435 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

FreshRevenge wrote...

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.

Besides the final insulting choices?

I hated how it retconned the Reapers from being nations unto themselves (entirely like the Minds from the Culture series) into being just pawns to single retarded entity. I especially hate how apparently the Catalyst is evil/created the Reapers either because of its sheer level of retardedness or because its creators wrote it faulty.

I never played Leviathian. I didn't want to drop any more money on ME3 after that ending. So I don't know if the catalyst is faulty software or just really really dumb (I created synthetics to kill organics to stop synthetics from killing organics!)

Just ugh.

All those years where they could have come up with reasons for the Reapers to reap and that's all they could come up with.

[Wolfva2]

It turns out the AI created synthetics to kill (advanced) organics to (prevent them from creating) synthetics that would kill (all life).

It's a GIGO problem. The garbage in was the belief that synthetics would conclude that organics were imperfect, thus must be purged from the universe. The garbage out was the harvest. It's all predicated upon an idiotic premise. I think it's a believable premis, though...if you're an ancient super intelligent telepathic race that eats prayers and thinks it can never be wrong. Luckily, I'm a very fallible human, so I I can look at the AI and go..."WTF!?!"

[Vortex13]

Foolsfolly wrote...

FreshRevenge wrote...

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.

Besides the final insulting choices?

I hated how it retconned the Reapers from being nations unto themselves (entirely like the Minds from the Culture series) into being just pawns to single retarded entity. I especially hate how apparently the Catalyst is evil/created the Reapers either because of its sheer level of retardedness or because its creators wrote it faulty.

I never played Leviathian. I didn't want to drop any more money on ME3 after that ending. So I don't know if the catalyst is faulty software or just really really dumb (I created synthetics to kill organics to stop synthetics from killing organics!)

Just ugh.

All those years where they could have come up with reasons for the Reapers to reap and that's all they could come up with.

Bolded the part I most agree with. On its own, the ending to ME 3 would work.... in another setting that dealt with the themes brought up in the ending throughout the story rather than the last ten minutes. While the presentation was bad, I can see the route that the writers wanted to take with making the ending the way they did; I personally do not like the direction, but I can see where they wanted to go.

The part that irks me the most about the ending though is how it retcons the Reapers, into being mindless murderbots. Sovreign's speach, Harbinger's taunts/personallity (I found it enjoyable), lose all impact in the face of the Reaper mastermind. Also it breaks the consistency of the Reapers' "personality".

Sovreign called organic life an accident, and was pretty contemptable towards organics. Harbinger was a mad scientist that reveled in causing pain and terror in the species he experimented on, even saying that Quarian, Drell, and Krogan life was not woth preserving because their genetic material was not pure. But suddenly the Catalyst says that the Reapers are here to save life, and they preserve all harvested life. So which is it? The ending protrays the Catalyst as in complete control of the Reapers actions (picking Control and becoming the new Catalyst instantly stops the Reapers attacking) so is the little twerp bi-polar or what?

"When fire burns is it at war?" This doesn't fit with what we've seen of the Reapers' (specifically Sovreign and Harbinger) personality, last time I checked fire doesn't taunt me and say how weak I am, and how it will enjoy killing my family.

[spockjedi]

My top five reasons:
1. It nullifies the awesome villians, making them merely tools, pawns, husks.
2. It has a pathetic appearance. I was already sick of the dreams with the kid.
3. It changes the central conflict at the last five minutes.
4. It is rambling, incoherent and tries to force us to believe in something that the narrative denied.
5. It is the most prominent symbol of the terrible endings. So prominent that MEHEM had to remove it completely.

[Laforgus]

Why was the Starchild a bad choice storywise?

Because you couldnt throw him out the airlock


Click for Awesome Example

Modifié par Laforgus, 11 juillet 2013 - 03:52 .

[AlanC9]

Foolsfolly wrote...

All those years where they could have come up with reasons for the Reapers to reap and that's all they could come up with.

