435 réponses à ce sujet

[FreshRevenge]

Okay most people would agree with me here. That the Starchild or the catalyst was a bad idea. Before I jump into it myself. Why do you think about the Starchild?

Also I am not sure if this was mentioned but is the Starchild really Harbinger? Because once you shoot it, it says so be it with Harbingers voice.

Modifié par FreshRevenge, 03 juillet 2013 - 11:56 .

[Arcian]

The Starchild was a ******-poor plot device used to push BioWare's Synthesis agenda.

It is not just Harbinger, but the collective consciousness of the entire Reaper fleet. However that makes sense.

[Eckswhyzed]

I don't really mind it.

I think a lot of hate for the endings gets transferred onto the Catalyst. From what I've read of people's complaints, pretty much none of their reasons as to why they think the ending is bad would change if say, Harbinger was presenting the choices instead of the Catalyst.

Also, I'd like to state that I chuckle when I see people use the term "starbrat". That always seemed childish to me.

[Xamufam]

He's a rest from a plotline that got cut read mass effect ascension & retribution. you will understand it after that, the IT theory didn't come from nowhere it came from the game & the novels. it also forced in a 2010 pseudo religious theme in at the last 15 min in a 80-90 scifi (tacking on a 2010 pseudophilosophical BS ending onto a 1980s-1990s
story that should have been about heroism AND friends)
("the citadel is part of me" that line has so many flaws that it's not funny)



http://www.holdtheli...ffect-jpg.3826/

Modifié par Troxa, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:42 .

[Kataphrut94]

Depicting it as the child from Earth was the biggest problem. Not only is it hard to take seriously, it only breeds resentment when you've had that kid crammed awkwardly down your throat for the whole damn game. The master intelligence behind the Reapers should not have a goddamned lisp!

I don't have a problem with there being a controlling Reaper intelligence, though. That makes sense and I figured that would turn out to be the case before ME3 confirmed it. I just wish we were a bit less passive during the final conversation; as many have pointed out, it would surely be logical to bring up the geth as a counterpoint to the whole organic/synthetic business. Even if that alone didn't solve anything (and I wouldn't expect it to), being able to decisively convince him that his solution was wrong would make it easier to swallow the idea that he's essentially surrendering the Crucible choices to you and giving you his blessing to end the Reaper cycle.

[KaiserShep]

A few things bother me about it, though I don't necessarily despise that it exists as much as others do.

-It saps the menace out of Sovereign, and the reapers in total. Are they actually individual beings, or are they just mindless tools used by the Catalyst? Why bother making them sentient, if their purpose is so single-minded? I'm convinced that this was not an intended twist in the beginning, and it's just the lore being made up as it went along. It basically lives in retcon limbo throughout the trilogy. It doesn't exist until the end of Mass Effect 3. 

-The fact that it looks like the little boy is a little annoying, partly because of the fact that it's just another focus on that kid that haunts Shepard's playable dream sequences, but mostly because of the fact that it's obviously accessing Shepard's memories, and this is never asked about. Noticing this is just good sense. Only an idiot would just accept this, and never mention it. But I think this is both an issue with the Catalyst and Shepard's character, because they gave Shepard a spat of dim-wittedness for this to work smoothly.

-It's an 11th hour infodump that tries awkwardly to pull the rug from under you. When you encounter Vigil on Ilos, it had a purpose that made sense. Everything it tells you actually fits into the rest of the story. But aside from that, it follows up another very important reveal, which is the nature of Sovereign itself.

-Minor quibble, but I wish it could actually sense fear of its impending demise when the power conduit is being fired upon. I guess simple deletion would have to do.
-

Modifié par KaiserShep, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:38 .

[ShadowLordXII]

Troxa wrote...

He's a rest from a plotline that got cut read mass effect ascension & retribution. you will understand it after that, the IT theory didn't come from nowhere it came from the game & the novels. it also forced in a 2010 pseudo religious theme in at the last 15 min in a 80-90 scifi
("the citadel is part of me" that line has so many flaws that it's not funny)


http://www.holdtheli...ffect-jpg.3826/

This.

The most important reason why the Star-Child should go is because his existence invalids the entire plot and background story of the first Mass Effect.

Why do the reapers need the keepers when their central consciousness is part of the Citadel?

Why does Sovereign need to be the "Vanguard" of the reapers when the Star-Child could activate the hidden relay by itself?

Furthermore, the entire scene depicting him not only derails the narrative cohesion of the story and blatantly changes the central conflict without warning...it was also only written by Casey and Mac without input from the rest of the team.

The Star-Child embodies everything that is wrong with the ending and as long as he's there, it remains broken.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Starbrat! Starbrat! Starbrat! Starbrat!

I just got out of rush hour traffic. I'm old. It's hot outside. I'm hungry. I'm tired, and I'm cranky.

