6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

robertthebard wrote...

I have viewed every video game I have ever played as their story.  No matter how many choices I may get in dialog, and let's use DA: O as a prime example, the story is still going to one place.  Now, that place can have varying outcomes, depending on how you want to approach it, but the main story arc is still BW's story.  It doesn't matter if you save the elves or the werewolves, either side will fight for you when it counts.  It doesn't matter if you save the mages or destroy them.  All of these "choices" result in the same thing, forces at Denerim.  I could not, on my City Elf, wait for Denerim to burn to kill the Archdemon.  I could not tell the various treaty races to solve their own petty squabbles and do what the treaty implies.  I could not, if I'd wanted to, avoid getting involved in politics, despite the fact that the Grey Wardens aren't supposed to get involved in politics, which is how they got kicked out of Ferelden in the first place.  It's all BW's story, and, interestingly enough, all of these points were discussed when Origins was new and exciting.  You are always limited by the writer's idea.

But by that same example, your chocies changed the story.  As you said, your story determined if you had elves or werewolves help against the Archdemon (and perhaps is Zathrien was there to help you as well)  Your actions determined if you had golems with your dwarven army, mages or templars, and so on. 

And most importantly, you determined how the archdemon was slain.  And what people say about it afterwards. 

No, you can't let Denerim fall.  In a computer game, there will always be limits.  But in a good rpg, the limits won't feel so...limiting...

The secret to good railroading is gettig  the player to think this was the path they were going to take anyway.

[Ozida]

robertthebard wrote...
...That's my point about the right thing.  To me, adding an exportable save right there at the beam would have meant that I was completely happy with the game.  Instead, if I like a Shepard variant enough to replay it, I have to make myself ignore the biggest flaw I see in the game, and sit through the various dialogs to get to where I can export.  Sucks to be me in that my right thing would never be supported by the community:  The Right Thing

Well, maybe it's not a right thing then? I am just using your issue as an example, but technically, what is "right" and "wrong" is not subjective, it's determined by masses (if it doesn't go against basic logic and laws, obviously). I guess, the term more communly used is "popular", but it still simmilar to a "right thing".
For example, if 9 people decide that it is "right" to cross street on green light for various factors, and 1 thinks that it is "right" to cross on red light, the "right" solution will be picked based on masses. Here the democracy goes for you.

So if there are over 100 pages on thread asking to do a "right" thing with many people (I won't go for exact numbers) supporting it, it must be "right" for a large group of people. Once again, BioWare never really published their numbers, so we can only guess regarding "majority"/ "minority". However, even if people supporting this thread are "minority", it seems to be a "right" thing for this particular group of people, do you agree?

The question, however, comes down to how to treat such situations? Let's look at OP: what we are asking for is not a drastic change and it won't affect majority, who thinks that we are "wrong". Now we can be ignored, we can be lectured or we can be assisted with our request. What is the right way to go? Well, it will be determined by masses at BioWare department.

P.S. Sorry if my points are confusing, it's a bit hard to hold debate in other language.

[3DandBeyond]

Ozida wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
...That's my point about the right thing.  To me, adding an exportable save right there at the beam would have meant that I was completely happy with the game.  Instead, if I like a Shepard variant enough to replay it, I have to make myself ignore the biggest flaw I see in the game, and sit through the various dialogs to get to where I can export.  Sucks to be me in that my right thing would never be supported by the community:  The Right Thing

Well, maybe it's not a right thing then? I am just using your issue as an example, but technically, what is "right" and "wrong" is not subjective, it's determined by masses (if it doesn't go against basic logic and laws, obviously). I guess, the term more communly used is "popular", but it still simmilar to a "right thing".
For example, if 9 people decide that it is "right" to cross street on green light for various factors, and 1 thinks that it is "right" to cross on red light, the "right" solution will be picked based on masses. Here the democracy goes for you.

So if there are over 100 pages on thread asking to do a "right" thing with many people (I won't go for exact numbers) supporting it, it must be "right" for a large group of people. Once again, BioWare never really published their numbers, so we can only guess regarding "majority"/ "minority". However, even if people supporting this thread are "minority", it seems to be a "right" thing for this particular group of people, do you agree?

The question, however, comes down to how to treat such situations? Let's look at OP: what we are asking for is not a drastic change and it won't affect majority, who thinks that we are "wrong". Now we can be ignored, we can be lectured or we can be assisted with our request. What is the right way to go? Well, it will be determined by masses at BioWare department.