We haven't had too much luck with this problem on the board either. It's difficult to come up with a reason that makes sense but also has the Reapers being wrong. If you don't mind the Reapers being right we have more options.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

All those years where they could have come up with reasons for the Reapers to reap and that's all they could come up with.

We haven't had too much luck with this problem on the board either. It's difficult to come up with a reason that makes sense but also has the Reapers being wrong. If you don't mind the Reapers being right we have more options.

I would have been good with either.

My main criteria were: if we're going to write the Reapers as wrong, let the player/Shepard drive that point home. If the Reapers are right, then fine they can go ahead and educate the protagonist. The Catalyst in ME3 follows an insane logic, but the writers don't seem too intent on emphasizing this point while he puts out his "Synthetics vs Organics" conflict. The writers seemed to take the same approach writing him as any other educated npc who fills the player in on what's what.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 juillet 2013 - 04:06 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Arcian wrote...

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.

Bullsh*t.

The Catalyst is to ME3 what Vigil is to ME1, an information guide and provider of resources.

Vigil arrived in the final mission of ME1, just like the Catalyst did. It gave information, just like the Catalyst did. And it gave you a means to beat the game, just like the Catalyst did.

You couldn't have beaten ME1 as you did without Vigil's code that allowed you to usurp the Citadel controls from Sovereign.

It's no different. One is the same as the other. And anybody who accepts Vigil while denying the Catalyst is being double standarded.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

That characters fill similar functions does not make them remotely equivalent. Vigil's information put the entire story in a sensible context. The Catalyst's information just makes things unnecessarily complicated.

[WhiteKnyght]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

That characters fill similar functions does not make them remotely equivalent. Vigil's information put the entire story in a sensible context. The Catalyst's information just makes things unnecessarily complicated.

Vigil gets in Shepard's way and traps him with no way out but to listen to it. As does the Catalyst. The only thing mudding up the distinction is player-hate.

ME3 had so many parralels to ME1 in the final mission that it's surprising people don't see it.

Hackett leading the fleets against the Reapers in space = Hackett leading the fleets against Sovereign.

When Joker and Shepard were reminiscing about their time pre-Eden Prime, they were in the exact same spots and the camera angles/focus were exactly the same as the scene they were talking about.

Both missions involved getting to the Citadel by use of a conduit, and rushing to it while the enemy is trying to kill you(only difference is that it was Harbinger in ME3 and not a horde of Geth Collossuses)

The confrontation with Saren and the confrontation with the Illusive Man is also the same(except you don't actually fight TIM, but you can even persuade him to off himself with a bullet to the head by making him realize he's indoctrinated, just like Saren)

And the end of the mission boiling down to a choice that can have a major impact on the future. Except larger scale in ME3, while in ME1, your choices of whether or not you save the council and of who becomes human councilor only affected how humanity is accepted in the galaxy.


People like to claim that synthesis is being forced on them, but they're not being forced at all. If you have a low EMS, synthesis isn't even an option. And if you have the EMS needed to unlock it, you have high enough to get the best outcomes out of Destroy and Control.

The end of the mission offers three thematically diverse choices to cover a wide range of opinions. Those who think controlling the Reapers is best can choose control. Those who think its better to be safe than sorry and destroy them can choose destroy. And those who are curious, think a compromise is best, or like the idea of synthesis can choose synthesis. And those who don't like any have the option to refuse.

But true to Mass Effect themes, every choice has pros and cons, ups and downs. But that's the problem people have, they want some perfect fairy tale ending to a gritty game trilogy that's NEVER had that.

The truth is that Bioware didn't forget what Mass Effect is about as so many claim. The player's forgot that the first and formost point of Mass Effect is that no choice is perfect. Whether it's small or big, each choice has a good and bad side.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 11 juillet 2013 - 04:54 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Vigil gets in Shepard's way and traps him with no way out but to listen to it. As does the Catalyst. The only thing mudding up the distinction is player-hate.

Nope, Vigil and the Catalyst fill the same function: information-givers. They do not give out the same information, hence why it is not hypocrisy to criticize one but not the other, Vigil's information puts the narrative in a clear context and direction. The Catalyst's information muddles up the narrative to an unnecessary degree.