It was a ****** poor device to push the reaper agenda. The child was supposed to make you feel sympathetic to the reapers because your Shepard dreamed about it. It resembled the vent kid. It was also a rip off of the Architect in the Matrix Reloaded except resembling that kid.,,, hence that clever gasp of air scene at the end for the "cliff hanger."

It ruined the entire series in 10 minutes. What was the point in the Catalyst? Did we really need to know all that? I just needed to know one thing... how to send the reapers to Hell. No, I've got to sit and listen to a damned sales pitch for 10 minutes.

* You can send us to hell but it's going to cost you the Geth and EDI, and remember you're part synthetic, too.
* Or you could save your friends by grabbing those control rods and control us, but you'll die in the process.
* Or you could save your friends by jumping into that green beam and join all synthetics and organics together in the galaxy, but you'll die in the process.

But none of it matters anyway because all the mass relays get destroyed anyway, and you know what happens when a relay gets destroyed, and the Normandy crashes on a distant planet somewhere. You know Joker's going to suffer broken bones and die soon after. Javik and Liara are going to end up starting a new galactic civilization, and if you pick destroy you'll take a gasp of air and lay under a pile of rubble forever.

So Starbrat can kiss my patootie. He is the embodiment of everything evil in the galaxy.

[Steelcan]

He is narratively jarring and contradicts pre-established lore. That is why he is a poor plot device.

[Cheviot]

The only problem that I can see with the Catalyst is that, through it, Shepard dies. Then again, I didn't mind the Catalyst as a character - to me, it was partly a neat callback to both Soverign and that A.I. in Signal Tracking.

[Nightwriter]

Well, I think the ending itself was a bad choice story-wise. But yeah, the Catalyst turned a moderate wound into a gaping infected gangrenous lesion that demands amputation or you will DIE.

I think their greatest mistake was assuming we would not see the Catalyst as the villain. It's like some freak writer/player disconnect happened -- the writers saw the Catalyst as neutral and assumed we would too. Perhaps they thought making it appear to us as a harmless glowing dreamchild would disarm our suspicions. I think that one backfired.

[Ravensword]

He is literally the god from the machine—the machine being the Crucible.

Thanks, Mac.<_<

Modifié par Ravensword, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:52 .

[AresKeith]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, I think the ending itself was a bad choice story-wise. But yeah, the Catalyst turned a moderate wound into a gaping infected gangrenous lesion that demands amputation or you will DIE.

I think their greatest mistake was assuming we would not see the Catalyst as the villain. It's like some freak writer/player disconnect happened -- the writers saw the Catalyst as neutral and assumed we would too. Perhaps they thought making it appear to us as a harmless glowing dreamchild would disarm our suspicions. I think that one backfired.

That's an understatement lol 

[Steelcan]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, I think the ending itself was a bad choice story-wise. But yeah, the Catalyst turned a moderate wound into a gaping infected gangrenous lesion that demands amputation or you will DIE.

I think their greatest mistake was assuming we would not see the Catalyst as the villain. It's like some freak writer/player disconnect happened -- the writers saw the Catalyst as neutral and assumed we would too. Perhaps they thought making it appear to us as a harmless glowing dreamchild would disarm our suspicions. I think that one backfired.

.   He was supposed to convince us to jump into the beam like lemmings so we can enact their "art".  He just misfired on all cylinders.

I've just convinced myself that he is incapable of seeing how wrong he is, so I kill him

Modifié par Steelcan, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:55 .

[JonathonPR]

Bioware had to make the Leviathan DLC to retroactively justify starboy's existence. It can be entertaining in some stories to have a misdirect for the big bad ( Ex: The Usual Suspects) but that has to introduce it from the beginning and the Mass Effect trilogy feels more like it was written with separate ideas for each one rather than a continuous story. Starboy was not an appropriate substitution for the change in the ending if you believe the leaked script. In the dark Energy ending he was the "guardian" or some similar title. The primary AI for researching the dark energy problem and coordinating Reaper activity. When that ending was abandoned the character was left in so they tried to push some other scifi ideas in far too short a time frame. The ideas are good but such an ending requires a whole game devoted to exploring them and an appropriate setup. That game was the original Deus Ex. Much like how some poor narrative choices left them with the trilogy wrapup that is ME3; Starboy is the point where there is no more time in the story or game development to move around and expand narrative. The game would have been better served going back and having the possible functions of the Crucible overtly researched and discovered from the beginning. It would also have made work on it more plausible. Perhaps it could have contained advanced scientific information and theories that hint at the inner working of Reaper technology and fundamental design patterns. A collection of information scraped together by each cycle from the previous cycles and added to cycle by cycle. A collection of designs with many dead ends. This cycle would be working on the most promising rout with some research going into new theories and unexplored possibilities. Shepard would still be looking for other versions to get a complete database. All the cycle races working together with each unique viewpoint adding to a greater device. Then you don't have any excuse for starboy. No need to try to answer where the Reapers come from or what their goal is. But Bioware fell for the temptation of narrators to keep as much of their work as possible when they come across a problem and then they could not resist pounding the exposition button when time ran out. I had a player tell me to shut up and let him wonder what had happened to make a ruined city. They were explorers and as soon as they entered the city I started monologuing about its backstory. The player asked me if their characters knew this information. The answer was no. Then he asked if they needed to know it at that moment to progress the story. The answer was no. Will they ever need it to finish the adventure. No. Paraphrasing "Then unless we go looking for it or find records of the event why tell us?" Star boy ,and retroactively the Leviathan DLC, is unnecessary exposition to justify narrative choice.

