253 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Did anyone say "Hey its the kid, looks like he'll have a bright future" in a sarcastic tone? lol

[The Spamming Troll]

the kid sucked. the dreams sucked. the catalyst sucked.

i hate ME3 because of the things i just listed.

and more.

doesnt the demo contain the kid dyeing? its like the focal point of the story, and bam, contained righ in the demo for free. shoulda never bought ME3! i can see that stupid kid die for free.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:03 .

[chuckles471]

"Y'know what I say.... **** THE CHILDREN." George Carlin.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah I'll have to agree with that. I got what the dreams were trying to say (or at least what I thought they were trying to say) but it wasn't particularly emotional for me.

It's like you said earier he was just a stand in to act as the face of people dying in this conflict. trouble is a character we have almost no emtional attachment towards won't carry that burden well. It should have really been we knew for it to more effective at toying with our emotions, like whoever we left behind on Virmire or whoever didn't survive ME2, they nailed that part with the whispering voices during the dream sequences it always baffled me why they didn't just use Kaidan's or Ash's in game models.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:25 .

[C9316]

AllThatJazz wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Arokel wrote...

Yes. I don't know why people didn't.

1. We only interacted with the character for about a minute
2. He kinda sealed his own fate by refusing our help (and in quite the idiotic fashion if I might add)
3. The way he's forced upon you in those dreams makes you kinda despise him
4. And of course, the ending.

In response (and playing devil's advocate to some degree )

1. Why does this matter? If you saw a child being literally blown to pieces in front of you, would your response honestly be 'who gives a damn, I don't even know the kid'?? If yes, then *backs away slowly*, but if you would care (and I honestly think most human beings really would), then how come Shepard wouldn't?

2. You think that terrified kids are at fault for their own deaths? A little boy has just seen a monster straight from nightmares start blowing things up around him; terrified, he hides, and, yes, refuses help from a complete stranger, and then dies because of that. Your response is , effectively' 'serves him right'??????????????? wtf mate??!? 

3. Sort of agree, but it just wouldn't work with anyone else. He's supposed to symbolise all the people Shepard doesn't know, the people who never got a choice about whether to join the war, the people who were just mown down by something they never stood a chance against. Soldiers don't represent this idea as well as civilians.

4. Yeah, that's the kicker, I think. If the Catalyst hadn't chosen the kid to be his 'form', then I honestly think that the kid wouldn't be drawing such hatred from the BSN. At worst, he's a bit of a clumsy plot device. But throw the Catalyst in there and he's enemy no.1

Fair points, but allow me to respond

1. My personal reaction would be one of pity for the loss of life, regardless of age. But this isn't about me specifically, this is about Shepard and I for one had a couple of shepards who would've easily shaken the kid's death off as a casualty of war. Think about shepards who went through harrowing experiences like Akuze or Torfan, unless you roleplayed said shepard have a severe case of PTSD seeing a child blown up shouldn't affect him or her anymore than seeing their squad devoured by Thresher Maws or killed off on Torfan and those things barely even affect shepard apparently.

2. Let's review what he says; "Everyone's dying" to "You can't help me". To refuse the help of two competent soldiers and then go off on his own just to end up dying is his own fault. If he simply wanted to hide perhaps he should've just stayed in that vent until the resistance was more widespread. 

3. Forced symbolism is still forced in this case. They could've done this in a much better fashion, the nightmares could've been similar to the visions shepard had of the prothean's destruction except instead of prothean silhouettes they could've been human. Or how about they actually reflected the entire state of the galaxy being laid siege upon and not just earth because last time I checked the entire galaxy was at war and I can certainly name a few places I value more than earth in ME. 

4. Clumsy plot device is an understatement, his entire point is to force emotions of sadness from you as if you didn't already have enough to be emotional about, oh right this is the best place to start, what better way to start this off than showing how utterly hopeless your fight is just before you introduce the off button the rest of the game is centered around?

[Xerxes52]

It felt bad the first time I saw it, but then they pretty much ran it into the ground with the recurring dream scenes, and finally the last of my sympathy evaporated with the Catalyst.

[Snovicus]

Man, this topic is still going?

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Snovicus, 30 octobre 2012 - 05:26 .