Hackett leading the fleets against the Reapers in space = Hackett leading the fleets against Sovereign.

When Joker and Shepard were reminiscing about their time pre-Eden Prime, they were in the exact same spots and the camera angles/focus were exactly the same as the scene they were talking about.

Both missions involved getting to the Citadel by use of a conduit, and rushing to it while the enemy is trying to kill you(only difference is that it was Harbinger in ME3 and not a horde of Geth Collossuses)

The confrontation with Saren and the confrontation with the Illusive Man is also the same(except you don't actually fight TIM, but you can even persuade him to off himself with a bullet to the head by making him realize he's indoctrinated, just like Saren)

And the end of the mission boiling down to a choice that can have a major impact on the future. Except larger scale in ME3, while in ME1, your choices of whether or not you save the council and of who becomes human councilor only affected how humanity is accepted in the galaxy.


People like to claim that synthesis is being forced on them, but they're not being forced at all. If you have a low EMS, synthesis isn't even an option. And if you have the EMS needed to unlock it, you have high enough to get the best outcomes out of Destroy and Control.

The end of the mission offers three thematically diverse choices to cover a wide range of opinions. Those who think controlling the Reapers is best can choose control. Those who think its better to be safe than sorry and destroy them can choose destroy. And those who are curious, think a compromise is best, or like the idea of synthesis can choose synthesis. And those who don't like any have the option to refuse.

But true to Mass Effect themes, every choice has pros and cons, ups and downs. But that's the problem people have, they want some perfect fairy tale ending to a gritty game trilogy that's NEVER had that.

The truth is that Bioware didn't forget what Mass Effect is about as so many claim. The player's forgot that the first and formost point of Mass Effect is that no choice is perfect. Whether it's small or big, each choice has a good and bad side.

None of this has anything to do with why the Catalyst is terrible as an information giver, which I assume was the point of your previous post.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 juillet 2013 - 05:04 .

[FreshRevenge]

Do you know what flabbergasses me. Is even with the Leviathan aid, they absolutely did nothing to improve my odds of destroying reapers(their creations) without succumbing to the star**** choices!

[WhiteKnyght]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Vigil gets in Shepard's way and traps him with no way out but to listen to it. As does the Catalyst. The only thing mudding up the distinction is player-hate.

Nope, Vigil and the Catalyst fill the same function: information-givers. They do not give out the same information, hence why it is not hypocrisy to criticize one but not the other, Vigil's information puts the narrative in a clear context and direction. The Catalyst's information muddles up the narrative to an unnecessary degree.

So the truth is that you just don't like what you learn. That the Reapers' purpose is abstract and you don't agree with it.

But the Reapers implied that as early as the first game. And even if preventing a technological singularity wasn't the original idea, the original idea(dark energy) was just as abstract.

Sovereign said "We are the end of everything", "We are the apex of evolution", "We are each a nation", and "You exist because we allow it, you will end because we demand it".

Later it was revealed that the Reapers are races/nations of people whose transapience was uploaded into a single construct, and that the Reapers' purpose is to allow primitive life to exist(you exist because we allow it) by preventing synthetics from destroying them, which requires removing advanced civlizations(you end because we demand it).

Harbinger said "That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction". Which was later proved to be true from their perspective. They don't see organics as individuals, and harvesting some and allowing others(primitives) to exist ensured that organic life in general was preserved.

Everything the Catalyst said was consistent and clarifying with what Sovereign and Harbinger(the only Reapers you've gotten to speak too prior to ME3) said.

And the conflict with synthetic life is true enough as well. You don't like it, you might argue that it's not 100% certain that synthetics will always beat organics, but nearly every time in the series that you've crossed synthetic life, you'd had to fight it. And it's a simple logic that you can't count on every synthetic race to be as fallible as the Geth or as reasonable as them and EDI(the Zha'til from Javik's time sounded pretty ruthless). And just because you can destroy the geth doesn't mean that future generations will able to defeat the next flock of synthetics to evolve out of control. And the fact that Organics and Syntheitcs are nearly destined to fight with each other at some point was clear as early as Mass Effect 1.