I would be fine with dlc exploring the origins of the Reapers but that is really a side story that should not be tacked onto/shoved in to substitute the ending of the main narrative.

[Ultimate Pheer]

Troxa wrote...

He's a rest from a plotline that got cut read mass effect ascension & retribution. you will understand it after that, the IT theory didn't come from nowhere it came from the game & the novels. it also forced in a 2010 pseudo religious theme in at the last 15 min in a 80-90 scifi (tacking on a 2010 pseudophilosophical BS ending onto a 1980s-1990s
story that should have been about heroism AND friends)
("the citadel is part of me" that line has so many flaws that it's not funny)



http://www.holdtheli...ffect-jpg.3826/

I don't believe it.

That comic made me feel bad for Sovereign.

anyway, the big point is- it invalidates the entirety of the finale of the first game, comes out of nowhere in the last 45 seconds before the credits roll, takes the form of a kid I didn't even care about, and was, oh yea, written completely without input from almost the entirety of the creative team.

[Cheviot]

Ravensword wrote...

He is literally the god from the machine; the machine being the Crucible.

Thanks, Mac.<_<

He's not the only one: Shepard is resurrected (becomes Space Jesus) through machine implants and is - like the deus ex machina in the ancient plays - raised onto the stage (i.e. when he meets the Catalyst) from below by means of a lift (the "ex machina" bit).  If you think about it, the Catalyst must see Shepard as a deus ex machina, the unexpected resolution walking right out of the machinery.

[remydat]

Yeah dont mind the catalyst at all. I think the problem is most gamers wanted a neat ending in which they got to kill the reapers. When the catalyst complicated this preference and did so by perhaps raisng more questions than it answered, people went ape****.

[Ravensword]

Cheviot wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

He is literally the god from the machine; the machine being the Crucible.

Thanks, Mac.<_<

He's not the only one: Shepard is resurrected (becomes Space Jesus) through machine implants and is - like the deus ex machina in the ancient plays - raised onto the stage (i.e. when he meets the Catalyst) from below by means of a lift (the "ex machina" bit).  If you think about it, the Catalyst must see Shepard as a deus ex machina, the unexpected resolution walking right out of the machinery.

Shepard is indeed Space Jesus. I've said that before on here. Other than to fast forward the plot by two years, break up the squad, and to railroad Shepard into working for Cerberus, I think it was indeed used to make Shepard special. TIM even tells Shepard that he's unique and has stated that Shepard is an important symbol for humanity.

Many of Shepard's feats do tend to stretch the imagination when you consider all the things he's done. I don't think that Shepard is a deus ex machina himself, but he is indeed a Black Hole Sue.

[Nightwriter]

remydat wrote...

Yeah dont mind the catalyst at all. I think the problem is most gamers wanted a neat ending in which they got to kill the reapers. When the catalyst complicated this preference and did so by perhaps raisng more questions than it answered, people went ape****.

I think the problem is that BioWare painted itself into a corner, yeah.

Throughout the course of the series the writers had been stacking brick after brick into the "Reapers are bad" side of the scales. Then at the last minute they threw a very small paperweight into the "Reapers are good" side of the scales and expected it to outweigh the enormous stack of bricks in the other dish.

I think it's natural for fans to want the outcome that has had the most buildup by a landslide. If BioWare wanted me to see the Reapers in a good enough light that I could trust the Catalyst, they should not have put so many bricks in the wrong dish.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Catalyst is like GWB -- not the guy pulling the strings, but the guy you hate as the face of all policies associated with him.

I did a poll that proves this point: http://social.bioware.com/3816502/polls/37239/.

You can take him out of the ending and it generally doesn't change the public opinion.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 04 juillet 2013 - 01:20 .

[ShepnTali]

He's a turd on top of a delicious cake. That's my view of ME in a nutshell. Coming a little shy of closure that I would have liked, that would be frosting with not enough sugar.

[KaiserShep]

remydat wrote...

Yeah dont mind the catalyst at all. I think the problem is most gamers wanted a neat ending in which they got to kill the reapers. When the catalyst complicated this preference and did so by perhaps raisng more questions than it answered, people went ape****.

And this goes to show the failing on the part of the writers. If you're going to lead the audience along for an entire trilogy, your twist had better make sense. No amount of afterthought DLC's will correct it once you goof up.