[mrbthq]

After all the stuff my renegade sheperd did in mass effect 1 and 2 he shouldn't have cared that much, he would have just cared about getting the job done, but all of a sudden he gets all wimpy and weak in Mass Effect 3 for some reason.

[Col.Aurion]

jakal66 wrote...

All I can read is some seriously angry butt hurt people...being critical about everything in this game.

I felt the sequence was emotional,yes it wasn't original, but I did what it was supposed to do, the dreams are just a representation of those he lost, the kid taking the central role, as an innocent victiom he couldn't save. Everybody's talking trash cuz the catalyst takes his form...if the catalyst would have taken the form of the Virmire dead squaddie nobody would have said ****...

Hypocrisy is well fitting in these forums...but you know opinions are like buttholes, everyone's got one including myself...

eh shad up whiner

[zqrahll]

I cared that a company supposedly skilled at videogame writing would use such a lame, ham-fisted over-wrought failure of an attempt to pull on my heartstrings. Honestly, I think the little girl in the commercial is about a 1000% better, even though it is basically the same thing.

[RustySam]

zqrahll wrote...

I cared that a company supposedly skilled at videogame writing would use such a lame, ham-fisted over-wrought failure of an attempt to pull on my heartstrings. Honestly, I think the little girl in the commercial is about a 1000% better, even though it is basically the same thing.

Agreed. Bioware should hire the guys from their advertisement department to write the upcoming games. Because apparently they're better at it than the current writers.

[AllThatJazz]

C9316 wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Arokel wrote...

Yes. I don't know why people didn't.

1. We only interacted with the character for about a minute
2. He kinda sealed his own fate by refusing our help (and in quite the idiotic fashion if I might add)
3. The way he's forced upon you in those dreams makes you kinda despise him
4. And of course, the ending.

In response (and playing devil's advocate to some degree )

1. Why does this matter? If you saw a child being literally blown to pieces in front of you, would your response honestly be 'who gives a damn, I don't even know the kid'?? If yes, then *backs away slowly*, but if you would care (and I honestly think most human beings really would), then how come Shepard wouldn't?

2. You think that terrified kids are at fault for their own deaths? A little boy has just seen a monster straight from nightmares start blowing things up around him; terrified, he hides, and, yes, refuses help from a complete stranger, and then dies because of that. Your response is , effectively' 'serves him right'??????????????? wtf mate??!? 

3. Sort of agree, but it just wouldn't work with anyone else. He's supposed to symbolise all the people Shepard doesn't know, the people who never got a choice about whether to join the war, the people who were just mown down by something they never stood a chance against. Soldiers don't represent this idea as well as civilians.

4. Yeah, that's the kicker, I think. If the Catalyst hadn't chosen the kid to be his 'form', then I honestly think that the kid wouldn't be drawing such hatred from the BSN. At worst, he's a bit of a clumsy plot device. But throw the Catalyst in there and he's enemy no.1

Fair points, but allow me to respond

1. My personal reaction would be one of pity for the loss of life, regardless of age. But this isn't about me specifically, this is about Shepard and I for one had a couple of shepards who would've easily shaken the kid's death off as a casualty of war. Think about shepards who went through harrowing experiences like Akuze or Torfan, unless you roleplayed said shepard have a severe case of PTSD seeing a child blown up shouldn't affect him or her anymore than seeing their squad devoured by Thresher Maws or killed off on Torfan and those things barely even affect shepard apparently.

2. Let's review what he says; "Everyone's dying" to "You can't help me". To refuse the help of two competent soldiers and then go off on his own just to end up dying is his own fault. If he simply wanted to hide perhaps he should've just stayed in that vent until the resistance was more widespread. 

3. Forced symbolism is still forced in this case. They could've done this in a much better fashion, the nightmares could've been similar to the visions shepard had of the prothean's destruction except instead of prothean silhouettes they could've been human. Or how about they actually reflected the entire state of the galaxy being laid siege upon and not just earth because last time I checked the entire galaxy was at war and I can certainly name a few places I value more than earth in ME. 