So just because you don't like what it has to say doesn't make it wrong. That's reality, the world isn't what you want it to be and it's seldom understandable why it is the way it is.

You expected the Catalyst to either be a true villain with malicious intent, or to have a reason for what it does that's genuinely understandable. But its conclusions are its own and it believes it is right, just like pretty much every person that's ever existed.

But it's opinion changes based on Shepard. If you do well, you impress the Catalyst enough to make him reconsider his stance(you have altered the variables = quite an apt description considering machines think with arithmetic), and if you don't do well(low EMS), he looks down on you and plainly refuses to help you(the crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen, and I won't)

[Armass81]

Foolsfolly wrote...

FreshRevenge wrote...

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.

Besides the final insulting choices?

I hated how it retconned the Reapers from being nations unto themselves (entirely like the Minds from the Culture series) into being just pawns to single retarded entity. I especially hate how apparently the Catalyst is evil/created the Reapers either because of its sheer level of retardedness or because its creators wrote it faulty.

Heres how I understand the catalysts relationship with the reapers:

I think its actually both, the reapers are entities of their own, they do have the personalities of those species they were made off, catalyst merely controls their will and mission. Im not sure theyre even aware of it. Think of it as a group of "people" who are constantly compelled to do a certain thing by an entity outside, which can also read all of their minds all the time.

Also I dont think you can really call a machine evil here, its just cold and completely without feelings and morals and doing what it calculates is the most efficient thing in preventing the problem it was created to solve, by the leviathans, some galactic gardening. Leviathans screwed it up by programming it and giving it too free hands, "preserve life at any cost", they were too arrogant to see it backfiring on them.

Modifié par Armass81, 11 juillet 2013 - 05:45 .

[WhiteKnyght]

FreshRevenge wrote...

Do you know what flabbergasses me. Is even with the Leviathan aid, they absolutely did nothing to improve my odds of destroying reapers(their creations) without succumbing to the star**** choices!

Destroy was the choice of nearly every organic in the galaxy

Control was the Illusive Man's desire.

Synthesis was the Catalyst's preference.

The Catalyst doesn't want Destroy or Control, it just gives information as it's programmed to. It's not exactly a minor implication that the machine has constraints in its programming like EDI in Mass Effect 2. The fact that it turned on its masters was a logic oversight by the Leviathans(They failed to realize that their destruction was a part of the very solution they required)

Simply put, the Catalyst advises because it's programmed to. Every piece of information it gave came as an answer to a question Shepard asked.

Also what makes you think that any help the Leviathan gives would make a difference? The might of their civilization got destroyed by drones before the Reapers even existed. For all their bluster, they got their asses kicked. And being able to dominate a handful of Reaper troops to use as shock troops only helps in the ground wars, not against the millions of Sovereign-class Reapers who could kill the Leviathans with a range attack(the LoD and Reaper on Desponia made the mistake of getting in range of Leviathan's jedi-mind-skills)

[WhiteKnyght]

Armass81 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

FreshRevenge wrote...

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.

Besides the final insulting choices?

I hated how it retconned the Reapers from being nations unto themselves (entirely like the Minds from the Culture series) into being just pawns to single retarded entity. I especially hate how apparently the Catalyst is evil/created the Reapers either because of its sheer level of retardedness or because its creators wrote it faulty.

Heres how I understand the catalysts relationship with the reapers:

I think its actually both, the reapers are entities of their own, they do have the personalities of those species they were made off, catalyst merely controls their will and mission. Im not sure theyre even aware of it. Think of it as a group of "people" who are constantly compelled to do a certain thing by an entity outside, which can also read all of their minds all the time.

Also I dont think you can really call a machine evil here, its just completely without morals and doing what it calculates is the most efficient thing in preventing the problem it was created to solve, by the leviathans, some galactic gardening. Leviathans screwed it up by programming it and giving it too free hands, "preserve life at any cost", they were too arrogant to see it backfiring on them.

