230 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

So why is the voice Shepard hear's represented by this voice?  If Shepard is conscious and in a big Space Chamber, why would the mental image of innocence from her dreams be the one projected onto the Reaper King?  Would't she see a shadow, or even herself?

Not to invoke the "bad writan" card, but I think it's pretty clear that Bioware was not expecting the fan response that the catalyst received. I think the way Shepard was acting in the orignal endings -- cooperative, apart from one objection -- is how they believed fans would react to him. Needless to say, they miscalculated big time.

EC tries to rectify this by having Shepard challenge the catalyst more, even granting players the option to tell him off, and also makes the catalyst more cooperative yet. But to many fans, the catalyst is not part of the solution (dead Reapers *only*) thus part of the problem, and always will be. So that child representation simply won't jive for all players.

Such communication would probably take another game, or at the least the next DLC with all writere and clans involved..

Oh wait..lol

[Wayning_Star]

[/quote]


"I am a vision of the future Shepard! Organics and machines intertwined! The strengths of both! The weaknesses of neaither!" - Saren.



you were saying? [/quote]

Saren wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree.. of evolution?

[Wayning_Star]

Davik Kang wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

You are absolutely right Mr. Kang. A dream or hallucination is indeed the only sensible explanation, except perhaps uninspired, inadequately thought-through writing.

Which is more likely? I'm not entirely sure, though the exposition so far has me leaning ever more sharply towards the latter.

Nice contribution well done A+

Wayning_Star wrote...
"... circling round the idea that at least some kind of mental manipulation is going on - ..."

bold italics promote the intent. To infer control from some kind of deception.... i. e. canon fodder?

Ok, just to be clear:

if people are insisting that the ReaperChild chose the image of the Kid, then that is mental manipulation, irrespective of either the purpose or the ultimate goal behind it;

and if people are suggesting that the image is merely that of Shepard's subconscious, I am saying that makes no sense whatsoever - that Shepard would relay an image representative of (her own) guilt and (the death of) innocent lives - unless they are also suggesting that Shepard had subliminally already begun to feel some sympathy with the Reapers themselves.

This suggestion isn't actually entirely absurd - for example, one possible interpretation of The Dreams is that the Kid actually already represents the Reapers, who are now running scared from Shepard - but I'd say it's unlikely to be the main point of the dreams.

But again, I must bring up as before - if we concede that, either way, the Child appears at the end as some kind of mental projection, then how do we know where the mental projection ends?  How can we be sure that anything in that final room is real?  I know you could go all philosophy on this and extend this question to the entire game, but I refer specifically to the end because of how many other unreal elements there are.

A tube that can be shot to kill everything?  Keeper-shaped control panels surging with electrical energy that allow for sentient conversion to AI-based control of the Reapers?  A big green beam that magics everything into one consciousness?  Large rifle-shaped 1M1 contructs?  A space chamber at the connection point of the Crucible and Citadel?

Like I posted before, we could just say that the stargazer is telling a whopper of a fish story to the KID..in the end and it's all just a manipulative fabrication.. to instill energetic imaginatives to the younger crowd..lol

[Thore2k10]

Wayning_Star wrote...




"I am a vision of the future Shepard! Organics and machines intertwined! The strengths of both! The weaknesses of neaither!" - Saren.



you were saying?

Saren wasn't the brightest bulb on the tree.. of evolution?

if saren was what is waiting at the end of synthesis... then tanks, but no thanks!

Modifié par Thore2k10, 26 janvier 2013 - 06:52 .

[Davik Kang]

Thore2k10 wrote...
if saren was what is waiting at the end of synthesis... then tanks, but no thanks!

Trying to remain subjective but yes, the ME narrative dedicated a huge amount of time to warning about the potential problems of attempting to control Reapers or synthesising organic and synthetic life into one new form of life.  There were the odd counter-arguments too, but let's ;eave those for now, it's getting a little OT...

[cyrexwingblade]

The Reapers *are* trying to indoctrinate Shepard. The debate is whether they fully pull it off or not. That's where the ITers go further than other story-followers.