4. Clumsy plot device is an understatement, his entire point is to force emotions of sadness from you as if you didn't already have enough to be emotional about, oh right this is the best place to start, what better way to start this off than showing how utterly hopeless your fight is just before you introduce the off button the rest of the game is centered around?

Okay, I will respond to your response

1. Thing is, many people do respond a bit differently to seeing the death of a civilian, especially a child, to the death of a soldier. A soldier accepts a certain level of risk when they join the army, a level of risk NOT accepted (or even known) by a kid when they go out to play. When in the ME series have we directly witnessed the death of a civilian? Only Colonist Shep, who, it is extremely likely, was profoundly affected by the events on Mindoir.

Since the game cannot possibly be so divergent that it caters to the exact thoughts and experiences of every Shepard, they had to establish a canon event. One that I still maintain would not have been hated so much had he not also ended up being the Catalyst form. I've also said in a previous post, that Shep isn't necessarily affected by the death of the child specifically, that the kid simply represents all sorts of things going on in Shepard's head that the game, again, cannot possibly individualise. I'm not going to repeat that post, it's only a page or two back if you're interested There's a whole variety of ways that the kid's death and the dream sequences can be RP'd without being all torn up inside about the boy.

2. The kid is about five/six years old. I have a four year old and a two year old. What do they know about 'competent soldiers'? Nothing. they know about strangers who try to get them into their car or whatever (run away!) and people they've been told it's okay to go away with (family and close friends). What does he know about ' hide until widespread resistance?' Even less. He is in 'flight instinct' mode, and as a baby, cannot override that with rationale he doesn't yet possess. I do, however, agree that the line 'you can't help me' is bizarre. Not something a little child would say. 'My mummy said I can't go with strangers' or something would have been more realistic. The death of a kid is never 'their own fault'. It can be the fault of their lack of maturity and understanding, sure, because they are by definition, immature and lack understanding (with very few remarkable exceptions),  and it can absolutely be the fault of bad parenting or otherwise the actions of adults around them (IRL this is usually the case), but they cannot be placed at fault in the same way that an adult in the same situation could be.

3. Sure, it's forced. The kid was in the dreams because the kid was supposed to be foreshadowing the catalyst. If the dreams had all been silhouettes (an aesthetically very nice idea, btw ), then the catalyst child-form would have been even more nonsensical. They could have had the catalyst be a silhouette as well, I suppose. But I thought we were supposed to see the Catalyst as a kind of 'Child AI', coming up with overly simple solutions to a much more complex scenario (which is what children do). Which also explains why you can't argue with it, cos there's really no arguing with kids, it gets you nowhere >.<

With the Earth thing,  they had to start the game somewhere, and since Shep was in prison on Earth it made the most sense. A few cutscenes of other places being bombarded  followed by leaping straight into Shepard running about would have been weird, though I do agree that they could have done a longer cutscene showing this, perhaps as Shep left Earth or something? They were setting the scene in which Shepard was playing a part and wanted something that Shep saw right there to trigger the dream sequences. And again, since they can't personalise every little detail so they made it the same for everyone. I would have been weirded out had it NOT been Earth, so lucky me I guess. 

4. The heartstrings thing is a side effect that they were definitely going for, yeah, but again it might have worked better had the kid not also been the catalyst and had the kid's VA not been so freaky . There was some logic behind its being a kid as opposed to an adult. If an adult, Shep could probably have followed them wherever they were going, and saved them, therefore NOT illustrating the idea that 'not everyone can be saved'. A kid, being physically smaller, can scuttle off somewhere too small for a grown-up to get, it's just easier to make the point that way. Please don't start me thinking about the magic off button. I may cry 

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 30 octobre 2012 - 09:30 .

[LanceSolous13]

AllThatJazz wrote...
Okay, I will respond to your response

1. Thing is, many people do respond a bit differently to seeing the death of a civilian, especially a child, to the death of a soldier. A soldier accepts a certain level of risk when they join the army, a level of risk NOT accepted (or even known) by a kid when they go out to play. When in the ME series have we directly witnessed the death of a civilian? Only Colonist Shep, who, it is extremely likely, was profoundly affected by the events on Mindoir.