P.S. Sorry if my points are confusing, it's a bit hard to hold debate in other language.

Exactly and very well put.  I am in awe of anyone able to write so well and express things so well in a non-native language.  My only language besides English is baby talk and I don't think I do so well with that since my nephew's baby looks confused when I use it.

[robertthebard]

iakus wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I have viewed every video game I have ever played as their story.  No matter how many choices I may get in dialog, and let's use DA: O as a prime example, the story is still going to one place.  Now, that place can have varying outcomes, depending on how you want to approach it, but the main story arc is still BW's story.  It doesn't matter if you save the elves or the werewolves, either side will fight for you when it counts.  It doesn't matter if you save the mages or destroy them.  All of these "choices" result in the same thing, forces at Denerim.  I could not, on my City Elf, wait for Denerim to burn to kill the Archdemon.  I could not tell the various treaty races to solve their own petty squabbles and do what the treaty implies.  I could not, if I'd wanted to, avoid getting involved in politics, despite the fact that the Grey Wardens aren't supposed to get involved in politics, which is how they got kicked out of Ferelden in the first place.  It's all BW's story, and, interestingly enough, all of these points were discussed when Origins was new and exciting.  You are always limited by the writer's idea.

But by that same example, your chocies changed the story.  As you said, your story determined if you had elves or werewolves help against the Archdemon (and perhaps is Zathrien was there to help you as well)  Your actions determined if you had golems with your dwarven army, mages or templars, and so on. 

And most importantly, you determined how the archdemon was slain.  And what people say about it afterwards. 

No, you can't let Denerim fall.  In a computer game, there will always be limits.  But in a good rpg, the limits won't feel so...limiting...

The secret to good railroading is gettig  the player to think this was the path they were going to take anyway.

Which initially fell flat in DA: O.  People discussed all these choices then, but then conviently misplaced their disagreement to argue against DA 2.  Regardless, we are still left with the "choice is an illusion" premise.  It alters your forces, but doesn't change the basic story.  Somebody in this topic asked if the end result of ME 3 was Shepard dies, and everyone knew it going in, would they have played anyway, and I said yes.  I mean that, if it ended at Harbinger, I would have restarted another game with the same Shepard to try other things that I didn't say or do in the first run.  As it stands, I've now been to the beam 13 times, with two saves that finished the game so that I could replay that particular Shepard, the rest, most of which are deleted since I won't be going on with them, are time spent enjoying the journey, but wasted in the sense that I can't reuse them.  But just because a lot of people think something is "right" doesn't mean it necessarily is; a lot of people thought it was right to abuse drugs in the 60's.  Did I miss something there?

[robertthebard]

Ozida wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
...That's my point about the right thing.  To me, adding an exportable save right there at the beam would have meant that I was completely happy with the game.  Instead, if I like a Shepard variant enough to replay it, I have to make myself ignore the biggest flaw I see in the game, and sit through the various dialogs to get to where I can export.  Sucks to be me in that my right thing would never be supported by the community:  The Right Thing

Well, maybe it's not a right thing then? I am just using your issue as an example, but technically, what is "right" and "wrong" is not subjective, it's determined by masses (if it doesn't go against basic logic and laws, obviously). I guess, the term more communly used is "popular", but it still simmilar to a "right thing".
For example, if 9 people decide that it is "right" to cross street on green light for various factors, and 1 thinks that it is "right" to cross on red light, the "right" solution will be picked based on masses. Here the democracy goes for you.

So if there are over 100 pages on thread asking to do a "right" thing with many people (I won't go for exact numbers) supporting it, it must be "right" for a large group of people. Once again, BioWare never really published their numbers, so we can only guess regarding "majority"/ "minority". However, even if people supporting this thread are "minority", it seems to be a "right" thing for this particular group of people, do you agree?

The question, however, comes down to how to treat such situations? Let's look at OP: what we are asking for is not a drastic change and it won't affect majority, who thinks that we are "wrong". Now we can be ignored, we can be lectured or we can be assisted with our request. What is the right way to go? Well, it will be determined by masses at BioWare department.

P.S. Sorry if my points are confusing, it's a bit hard to hold debate in other language.

I'm actually not having a hard time understanding you.  Kudos for the effort it must take to continue a discussion in a language not your own.