Reapers have access to organic thought processes by their nature. A *dead* Reaper still indoctrinated the Cerberus lab team in ME2. They just *do* this.

Whether or not the Reapers put the kids in Shep's dreams, I'm not sure. I *do* think the starkid's appearance is chosen by the Reapers *because* of Shep's dreams.

[Davik Kang]

Greylycantrope wrote...
snip

Writers (including screenwriters of course) will often attempt to re-use an image from the beginning of their work at the end to give a sense of "rounding the story off", yes.  But to say that this is the only explantion for the Child being that choice is even more lazy than the laziness the writers are so often accused of.

Putting a child's death at the beggining of the game, having his image recur in dreams, and then bringing him up again at the finale, with no clear in-universe explantion - really just to elicit an emotional response?  Seriously?  No other reason?  I don't want to sound rude and I hope I can avoid it: but to make the assumption that the guys who brought you ME1 and ME2 which you're all so obsessed over would then think 'f* it' and lazily hack in the suffering child sympathy clause to finish 9 years of work - and to put so much focus on it throughout the game - to be honest, such an assumption defies belief.

I can understand that it was often the result of an initial reaction - to a truly unexpected ending that went some way off meeting the standard expectations of many players - but having had months to cool down and look at it analytically...

Many people dislike the execution, and I have sympathy with that, but you can surely at least sense that they were trying to do something more than tack on forced emotion via a pointless character?  Come on now.  At its heart that's what this thread is about.  There is a reason they handled the Child's Death, the Dreams, and the Reaper Overlord as they did - at least see that there is a reason behind it, even if you can't quite grasp what it is.

[Ownedbacon]

kylecouch wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

spirosz wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

"Your memories give voice to our words"

-Leviathan.

I wish the Catalyst shuffled through the appearances of the character that died in Shepard's playthrough. It would have made the scene feel more surreal like the Leviathan confrontation.

You know, that's probably the best idea, ever.  A disoriented image of Saren when Synthesis gets detailed... so epic. 

I don't get why people relate Saren to Synthesis he wasn't for it. He was all about proving organic's worth to the Reapers so they wouldn't wipe them out. After Shepard gives Saren doubts about his mission and suggests he is indoctrinated. Saren now questioning the Reaper's control over him might cause him to fight the indoctrination. Sovereign has Saren alter his body with Reaper tech implants to "strengthen his resolve". Saren is giving up more control of his body and mind to serve the Reaper. So if you see Synthesis as a bad thing (Reaper servitude) I can see the relation, but if you see it as a good thing he really isn't the avatar of Synthesis.

"I am a vision of the future Shepard! Organics and machines intertwined! The strengths of both! The weaknesses of neaither!" - Saren.



you were saying?

Keep in mind he was serving the Reaper by taking these implants and speaking in a way to justify giving up his "humanity" or the turian equivalent of such to please Sovereign and prove his worth. Could it be that this is the propaganda Sovereign was feeding into Saren's mind to help "strengthen his resolve"?

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 26 janvier 2013 - 07:15 .

[Codename_Code]

Is a damn reaper in shepards mind trying to look innocent to manipulate you into his preferable options. Cant be any more clear.

[JBPBRC]

Ownedbacon wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

spirosz wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

"Your memories give voice to our words"

-Leviathan.

I wish the Catalyst shuffled through the appearances of the character that died in Shepard's playthrough. It would have made the scene feel more surreal like the Leviathan confrontation.

You know, that's probably the best idea, ever.  A disoriented image of Saren when Synthesis gets detailed... so epic. 

I don't get why people relate Saren to Synthesis he wasn't for it. He was all about proving organic's worth to the Reapers so they wouldn't wipe them out. After Shepard gives Saren doubts about his mission and suggests he is indoctrinated. Saren now questioning the Reaper's control over him might cause him to fight the indoctrination. Sovereign has Saren alter his body with Reaper tech implants to "strengthen his resolve". Saren is giving up more control of his body and mind to serve the Reaper. So if you see Synthesis as a bad thing (Reaper servitude) I can see the relation, but if you see it as a good thing he really isn't the avatar of Synthesis.

