down the rabbit hole...)

While I'm not certain, I might actually be able to answer that.

I spoiled myself around December and read the leaked script, back when the Catalyst was merely "The Guardian" and nobody knew what it looked like. It also had a more fleshed out conversation with the Guardian (though it was still pretty damn one-sided) and didn't mention the Normandy stuff.

Overall, I didn't mind the Guardian as a character nor did I really feel like Shepard as a character was destroyed. It was still weird only seeing three endings, having the tech singularity just pop up, and the "Perfect ending" being described literally as "Shepard becomes one with the Reapers". It was abrupt, but Bioware did say it was an old script and things would change.

Overall, I much prefer the original, though it's basically just a slightly longer form of what we got in hindsight. Maybe I just didn't think about it too much because I hadn't seen it for myself yet.

So, maybe I would have been initially more accepting if the Catalyst had chosen a form that didn't completely repulse me. However, I think it would've sank in after a while that what it proposed and the actions I was forced to take were, as the title says, revolting.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 08 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

drayfish wrote...

That's lovely, JustifiablyDefenstrated. Indeed, that's why I agree with CulturalGeekGirl about that cinematic trailer – for some reason that girl getting blowed-up (off-screen) really effected me, all her childish abandon and wonder snuffed out by a dispassionate force of nature looming above her. But weirdly the boy – not so much. And I don't know why. There really is no explanation for my reaction; it's peculiar...  But I'm glad it did work for you, as that's clearly what was intended.  (Apologies if I'm putting word in your mouth).
 

  

No apologies necessary.  I agree that the I was more distraught by the girl's death in the trailer... I think it would have been pretty neat if they had switched the child's gender depending on whether Shep was a girl or guy. (Although, there has been some speculation over whether the girl in the trailer is actually Joker's sister).

 
I must admit, I really don't know where I stand on believing Indoctrination Theory (Bioware's tepid response so far has seemed to somewhat dismiss it), but as I've ranted about in an earlier post, my goodness I would love if it were so... Having Shepard (and by extension the Player) awake from the most audacious (and in fact necessarily cruel) act of player trolling in the history of gaming, only to then fight on with a greater comprehension of the alluring pull of this mind-altering persuasive power that has rippled through the entire Mass Effect canon...
 
Well that would be...  Would be... Well there aren't even words to put into context what that would be, because it would necessitate a whole new descriptive language of player and text interaction. ('Cluster-Mind-frakafication' leaps to the tongue, but I'm currently working on very little sleep, and my last handful of thoughts have been about Fat Albert, so what the hell do I know?)
 
Mean?  Yes. Deceptive?  Yes. Misleading? Oh, my wordy, yes. But a rousing way in which to further bind the player to this character with whom they have journeyed, fought and loved? Sign me up.

I agree with this 100%. It's just too mind-bendingly awesome to think that they could make an interactive medium so... interactive... on such a subversive scale.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Oh yeah, sorry 'bout that... I thought you were talking about the girl from the trailer I linked earlier. I didn't even remember the kid in the intro, so I got confused.  My apologies. 

No need to apologize. It's all good.

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 08 mai 2012 - 02:24 .

[edisnooM]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I must admit, I really don't know where I stand on believing Indoctrination Theory (Bioware's tepid response so far has seemed to somewhat dismiss it), but as I've ranted about in an earlier post, my goodness I would love if it were so... Having Shepard (and by extension the Player) awake from the most audacious (and in fact necessarily cruel) act of player trolling in the history of gaming, only to then fight on with a greater comprehension of the alluring pull of this mind-altering persuasive power that has rippled through the entire Mass Effect canon...
 
Well that would be...  Would be... Well there aren't even words to put into context what that would be, because it would necessitate a whole new descriptive language of player and text interaction. ('Cluster-Mind-frakafication' leaps to the tongue, but I'm currently working on very little sleep, and my last handful of thoughts have been about Fat Albert, so what the hell do I know?)
 
Mean?  Yes. Deceptive?  Yes. Misleading? Oh, my wordy, yes. But a rousing way in which to further bind the player to this character with whom they have journeyed, fought and loved? Sign me up.

I agree with this 100%. It's just too mind-bendingly awesome to think that they could make an interactive medium so... interactive... on such a subversive scale.

I really liked the idea of IT. When I started reading about it and looking at what was in the game I thought it was fascinating, that BioWare may have not only indoctrinated Shepard but us as well into thinking this was real.

However I don't see how Bioware can use it now. If they do they'll be blasted for pandering and using a fan theory even if it was what they had planned all along. And people that are satisfied with the ending as is will be upset that Bioware ruined what they had enjoyed. 

If it was their plan they should have had it planned and ready to deploy in some form or another soon after ME3s release. But their non-commital attitude towards it one way or another has made it a bit of a pariah in my opinion.

Maybe they can somehow pull it off but I think there is probably too much collateral damage associated with IT now.

[KitaSaturnyne]

I've always been put off by IT. While a lot of its arguments are indeed compelling and can be seen as valid in a number of different ways, there's just something about it that gives me pause. Most of the arguments given feel like they were cobbled together by someone grasping at straws.

Regarding the plot, it makes things more confusing to me.

According to IT, Shepard gets annihilated by a giant death laser, and is apparently lying on the ground about to die. Harbinger, apparently finding value in a broken and massively hemmorriging soldier, continues hammering away at Shepard's psyche.

The part that really makes me unable to invest in IT is the way the Rachni Queen's "oily shadows" remark was misinterpreted, almost to the point of being taken out of context. This misinterpretation presents its own plot holes, never mind the ending of ME3.