In context with the dialog here, right and wrong are certainly subjective, however.  As you point out, people didn't see my Right Thing as the right thing, and they are not wrong to do that, therefore, since I see it as right, and others don't it must be subjective.  Since they are subjective, it's hard to deal with them as absolutes, and this is a mistake I see made by both "sides" in these debates.  If a Pro-Ender expresses their satisfaction, they are a drone, or worse, and I have seen a lot worse.  If an Anti-Ender complains, they are viewed as a whiner, or worse, and I have seen much worse, but the fact is, since there are factions, right or wrong must be subjective, in context. 

[SpamBot2000]

Incidentally, regarding numbers... have those guys who were doing the big survey last month released any results yet?

[3DandBeyond]

It's occurred to me in another post that the kid thinks anything that is something he suddenly knows is possible is inevitable and so it becomes something he must work to achieve.

He knows killer robots are possible so it's inevitable they will occur so he must create them (reapers).
He knows about synthesis so it's inevitable (ugh) that it will occur so he must make it happen.

I wish for him to see that the destruction of the reapers is possible so it's inevitable and voila!

[Ozida]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Incidentally, regarding numbers... have those guys who were doing the big survey last month released any results yet?

I wish they did, but I don't think they have yet. It must be a lot of data to proceed with.

[SpamBot2000]

Ozida wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Incidentally, regarding numbers... have those guys who were doing the big survey last month released any results yet?

I wish they did, but I don't think they have yet. It must be a lot of data to proceed with.

Yeah, I bet. Really curious about the results.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

I'm actually not having a hard time understanding you.  Kudos for the effort it must take to continue a discussion in a language not your own.

In context with the dialog here, right and wrong are certainly subjective, however.  As you point out, people didn't see my Right Thing as the right thing, and they are not wrong to do that, therefore, since I see it as right, and others don't it must be subjective.  Since they are subjective, it's hard to deal with them as absolutes, and this is a mistake I see made by both "sides" in these debates.  If a Pro-Ender expresses their satisfaction, they are a drone, or worse, and I have seen a lot worse.  If an Anti-Ender complains, they are viewed as a whiner, or worse, and I have seen much worse, but the fact is, since there are factions, right or wrong must be subjective, in context. 

However, what I've attempted to do here is to explain what I think is the right thing and to find a way to not have it interfere with the "right thing" of the status quo.

I might well agree with your right thing, but can't see that as ever happening in the scheme of things, but I'm not disregarding it.  I'm not telling BW to disregard anything even a complete re-do (which since I live in reality, I know will not happen).  I am stating a right thing as a large group of people see it. 

I view it kind of like this.  I might think the right thing is world peace (it's an example ok).  But, I know logically this is a huge wish.  So, I must deal with smaller more realistic chunks.  The right thing then is that people in my neighborhood all get along.  Does that mean that world peace isn't the right thing as I've defined it?  No.  It just means that I must accept less lofty things-smaller portions of what I consider to be right.  I may always want what I consider to be the most right thing, but in order to go forward I bit off a piece that helps and that I can go with.

I'm not asking for an intrusion here on any pro-enders right thing.  I'm asking for something outside of that.  And in asking for things, I'm not asking them to change the status quo for you, either.  I can't ask for what you want-that's on you to do that if you care enough about it.  If you don't, then what you have now should be sufficient.  And what I and others want needn't conflict with that.

Just like as it is now, a lot of people prefer to play as a renegade or they like the low EMS ending better.  I don't, so I never have to see them or play that way.  But, beyond that I do wish for and can ask for BW to take a look again and see if they can find it in their resources and in their hearts to make the game playable for those that are now left out-and I can ask them to do it not for free but for money and in the least destructive way (in game and outside of the game) possible.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 septembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[3DandBeyond]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ozida wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Incidentally, regarding numbers... have those guys who were doing the big survey last month released any results yet?

I wish they did, but I don't think they have yet. It must be a lot of data to proceed with.

Yeah, I bet. Really curious about the results.

Hmm the only one I think I've seen was regarding romance DLC.

[Iakus]

robertthebard wrote...

Which initially fell flat in DA: O.  People discussed all these choices then, but then conviently misplaced their disagreement to argue against DA 2.  Regardless, we are still left with the "choice is an illusion" premise.  It alters your forces, but doesn't change the basic story.  Somebody in this topic asked if the end result of ME 3 was Shepard dies, and everyone knew it going in, would they have played anyway, and I said yes.  I mean that, if it ended at Harbinger, I would have restarted another game with the same Shepard to try other things that I didn't say or do in the first run.  As it stands, I've now been to the beam 13 times, with two saves that finished the game so that I could replay that particular Shepard, the rest, most of which are deleted since I won't be going on with them, are time spent enjoying the journey, but wasted in the sense that I can't reuse them.  But just because a lot of people think something is "right" doesn't mean it necessarily is; a lot of people thought it was right to abuse drugs in the 60's.  Did I miss something there?