That's almost exactly right. Gold star!

The Reapers are the uploaded transapience of an entire species. And just like our society, they have leadership. That is the Catalyst

At the same time, the Catalyst's own intelligence grows with every new Reaper added. Just like how the Geth grow smarter the more they come together. The Catalyst even says "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers". It's even implied by Leviathan that a part of it's harvest is to increase its own intelligence enough to find a way to make synthesis possible(the cycles are an experiment, evolution it's tool), the "ideal" solution of bridging the gap between organics and synthetics.

[CronoDragoon]

Armass81 wrote...

Also I dont think you can really call a machine evil here, its just cold and completely without feelings and morals and doing what it calculates is the most efficient thing in preventing the problem it was created to solve, by the leviathans, some galactic gardening. Leviathans screwed it up by programming it and giving it too free hands, "preserve life at any cost", they were too arrogant to see it backfiring on them.

You can absolutely call it evil - just don't expect it to understand the point you are making.

[Armass81]

I still think Catalyst is an unnecessary add. The fact that they place it on the Citadel conflicts with lore established earlier(the whole sovereign plot) . If they wanted a reaper "king" of sorts, they should have placed it somewhere else or explained the whole thing, like so:

"Wait, if you were here the whole time, why did you need Sovereign?"

"As I slumber between the cycles, it is the Vanguards job to monitor the state of the galactic civilizations. When they are ready, then its job is to wake me up and when it has, I signal the keepers here which in turn will open the portal to dark space. But after the previous cycle, somehow, someone got here and sabotaged my systems. I could not send the signal normally anymore, so I compelled Nazara to find its way here, open the portal manually and fix my systems. But you got into its way and stopped it. "

Thats all it would have took....

Modifié par Armass81, 11 juillet 2013 - 06:43 .

[FreshRevenge]

Hilter had the same notion about preserving his own, and eradicating everyone else that didn't fit his bill. So the Catalyst is really Hitler reborned?

[Wolfva2]

AlanC9 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

All those years where they could have come up with reasons for the Reapers to reap and that's all they could come up with.

We haven't had too much luck with this problem on the board either. It's difficult to come up with a reason that makes sense but also has the Reapers being wrong. If you don't mind the Reapers being right we have more options.

Heck, I'd've been ok if they'd never explain why the reapers did what they did.  Of course...a LOT of people wouldn't have been.  Which is part of the reason for EC.  Which really just goes to show that it doesn't matter WHAT they do.  Someone will like it, someone else will hate it <shrug>.

Otherwise, I'm with Grey on this.  Those were some very good points; I hadn't realized the similiarities between vigil and the AI.  Illuminating.

[Coyotebay]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Bullsh*t.

The Catalyst is to ME3 what Vigil is to ME1, an information guide and provider of resources.

Vigil arrived in the final mission of ME1, just like the Catalyst did. It gave information, just like the Catalyst did. And it gave you a means to beat the game, just like the Catalyst did.

You couldn't have beaten ME1 as you did without Vigil's code that allowed you to usurp the Citadel controls from Sovereign.

It's no different. One is the same as the other. And anybody who accepts Vigil while denying the Catalyst is being double standarded.

It's not a double standard.  Vigil was incorporated into the plot in a - pardon the pun - organic way, not just tossed in out of left field.  And the information he provided did not change the whole focus of ME1 like Starbrat did in ME3.

Too much of the ME3 ending was forced and contrived.  There is no plot reason for Shepard to sacrifice him/herself in any of the scenarios.  Why do you need a whole body's worth of DNA for synthesis, wouldn't a small tissue sample suffice?  And how does Shepard's human DNA enable synthesis between synthetics and every other living non-human DNA?  It doesn't make sense.  Why does Shepard have to blow up the tubes at point-blank range to set off the Reaper destroy?  Why does he have to kill his body and upload his brain to control the Reapers, he can't just interface externally?  Why does targeting the Reapers target all synthetics?