"I am a vision of the future Shepard! Organics and machines intertwined! The strengths of both! The weaknesses of neaither!" - Saren.



you were saying?

Keep in mind he was serving the Reaper by taking these implants and speaking in a way to justify giving up his "humanity" or the turian equivalent of such to please Sovereign and prove his worth. Could it be that this is the propaganda Sovereign was feeding into Saren's mind to help "strengthen his resolve".

This. The old Saren was simply advocating serving under the Reapers. This Saren was little more than a Reaper sock-puppet, with just enough will to commit suicide if Shepard prods him enough.

[Wayning_Star]

Davik Kang wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
snip

Writers (including screenwriters of course) will often attempt to re-use an image from the beginning of their work at the end to give a sense of "rounding the story off", yes.  But to say that this is the only explantion for the Child being that choice is even more lazy than the laziness the writers are so often accused of.

Putting a child's death at the beggining of the game, having his image recur in dreams, and then bringing him up again at the finale, with no clear in-universe explantion - really just to elicit an emotional response?  Seriously?  No other reason?  I don't want to sound rude and I hope I can avoid it: but to make the assumption that the guys who brought you ME1 and ME2 which you're all so obsessed over would then think 'f* it' and lazily hack in the suffering child sympathy clause to finish 9 years of work - and to put so much focus on it throughout the game - to be honest, such an assumption defies belief.

I can understand that it was often the result of an initial reaction - to a truly unexpected ending that went some way off meeting the standard expectations of many players - but having had months to cool down and look at it analytically...

Many people dislike the execution, and I have sympathy with that, but you can surely at least sense that they were trying to do something more than tack on forced emotion via a pointless character?  Come on now.  At its heart that's what this thread is about.  There is a reason they handled the Child's Death, the Dreams, and the Reaper Overlord as they did - at least see that there is a reason behind it, even if you can't quite grasp what it is.

I figure that to not overreach the idea of the "kid" as nothing more than the effort for it to lower it's mentality to one that it would/could assume an organic brain could absorb. I doubt any single organic mind could indure direct communication with such an entity, in any event, so it's all laid out like a dreamscape/video game interface.

[Davik Kang]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Not to invoke the "bad writan" card, but I think it's pretty clear that Bioware was not expecting the fan response that the catalyst received. I think the way Shepard was acting in the orignal endings -- cooperative, apart from one objection -- is how they believed fans would react to him. Needless to say, they miscalculated big time.

EC tries to rectify this by having Shepard challenge the catalyst more, even granting players the option to tell him off, and also makes the catalyst more cooperative yet. But to many fans, the catalyst is not part of the solution (dead Reapers *only*) thus part of the problem, and always will be. So that child representation simply won't jive for all players.

The reaction to the Child you're talking about is more a reaction to the ending as a whole, rather than just that character.  Each choice entailed something at the very least uncomfortable, perhaps even traumatic for some.  And the obsessive kind who explored the ME universe thoroughly were oftne those who would metagame by looking up alternate endings, only to find the visual images of those endings much the same.

I think it's fair to say that Bioware did not expect the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the ending, but I think it could be more to do with the pre-release hype (which most companies are guilty of) which hit ME particularly hard because it focused so much on consequences od previous choices.  Naturally many fans expected these choices to be reflected in the ending to the game - the final state of the universe before they said goodbye to Shepard - as many of the most important choices affected the state of the entire galaxy and its inhabitants.

But this is the overall discontent with the ending for the fans.  I want to stay clear of this because this thread is specifically about explaining the Child's presence in that decision chamber.  Remember that, unless you actually chose to preserve the ME2 Reaper, you will be able to have "dead Reapers only" upon finishing ME3.  The Child doesn't stop you - he just tries to stop you, with the only tool he has - words.  He tries to convince you because it's the only thing he can do.  Right?  Otherwise why would he bother?  And again, any answers to that question should be carefully considered, not "aghm, it doesn't make any sense, who cares?" please.