Since the game cannot possibly be so divergent that it caters to the exact thoughts and experiences of every Shepard, they had to establish a canon event. One that I still maintain would not have been hated so much had he not also ended up being the Catalyst form. I've also said in a previous post, that Shep isn't necessarily affected by the death of the child specifically, that the kid simply represents all sorts of things going on in Shepard's head that the game, again, cannot possibly individualise. I'm not going to repeat that post, it's only a page or two back if you're interested There's a whole variety of ways that the kid's death and the dream sequences can be RP'd without being all torn up inside about the boy.

2. The kid is about five/six years old. I have a four year old and a two year old. What do they know about 'competent soldiers'? Nothing. they know about strangers who try to get them into their car or whatever (run away!) and people they've been told it's okay to go away with (family and close friends). What does he know about ' hide until widespread resistance?' Even less. He is in 'flight instinct' mode, and as a baby, cannot override that with rationale he doesn't yet possess. I do, however, agree that the line 'you can't help me' is bizarre. Not something a little child would say. 'My mummy said I can't go with strangers' or something would have been more realistic. The death of a kid is never 'their own fault'. It can be the fault of their lack of maturity and understanding, sure, because they are by definition, immature and lack understanding (with very few remarkable exceptions),  and it can absolutely be the fault of bad parenting or otherwise the actions of adults around them (IRL this is usually the case), but they cannot be placed at fault in the same way that an adult in the same situation could be.

3. Sure, it's forced. The kid was in the dreams because the kid was supposed to be foreshadowing the catalyst. If the dreams had all been silhouettes (an aesthetically very nice idea, btw ), then the catalyst child-form would have been even more nonsensical. They could have had the catalyst be a silhouette as well, I suppose. But I thought we were supposed to see the Catalyst as a kind of 'Child AI', coming up with overly simple solutions to a much more complex scenario (which is what children do). Which also explains why you can't argue with it, cos there's really no arguing with kids, it gets you nowhere >.<

With the Earth thing,  they had to start the game somewhere, and since Shep was in prison on Earth it made the most sense. A few cutscenes of other places being bombarded  followed by leaping straight into Shepard running about would have been weird, though I do agree that they could have done a longer cutscene showing this, perhaps as Shep left Earth or something? They were setting the scene in which Shepard was playing a part and wanted something that Shep saw right there to trigger the dream sequences. And again, since they can't personalise every little detail so they made it the same for everyone. I would have been weirded out had it NOT been Earth, so lucky me I guess. 

4. The heartstrings thing is a side effect that they were definitely going for, yeah, but again it might have worked better had the kid not also been the catalyst and had the kid's VA not been so freaky . There was some logic behind its being a kid as opposed to an adult. If an adult, Shep could probably have followed them wherever they were going, and saved them, therefore NOT illustrating the idea that 'not everyone can be saved'. A kid, being physically smaller, can scuttle off somewhere too small for a grown-up to get, it's just easier to make the point that way. Please don't start me thinking about the magic off button. I may cry 

Regardless of how someone "should" respond to the death of a civi, Shepard = Player and vice versa. NO EXCEPTIONS (Unless it comes down to Plot breaking thimgs like 'Well, I don't wnat to do anything about the Reapers' and other such). I dictate what is going through Shepard's head. I dictate how he thinks about things. I dictate what his oppinions are about x, y, and z. Bioware DOES NOT. Shepard is within the Player terretory, not theirs.


There is a complete difference between being realistic and annoying. Regardless of how realistic it is for the child to run off and hide and do other (in my oppinion) non-child-like things, Having a character appear for 2 seconds, have 2 lines of dialogue, and expecting us to feel sad for their deaths is ****e writing at its best... or worst depending on how you interpret that.

Deaths in the written word are to be treated much differently than deaths in the real world. Naturally, I would be horrified at the death of a child, but it writing, not so much.  In writing, You need to give me a reason to care. And, siomply, they gave me no reason to do so.


Once again, it doesn't matter if 'You can't argue with a child because that gets you no where' and ete. Its still terrible writing.

This is an RPG. We are supposed to define how our PC's react to things. NOT Bioware.


...Wat. Just....Wat. They didn't have to write that sinario-that-works-well-with-a-child. Unless it had to happen because of something in prior games, They did not have to write it.