And here I thought the choices in DAO worked very well, as not only were they self-contrained stories, but in the end came together to show who your allies were at the end. 

And of course, I like reading ending slides, knowing what the more far reaching consequences are certainly better than concept art slides)

As to whether I'd have played the game, I can honestly say, probably not.  If Shepard's death was possible but not inevitable, then I could try out the endings and feel like this is an outcome I chose.

But if Shepard dies however you twist and regardless of chocie, it turns the game into the Kobyashi Maru. A no-win scenerio.    As Tony Stark said "There is no throne.  There is no outcome here where you come out ahead" All you can do is pick how you lose.

[AngryFrozenWater]

If the DLC only changes stuff when you buy it then it won't change anything for those who are happy with the current ending and thus don't need to buy it. Then all BW needs to do is to figure out whether enough people are willing to buy it or not. And to figure out if that indeed makes a profit. So, if this plan gets a green light then everyone is happy. How could this plan be wrong in that case?

[Ozida]

to 3DandBeyond
First of all, thank you for your kind words, although, I must say that I see no better way to politely and and respectfully bring message to BioWare as you do in your posts.
Secondly, the survey we are referring too is "Collaborate Open ME3 Endings Survey" or something like that (just search for "Open" or "Collaborate").

EDIT: Here is the link: http://social.biowar...ndex/13359773/1

-----------------------------------
to robertthebard,
I see your point and I somewhat agree with it. Although, some part of me still wants to scream out: "Please, BioWare, just satisfy me selfish desires!", lol

Modifié par Ozida, 06 septembre 2012 - 04:07 .

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ozida wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Incidentally, regarding numbers... have those guys who were doing the big survey last month released any results yet?

I wish they did, but I don't think they have yet. It must be a lot of data to proceed with.

Yeah, I bet. Really curious about the results.

Hmm the only one I think I've seen was regarding romance DLC.

And much as I love that idea, I fear implementing a dlc like that would only make these endings more depressing.

[3DandBeyond]

Ozida wrote...

to 3DandBeyond
First of all, thank you for your kind words, although, I must say that I see no better way to politely and and respectfully bring message to BioWare as you do in your posts.
Secondly, the survey we are referring too is "Collaborate Open ME3 Endings Survey" or something like that (just search for "Open" or "Collaborate").

to robertthebard,
I see your point and I somewhat agree with it. Although, some part of me still wants to scream out: "Please, BioWare, just satisfy me selfish desires!", lol

Well, see everyone is selfish but badly so when the desire is only based on what they want and does not consider others' wishes.  It may still be selfish if a lot of people want it.  That doesn't make it wrong.  We're all selfish all the time.  If someone says you shouldn't have what you want-that's selfish.  If I say I should have what I want-that is too.  Selfishness is a part of everything.  We buy products because we want them, not because we think it's just great to give people our money.  They appeal to a selfish need (a want).  Buying games and playing them is selfish.  It certainly isn't selfless.  If I am hungry and eat a sandwich, that's selfish.

What's horrid is unbridled selfishness.  It's knowingly going after something with no concern for anyone else's wishes and no attempt to understand much less care about what they want.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 septembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hmm the only one I think I've seen was regarding romance DLC.

And much as I love that idea, I fear implementing a dlc like that would only make these endings more depressing.

Yes, I see other DLC as more desirable with a decent (IMO) ending.  I'd love all of it, if I could just like the ending.

[Hackulator]

Dead Horses: We Beat Them

[3DandBeyond]

Hackulator wrote...

Dead Horses: We Beat Them

There's every possibility the horse is sleeping unless you shoot it.

[SpamBot2000]

Oh, the nag is still prancing in the paddock.

[3DandBeyond]

Ozida wrote...

to 3DandBeyond
First of all, thank you for your kind words, although, I must say that I see no better way to politely and and respectfully bring message to BioWare as you do in your posts.
Secondly, the survey we are referring too is "Collaborate Open ME3 Endings Survey" or something like that (just search for "Open" or "Collaborate").