[Wayning_Star]

Codename_Code wrote...

Is a damn reaper in shepards mind trying to look innocent to manipulate you into his preferable options. Cant be any more clear.

yeah those reaper implanted resurrections devices can play hell on a man/womans mental state...lol

[GreyLycanTrope]

Davik Kang wrote...
Writers (including screenwriters of course) will often attempt to re-use an image from the beginning of their work at the end to give a sense of "rounding the story off", yes.  But to say that this is the only explantion for the Child being that choice is even more lazy than the laziness the writers are so often accused of.

Putting a child's death at the beggining of the game, having his image recur in dreams, and then bringing him up again at the finale, with no clear in-universe explantion - really just to elicit an emotional response?  Seriously?  No other reason?

"One of the things we wanted to do in Mass Effect 3 was deepen Shepard as a character, so you really get to express what your Shepard is feeling and going through, throughout the war”- Mac Walters

Speaks for itself, with all the subtly of a sledge hammer, which was also how they ended up approaching it in game intrestingly enough.

I don't want to sound rude and I hope I can avoid it: but to make the assumption that the guys who brought you ME1 and ME2 which you're all so obsessed over would then think 'f* it' and lazily hack in the suffering child sympathy clause to finish 9 years of work - and to put so much focus on it throughout the game - to be honest, such an assumption defies belief.

I can understand that it was often the result of an initial reaction - to a truly unexpected ending that went some way off meeting the standard expectations of many players - but having had months to cool down and look at it analytically...

Many people dislike the execution, and I have sympathy with that, but you can surely at least sense that they were trying to do something more than tack on forced emotion via a pointless character?  Come on now.  At its heart that's what this thread is about.  There is a reason they handled the Child's Death, the Dreams, and the Reaper Overlord as they did - at least see that there is a reason behind it, even if you can't quite grasp what it is.

Can't grasp what isn't there, you're looking for depth in a place where it just doesn't exist. Biowares writing has always had it's strenght in characters and emotional investment with the occasional good plot twist. In the case of ME3 we have first two not so much the third. In the case of the Catalyst we barely have the second.

HYR has the gist of it, this guy was meant originally just to show up be symbolic and drop some exposition on the player, I'd argue that he wasn't meant to be much a villian either seeing as initial Shep was little more than a glorifed yes man in the scene. To paraphrase Catalyt's role was little more then the following:
"Hi there, remember all those people who you couldn't save that this kid represents? I'm just here to remind you of him and your struggle against the Reapers and how you can end it. Though to do so you have to understand what the Reapers are after, so this is what they want and this is what you can do about it. How would you like to proceed?"

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 26 janvier 2013 - 07:26 .

[Wayning_Star]

Davik Kang wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Not to invoke the "bad writan" card, but I think it's pretty clear that Bioware was not expecting the fan response that the catalyst received. I think the way Shepard was acting in the orignal endings -- cooperative, apart from one objection -- is how they believed fans would react to him. Needless to say, they miscalculated big time.

EC tries to rectify this by having Shepard challenge the catalyst more, even granting players the option to tell him off, and also makes the catalyst more cooperative yet. But to many fans, the catalyst is not part of the solution (dead Reapers *only*) thus part of the problem, and always will be. So that child representation simply won't jive for all players.

The reaction to the Child you're talking about is more a reaction to the ending as a whole, rather than just that character.  Each choice entailed something at the very least uncomfortable, perhaps even traumatic for some.  And the obsessive kind who explored the ME universe thoroughly were oftne those who would metagame by looking up alternate endings, only to find the visual images of those endings much the same.

I think it's fair to say that Bioware did not expect the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the ending, but I think it could be more to do with the pre-release hype (which most companies are guilty of) which hit ME particularly hard because it focused so much on consequences od previous choices.  Naturally many fans expected these choices to be reflected in the ending to the game - the final state of the universe before they said goodbye to Shepard - as many of the most important choices affected the state of the entire galaxy and its inhabitants.