On top of all issues, the very fact that so many people are having issue with the brat means that the entire 'character' or lack there of doesn't work. Even if there are some who say otherwise, there are many who disagree.

[acidic-ph0]

I felt much more sympathy for (the very minor characters) Jenkins and Corporal Tombs back in ME1 (especially as survivor shep). And hell, both of them only had a handfull of dialogue and a bit of connecting backstory. How could Bioware screw up sooooo badly with that kid. The kid had absolutely NOTHING, so really how could anyone care about him?

[AllThatJazz]

LanceSolous13 wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...
snip

Regardless of how someone "should" respond to the death of a civi, Shepard = Player and vice versa. NO EXCEPTIONS (Unless it comes down to Plot breaking thimgs like 'Well, I don't wnat to do anything about the Reapers' and other such). I dictate what is going through Shepard's head. I dictate how he thinks about things. I dictate what his oppinions are about x, y, and z. Bioware DOES NOT. Shepard is within the Player terretory, not theirs.


There is a complete difference between being realistic and annoying. Regardless of how realistic it is for the child to run off and hide and do other (in my oppinion) non-child-like things, Having a character appear for 2 seconds, have 2 lines of dialogue, and expecting us to feel sad for their deaths is ****e writing at its best... or worst depending on how you interpret that.

Deaths in the written word are to be treated much differently than deaths in the real world. Naturally, I would be horrified at the death of a child, but it writing, not so much.  In writing, You need to give me a reason to care. And, siomply, they gave me no reason to do so.


Once again, it doesn't matter if 'You can't argue with a child because that gets you no where' and ete. Its still terrible writing.

This is an RPG. We are supposed to define how our PC's react to things. NOT Bioware.


...Wat. Just....Wat. They didn't have to write that sinario-that-works-well-with-a-child. Unless it had to happen because of something in prior games, They did not have to write it.


On top of all issues, the very fact that so many people are having issue with the brat means that the entire 'character' or lack there of doesn't work. Even if there are some who say otherwise, there are many who disagree.

I haven't commented on the quality of the writing, and that's just my opinion on the catalyst -  that it is a flawed, stubborn being, acting in a moral vacuum without the guidance of its creators or anyone else. In fact, the whole thing is my opinion, which is just as valid as yours .

They didn't have to write that scenario with a child, no. But they did write that scenario. I am commenting on the game we have, and some of the probable reasons for its inclusion, not some other game that we don't have. They could have done a lot differently, but didn't.

In every CRPG, there are some things that have to be put into the actual game. You can define how you react to the kid, but you cannot decide a) whether or not the kid is there and dies and whether or not Shepard has bad dreams that involve the kid. You do, however, get to decide whether Shepard is all upset about the boy in particular, and what context the dreams have, as I have stated in a previous post. Is it ideal? Clearly not for many. But you can very easily RP your way around it. I do.

Also, if Shepard = Player, and you, the player, would IRL feel horrified at a child's death, then why is it so outlandish to think that some of your Shepards would feel the same way? Those of my Shepards who feel bad about the kid do so regardless of the fact that they've only spoken a couple lines to each other. Those of my Shepards who couldn't give a rat's arse wouldn't be bothered if they'd spent the entirety of the last three games playing leapfrog together.

Apologies if my post sounds snarky. I thought you came off as a bit hostile in your response to me.


Edit: Also, I should clarify that my 'can't argue with a child' comment was a slightly facetious observation on the nature of children in general (I am a mother of two) and the oft-posted 'Why Can't I argue with the Catalyst' threads, rather than a serious comment. 

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:29 .

[deatharmonic]

AllThatJazz wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Arokel wrote...

Yes. I don't know why people didn't.

1. We only interacted with the character for about a minute
2. He kinda sealed his own fate by refusing our help (and in quite the idiotic fashion if I might add)
3. The way he's forced upon you in those dreams makes you kinda despise him
4. And of course, the ending.

In response (and playing devil's advocate to some degree )

1. Why does this matter? If you saw a child being literally blown to pieces in front of you, would your response honestly be 'who gives a damn, I don't even know the kid'?? If yes, then *backs away slowly*, but if you would care (and I honestly think most human beings really would), then how come Shepard wouldn't?