EDIT: Here is the link: http://social.biowar...ndex/13359773/1

-----------------------------------
to robertthebard,
I see your point and I somewhat agree with it. Although, some part of me still wants to scream out: "Please, BioWare, just satisfy me selfish desires!", lol

Ah, ok thanks.  I did complete this one too.

[Redbelle]

iakus wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Which initially fell flat in DA: O.  People discussed all these choices then, but then conviently misplaced their disagreement to argue against DA 2.  Regardless, we are still left with the "choice is an illusion" premise.  It alters your forces, but doesn't change the basic story.  Somebody in this topic asked if the end result of ME 3 was Shepard dies, and everyone knew it going in, would they have played anyway, and I said yes.  I mean that, if it ended at Harbinger, I would have restarted another game with the same Shepard to try other things that I didn't say or do in the first run.  As it stands, I've now been to the beam 13 times, with two saves that finished the game so that I could replay that particular Shepard, the rest, most of which are deleted since I won't be going on with them, are time spent enjoying the journey, but wasted in the sense that I can't reuse them.  But just because a lot of people think something is "right" doesn't mean it necessarily is; a lot of people thought it was right to abuse drugs in the 60's.  Did I miss something there?

And here I thought the choices in DAO worked very well, as not only were they self-contrained stories, but in the end came together to show who your allies were at the end. 

And of course, I like reading ending slides, knowing what the more far reaching consequences are certainly better than concept art slides)

As to whether I'd have played the game, I can honestly say, probably not.  If Shepard's death was possible but not inevitable, then I could try out the endings and feel like this is an outcome I chose.

But if Shepard dies however you twist and regardless of chocie, it turns the game into the Kobyashi Maru. A no-win scenerio.    As Tony Stark said "There is no throne.  There is no outcome here where you come out ahead" All you can do is pick how you lose.

Question: Are you basing your opinion on the ending of mass effect as it currently stands, i.e. the ECDLC. Or as it was before the ECDLC?

I think its important to differentiate as the non ECDLC painted a picture of galaxy wide devastation, by implication and previously established lore, regardless of what ending you chose.

When BW learned of what they had done, as the fans painted a very convincing argument that the galaxy had just been smoked and everyone near Earth was now potentially facing starvation, they stepped up and rectified the percived implications of the player actions by converting previous scenes into ones that acknowledged its own history and resulted in npcs being given the chance to tug once more at our heartstrings.

The two endings may have similar flaws but between them is a statement from a writer on the team who had this to say

"For me, Anderson’s goodbye is where it ended. The stuff with the
Catalyst just… You have to understand. Casey is really smart and really
analytical. And the problem is that when he’s not checked, he will
assume that other people are like him, and will really appreciate an
almost completely unemotional intellectual ending. I didn’t hate it, but
I didn’t love it."


It is this unemotional vs emotional, connect with your player and keep them believing in the world that developer make for us that they got right with DA:O. From start to finish, as a self contained game it worked brilliantly as it always came back to defeating the darkspawn.

ME may have gone for synth vs orgs. But thats a message and a story I've heard numbnerous times. The best narrative of this theme in recent time probably came from battlestar galactica as their creations struggled to come to terms as to their place in the universe through faith, governance, self defence etc.

Modifié par Redbelle, 06 septembre 2012 - 04:49 .

[robertthebard]

Ozida wrote...

to 3DandBeyond
First of all, thank you for your kind words, although, I must say that I see no better way to politely and and respectfully bring message to BioWare as you do in your posts.
Secondly, the survey we are referring too is "Collaborate Open ME3 Endings Survey" or something like that (just search for "Open" or "Collaborate").

EDIT: Here is the link: http://social.biowar...ndex/13359773/1

-----------------------------------
to robertthebard,
I see your point and I somewhat agree with it. Although, some part of me still wants to scream out: "Please, BioWare, just satisfy me selfish desires!", lol

Nothing at all wrong with that, despite some of the negativity to the contrary.  I posted that thread I linked earlier fishing for support for my wish, after all.  I'd be pretty hypocritical to claim it's a bad thing.  I realize some people can't quite pin me down, since I seem like I'm all over the place sometimes, but really, I'm just here for the beer.  I'm neither for nor against 3D, or her ideas.  They don't adversely or positively affect my experience in ME 3, unless somewhere in there I get either my save, or a way to get to TIM/SC w/out having to swallow another DeM.  Then I'd have to support at least that one, and go from there.