But this is the overall discontent with the ending for the fans.  I want to stay clear of this because this thread is specifically about explaining the Child's presence in that decision chamber.  Remember that, unless you actually chose to preserve the ME2 Reaper, you will be able to have "dead Reapers only" upon finishing ME3.  The Child doesn't stop you - he just tries to stop you, with the only tool he has - words.  He tries to convince you because it's the only thing he can do.  Right?  Otherwise why would he bother?  And again, any answers to that question should be carefully considered, not "aghm, it doesn't make any sense, who cares?" please.

all things aside, it's really(seemingly) just about fans wanting for an "A" ending choice, heck on B/C/D choices...too complicated and non video gamey...

[Mr.House]

The worse thing is why does the big bad look like a child the Reapers killed when the big bad is saying the Reapers don't kill but preserve?

[Wayning_Star]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...
Writers (including screenwriters of course) will often attempt to re-use an image from the beginning of their work at the end to give a sense of "rounding the story off", yes.  But to say that this is the only explantion for the Child being that choice is even more lazy than the laziness the writers are so often accused of.

Putting a child's death at the beggining of the game, having his image recur in dreams, and then bringing him up again at the finale, with no clear in-universe explantion - really just to elicit an emotional response?  Seriously?  No other reason?

"One of the things we wanted to do in Mass Effect 3 was deepen Shepard as a character, so you really get to express what your Shepard is feeling and going through, throughout the war”- Mac Walters

Speaks for itself, with all the subtly of a sledge hammer, which was also how they ended up approaching it in game intrestingly enough.

I don't want to sound rude and I hope I can avoid it: but to make the assumption that the guys who brought you ME1 and ME2 which you're all so obsessed over would then think 'f* it' and lazily hack in the suffering child sympathy clause to finish 9 years of work - and to put so much focus on it throughout the game - to be honest, such an assumption defies belief.

I can understand that it was often the result of an initial reaction - to a truly unexpected ending that went some way off meeting the standard expectations of many players - but having had months to cool down and look at it analytically...

Many people dislike the execution, and I have sympathy with that, but you can surely at least sense that they were trying to do something more than tack on forced emotion via a pointless character?  Come on now.  At its heart that's what this thread is about.  There is a reason they handled the Child's Death, the Dreams, and the Reaper Overlord as they did - at least see that there is a reason behind it, even if you can't quite grasp what it is.

Can't grasp what isn't there, you're looking for depth in a place where it just doesn't exist. Biowares writing has always had it's strenght in characters and emotional investment with the occasional good plot twist. In the case of ME3 we have first two not so much the third. In the case of the Catalyst we barely have the second.

well, I can grasp what isn't there.. do it all the time...lol

[Wayning_Star]

Mr.House wrote...

The worse thing is why does the big bad look like a child the Reapers killed when the big bad is saying the Reapers don't kill but preserve?

I dunno, why did fans state it as 'kill' when harvest represents preservation? As many posts on that subject refer to being harvested/reduced to goo ,not so radom intellect and shelved DNA as murder?

[Davik Kang]

Wayning_Star wrote...
Like I posted before, we could just say that the stargazer is telling a whopper of a fish story to the KID..in the end and it's all just a manipulative fabrication.. to instill energetic imaginatives to the younger crowd..lol

To say that the story is "manipulative fabrication" says nothing other than that it's a story, as I said before.  Maybe you mean badly exectuted manipulative fabrication, but what I'm getting at is that that is not the case.  Because it's not Bioware who are manipulating you poorly - it's the Reapers.

cyrexwingblade wrote...

The Reapers *are* trying to indoctrinate Shepard. The debate is whether they fully pull it off or not. That's where the ITers go further than other story-followers.

Reapers have access to organic thought processes by their nature. A *dead* Reaper still indoctrinated the Cerberus lab team in ME2. They just *do* this.

Whether or not the Reapers put the kids in Shep's dreams, I'm not sure. I *do* think the starkid's appearance is chosen by the Reapers *because* of Shep's dreams.