2. You think that terrified kids are at fault for their own deaths? A little boy has just seen a monster straight from nightmares start blowing things up around him; terrified, he hides, and, yes, refuses help from a complete stranger, and then dies because of that. Your response is , effectively' 'serves him right'??????????????? wtf mate??!? 

3. Sort of agree, but it just wouldn't work with anyone else. He's supposed to symbolise all the people Shepard doesn't know, the people who never got a choice about whether to join the war, the people who were just mown down by something they never stood a chance against. Soldiers don't represent this idea as well as civilians.

4. Yeah, that's the kicker, I think. If the Catalyst hadn't chosen the kid to be his 'form', then I honestly think that the kid wouldn't be drawing such hatred from the BSN. At worst, he's a bit of a clumsy plot device. But throw the Catalyst in there and he's enemy no.1

I didn't feel anything for the kid but I get your points. Just to add my two cents in response to your points:

Concerning points 1 & 2: the fact that this was a kid felt like an easy and somewhat forced way to ellicit an emotional response. It's like they thought 'how do we make them feel? easy answer? make something happen to a kid' it felt lazy from my point of view, hence I felt nothing for the kid. Now in real life? Of course I'd feel something, but I'd also grab the kid even if he says no, just like Shep had the chance to do. I mean, seriously, you see a kid in a vent when all hell is breaking loose, you know there's little chance of him surviving if you don't intervene and you simply let him tell you no?!?! 

Concerning point 3: I have a huge issue with the way the whole intro bit was done. For me, I would have allowed Shep to explore his environment more, talk to civilians, allow him to establish a connection with people who symbolize the unknown masses who get wiped out. Then when the **** finally hits the fan I would have showed scenes from the perspective of those people and what happens to them. I firmly believe that if developers want the player to feel anything for the environment and those in it, then they need to allow the player to explore said environment and establish connections with those in it. To sum up, why should I care if I'm never given the chance to?

I agree with point 4.

[Isichar]

Damn the children! Damn them all to hell!

[m2iCodeJockey]

Snovicus wrote...
Did Anyone Actually Care About the Kid?

No. Of course not.

Very few people would care about 1 character to whom there is no emotional attachment.
Vent Boy is in a city FULL of people being vaporized on sight.
Because Vent Boy is doing things we EXPECT will get him killed, especially recoiling from Shepard when called, there is no attachment, more over,

THE AUDIENCE GAVE UP ON HIM WHEN HE DIDN'T COME OUT OF THE VENT.
The audience had already witnessed BUILDINGS being destroyed and this build is MILITARY HQ.

If the character had come out of the vent and SHEPARD CARRIED Vent Boy or
Shepard TOLD Vent Boy when and where to go, the audience would be invested in SEEING him escaping the planet.

The question is: "How the hell was Anderson not on one of the two shuttles?"
That's the only person in which the audience is invested.

Modifié par m2iCodeJockey, 30 octobre 2012 - 04:46 .

[Raikas]

AllThatJazz wrote...

2. The kid is about five/six years old. I have a four year old and a two year old. What do they know about 'competent soldiers'? Nothing. they know about strangers who try to get them into their car or whatever (run away!) and people they've been told it's okay to go away with (family and close friends). What does he know about ' hide until widespread resistance?' Even less. He is in 'flight instinct' mode, and as a baby, cannot override that with rationale he doesn't yet possess. I do, however, agree that the line 'you can't help me' is bizarre. Not something a little child would say. 'My mummy said I can't go with strangers' or something would have been more realistic. The death of a kid is never 'their own fault'. It can be the fault of their lack of maturity and understanding, sure, because they are by definition, immature and lack understanding (with very few remarkable exceptions),  and it can absolutely be the fault of bad parenting or otherwise the actions of adults around them (IRL this is usually the case), but they cannot be placed at fault in the same way that an adult in the same situation could be.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but I think one of the problems I had with the kid (and for the record, I actually like the idea of having an early event that every Shepard can be haunted by) is that he doesn't work as a believable child character.  There's that disconnect in the way the kid talks vs. height vs. facial features that makes him less like a real.  