[robertthebard]

iakus wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Which initially fell flat in DA: O.  People discussed all these choices then, but then conviently misplaced their disagreement to argue against DA 2.  Regardless, we are still left with the "choice is an illusion" premise.  It alters your forces, but doesn't change the basic story.  Somebody in this topic asked if the end result of ME 3 was Shepard dies, and everyone knew it going in, would they have played anyway, and I said yes.  I mean that, if it ended at Harbinger, I would have restarted another game with the same Shepard to try other things that I didn't say or do in the first run.  As it stands, I've now been to the beam 13 times, with two saves that finished the game so that I could replay that particular Shepard, the rest, most of which are deleted since I won't be going on with them, are time spent enjoying the journey, but wasted in the sense that I can't reuse them.  But just because a lot of people think something is "right" doesn't mean it necessarily is; a lot of people thought it was right to abuse drugs in the 60's.  Did I miss something there?

And here I thought the choices in DAO worked very well, as not only were they self-contrained stories, but in the end came together to show who your allies were at the end. 

And of course, I like reading ending slides, knowing what the more far reaching consequences are certainly better than concept art slides)

As to whether I'd have played the game, I can honestly say, probably not.  If Shepard's death was possible but not inevitable, then I could try out the endings and feel like this is an outcome I chose.

But if Shepard dies however you twist and regardless of chocie, it turns the game into the Kobyashi Maru. A no-win scenerio.    As Tony Stark said "There is no throne.  There is no outcome here where you come out ahead" All you can do is pick how you lose.

I enjoyed DA: O immensely, and it was the first game I installed on this rig when I updated to a 64 bit OS, only to find that there was nothing in particular I wanted to play that required one...  Maybe some day.  However, the discussions exist on the forum, and the point was that even in a well received game, choices don't always make people happy.  I had Wardens that embraced the whole idea of a being a Warden as the next best thing to sliced bread, and Wardens that kicked and screamed all the way through it.  I had a HN Female that absolutely loved Alistair, although the rest of my Wardens despised him, and my FemCE was the one that finally set my mindset against him forever, and was the reason for the Kleenex box in my sig.  It was, initially, intended for Alistair.  I love the character, but hate the person, which may sound like a contradiction, but instead speaks to quality of writing.  Some people love him, some love to hate him, I'm one of the latter, I'm afraid.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...
snipped---

It is this unemotional vs emotional, connect with your player and keep them believing in the world that developer make for us that they got right with DA:O. From start to finish, as a self contained game it worked brilliantly as it always came back to defeating the darkspawn.

ME may have gone for synth vs orgs. But thats a message and a story I've heard numbnerous times. The best narrative of this theme in recent time probably came from battlestar galactica as their creations struggled to come to terms as to their place in the universe through faith, governance, self defence etc.

I think this hits it at its core.  Stories are based upon creating emotional connections.  That doesn't mean you have to love everybody.  In fact, stories are often created where you hate a lot of the characters.  You can even dislike the protagonist of a story.

However, that's diverging from what you are talking about.  ME was a game the created those emotional connections-people you really liked and identified with or wanted to.  That's ripped away at the end.  I don't feel like Shepard is me anymore (the protagonist is supposed to be you in the story-who you most identify with).  I don't feel like the reapers are the reapers anymore.  The antagonist is supposed to be the counterpoint to the protagonist at the end.  They loom large because I consciously refuse to see them as anything other than abhorrent unnatural things. 

The kid becomes this antagonist that wants to be friends and needs Shepard's help.  "Can you help me?"  "Perhaps."  Ok, no.  Either you can or you can't.  Since the answer was not "yes" that means you're gonna fake it.  "Can I help you?"  "You sure can.  I have a problem only you can solve."  This gets to the core of the problem.  Shepard most certainly can help the kid, but the kid cannot with certainty help Shepard.  So, he is the antagonist no matter what kind of sad and lonely, misused AI he is.  He can't say if he can help me, then he is a hindrance.  He's in my way.  Every second of delay in talking to him means how many more will die?

And the killer robots in space thing is really old.  It's like synthetic beings are just these not even 2 dimensional beings-they hate or love organics.  Wow, just like organics live within a reality where everything is hate or love.  It's also the fact that everything swirls around how synthetics feel about organics.  The robot in the corner when he gets super smart will want to be just like you or want to kill you.  Well that's arrogant.  If organics were just human, say, this would be an idea that when robots get smart everything they want and will do is human-centric.  I think this does the concept of synthetic life a disservice.  Just because Number 5 is alive, doesn't mean its life has to revolve around us.