I agree about the source of the dreams, I am not sure if they're caused by the Reapers or just the mental effect of everything Shepard's been through, and I could believe either.  But if we agree that the Reapers "chose" that image - then can we agree that this is, at least at bare minimum, a form of mental manipulation?  If Shepard is seeing things in that Chamber and they clearly come from the psyche, then this final scene is evidently not constructed entirely in reality.  

Now is it so unreasonable to imagine that perhaps it is not just the Child who is a product of the imagination?  Remember again: 1M1, space connection between two interstellar superstructures, apparently symbolic interfaces with a crucible device that don't really make literal sense...

[GreyLycanTrope]

Mr.House wrote...

The worse thing is why does the big bad look like a child the Reapers killed when the big bad is saying the Reapers don't kill but preserve?

Someone didn't think this concept through thoroughly enough, I sense.

[Ticonderoga117]

Because symbolism. That's it. For some awful reason, the writers really wanted to use a lot of symbolism in ME3, even though it wouldn't quite fit with what they had going. The kid is the worst example of this in my opinion.

[Ticonderoga117]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

The worse thing is why does the big bad look like a child the Reapers killed when the big bad is saying the Reapers don't kill but preserve?

I dunno, why did fans state it as 'kill' when harvest represents preservation? As many posts on that subject refer to being harvested/reduced to goo ,not so radom intellect and shelved DNA as murder?

Because if something really wanted to "preserve" us, they wouldn't use giant lasers when they have mind control technology.

Or they wouldn't turn us into goo to be made into a space squid.

None of these are preserving.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Because symbolism. That's it. For some awful reason, the writers really wanted to use a lot of symbolism in ME3, even though it wouldn't quite fit with what they had going. The kid is the worst example of this in my opinion.

*Cough* Shepard/Legion/Jesus *Cough*

[Wayning_Star]

[quote]Wayning_Star wrote...
Like I posted before, we could just say that the stargazer is telling a whopper of a fish story to the KID..in the end and it's all just a manipulative fabrication.. to instill energetic imaginatives to the younger crowd..lol[/quote]
To say that the story is "manipulative fabrication" says nothing other than that it's a story, as I said before.  Maybe you mean badly exectuted manipulative fabrication, but what I'm getting at is that that is not the case.  Because it's not Bioware who are manipulating you poorly - it's the Reapers.

[/quote]

The catalyst as a child for Shep doesn't impress the feeling of being manipulated by reaperships, to me anyways.

The catalyst, if it were to 'need' to manipulate, couldn't need the crucible to alter it's progression of logic to inflict the choices menu. It's apparent that those were crafted by others. Might of been earlier cycle inhabitants, or it could be someone/thing in the current cycle shifting the balance of powar away from the catalsyt.

I vote 'current'. I don't associate the catalyst as 'deceptive' or manipulative after the crucible is attached, or really,even before, other than the smooth transition of the current harvest. The crucible changes that directive somehow. It could of been just dumb luck.. the only other (known) interested party with vested interest that are capable of upending the catalyst/reprogram it, are Leviathan.

[Davik Kang]

Codename_Code wrote...
Is a damn reaper in shepards mind trying to look innocent to manipulate you into his preferable options. Cant be any more clear.

Yes.  But how and why?  Explanations to the 'how' and 'why' become increasingly speculative, unless you consider one simple possible situation regarding the final scene...

Wayning_Star wrote...

I figure that to not overreach the idea of the "kid" as nothing more than the effort for it to lower it's mentality to one that it would/could assume an organic brain could absorb. I doubt any single organic mind could indure direct communication with such an entity, in any event, so it's all laid out like a dreamscape/video game interface.

Sovereign appeared as Sovereign on Virmire in ME1.  Harbinger appeared as the Collector Genral in Arrival, unless you already knew that he was Harbinger, in which case he appeared as Harbinger.

If Vigil could appear as a floaty spaceball then so could the ReaperBoss.  But it pretends to be a DreamChild, and the confused, doubtful, mentally exhausted Shepard offers no objection...