I hadn't really thought about his features before, but you're right that he has the face of a 4/5-year-old and that makes his "you can't help me" line (which is weird from a kid anyway) even more off given the age.  And he's also too tall to be that young - he seems to be slightly shorter than waist-height on Shep and that suggests an older age (I have an 8-year-old niece and a 9-year-old nephew who are about that relative height next to me).   That the height/face/voice don't match is exactly what makes me not care even though I'm in favour of the idea in a general way - for the idea to work we'd need to have seen an actual character, and instead we just get some general idea of a child.

Modifié par Hervoyl, 30 octobre 2012 - 04:56 .

[AllThatJazz]

Hervoyl wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

2. The kid is about five/six years old. I have a four year old and a two year old. What do they know about 'competent soldiers'? Nothing. they know about strangers who try to get them into their car or whatever (run away!) and people they've been told it's okay to go away with (family and close friends). What does he know about ' hide until widespread resistance?' Even less. He is in 'flight instinct' mode, and as a baby, cannot override that with rationale he doesn't yet possess. I do, however, agree that the line 'you can't help me' is bizarre. Not something a little child would say. 'My mummy said I can't go with strangers' or something would have been more realistic. The death of a kid is never 'their own fault'. It can be the fault of their lack of maturity and understanding, sure, because they are by definition, immature and lack understanding (with very few remarkable exceptions),  and it can absolutely be the fault of bad parenting or otherwise the actions of adults around them (IRL this is usually the case), but they cannot be placed at fault in the same way that an adult in the same situation could be.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but I think one of the problems I had with the kid (and for the record, I actually like the idea of having an early event that every Shepard can be haunted by) is that he doesn't work as a believable child character.  There's that disconnect in the way the kid talks vs. height vs. facial features that makes him less like a real.  

I hadn't really thought about his features before, but you're right that he has the face of a 4/5-year-old and that makes his "you can't help me" line (which is weird from a kid anyway) even more off given the age.  And he's also too tall to be that young - he seems to be slightly shorter than waist-height on Shep and that suggests an older age (I have an 8-year-old niece and a 9-year-old nephew who are about that relative height next to me).   That the height/face/voice don't match is exactly what makes me not care even though I'm in favour of the idea in a general way - for the idea to work we'd need to have seen an actual character, and instead we just get some general idea of a child.

Agreed. I think that's partly why some IT proponents think that the kid isn't real - because he just doesn't 'fit'. Problem with making child character models maybe? Isn't he the first and only kid we see in the trilogy?

@deatharmonic - yeah, I agree. The whole prologue should have been longer and better explained with more chance for Shepard top explore/have a couple of sidequests or minor missions. For a game that was touted as 'easy way into the franchise' they sure chucked us into the action with very little exposition or background :/

[Nyappy]

I cared more about Ashley when I saw her getting nuked than when I saw that effing stupid kid die, and that's saying alot since I hate Ashley's guts and always looked forward to seeing that nuke go off with her in it.

The kid did absolutely nothing for me, why does my Shepard even care for a brat that didn't want her help (not that I would've helped the kid even if there was an option), why the hell does she even have dreams about him, Ashley, Miranda, heck, even Leroy Jenkins would've been better, atleast I knew them, even if I didn't care for them.

After having finished my one and only playthrough of ME3 in March I can only smile and say "Burn mother****er, burn!!" whenever I see that scene.

Modifié par Nyappy, 30 octobre 2012 - 08:10 .

[raist747]

Speaking as someone who sadly has seen kids killed/blown to bits in RL, I think it was forced as hell, especially since we don't have a corpse to deal with, and we only saw the shuttle blow up. I'd have more of a reaction if the Virmire Casualty was the Catalyst personally.

The whole "kid Trauma" thing was like they didn't even bother googling PTSD. It doesn't help that the kids in game model got stuck deep in the Uncanny Vally.

[Raikas]

raist747 wrote...
 I'd have more of a reaction if the Virmire Casualty was the Catalyst personally. 

That (and maybe any ME2 casualties as well) would have been brilliant.  Although then I suppose we get into the "not impressive for new players" issue.

[Ledgend1221]

After doing my ME2 insanity run, I've come to despise him even more.
Hell the intro and Crash site in ME2 were more emotional then 90% of ME3.