[CronoDragoon]

Coyotebay wrote...
It's not a double standard.  Vigil was incorporated into the plot in a - pardon the pun - organic way, not just tossed in out of left field.

I don't really agree. Being forced into a side chamber where you get 10 minutes of exposition when supposedly chasing after the villain in a race to the Conduit doesn't feel very organic. 

And the information he provided did not change the whole focus of ME1 like Starbrat did in ME3.

True.

[KaiserShep]

There's some key similarities between them, but I would hardly call the Catalyst and Vigil equivalents. The Catalyst's info-dump aims to change quite a lot of things at the very last minute. Of course, the Leviathan DLC makes a reasonable attempt to provide some foreshadowing for this character, but in the case of Vigil, the information it gives you is simply a follow-up of a more important reveal, which is Sovereign itself. The entire conversation with Sovereign is, in my opinion, bigger than what Vigil gives you. All that VI really does in the end is tell you what the conduit is, but Sovereign reveals to you that the relays and Citadel were all a trap. By the time you got to Ilos, you already knew the truth about most of everything. The only thing you didn't know was why Sovereign was behaving as it was, and the VI explains the history of the Prothean scientists and how they sabotaged the Citadel trap. But these things were built up in subtle details, like how the keepers are mysterious and a Salarian notes how no one knows about them or their true purpose.

[.50CalBrainSurgeon]

Damn. Where do I even begin?!

1. Deus Ex Machina: He is an allegedly all powerful and sentient conscience that opens up the mediocre endings of control and synthesis that is supposed to nicely wrap up the multiple complex conflicts of the ME universe. Instead focusing on Shepard's efforts to destroy the Reapers (whether via conventional means or a superweapon), the plot is now contingent upon three colored endings from the falsely omnipotent starchild. I think it was generally accepted before ME3 finished that any post-Reaper war ending would be dirty, chaotic, and all sorts of screwed up for those involved. That is just the nature of a conflict on a galactic scale. And the starchild somehow cleans it up with a poorly written and an empirically wrongheaded 20 minute dialogue.

2. Insulting player intelligence: The form the "intelligence" took as a human child is downright insulting to Shepard and of course the player's intelligence. How would you, a college educated guy or girl, feel if an eight year old child told you the starchild's drivel? You had proven the starchild's premises wrong if you resolved the Geth-Quarian conflict. Additionally, you probably called out the starchild's hypocritical premise that "synthetics always destroy organics" because the starchild is a synthetic destroying organics! Any reasonably intelligent person could have outdebated the starchild's arguments, and the fact that Shepard is forced by game design to accept the starchild's ideas insults one's intelligence. As players, we understand perfectly well what the starchild's ideas are, and we have many reasons to believe the are wrongheaded assumptions about the nature of organic/synthetic interaction. Now imagine again an eight year old preaching to you waht you know IS WRONG this to your face, while assuming that he knows more than you. Infuriating, am I right?

3. I have a myriad of other tangentially related reasons to despise the presence of starchild that I think would be a bit lengthy to catalogue in one post. I would have to develop them into an full length essay to really express my incredible dislike for the starchild and the mediocre endings in general.

[Armass81]

.50CalBrainSurgeon wrote...

Damn. Where do I even begin?!

1. Deus Ex Machina: He is an allegedly all powerful and sentient conscience that opens up the mediocre endings of control and synthesis that is supposed to nicely wrap up the multiple complex conflicts of the ME universe. Instead focusing on Shepard's efforts to destroy the Reapers (whether via conventional means or a superweapon), the plot is now contingent upon three colored endings from the falsely omnipotent starchild. I think it was generally accepted before ME3 finished that any post-Reaper war ending would be dirty, chaotic, and all sorts of screwed up for those involved. That is just the nature of a conflict on a galactic scale. And the starchild somehow cleans it up with a poorly written and an empirically wrongheaded 20 minute dialogue.

2. Insulting player intelligence: The form the "intelligence" took as a human child is downright insulting to Shepard and of course the player's intelligence. How would you, a college educated guy or girl, feel if an eight year old child told you the starchild's drivel? You had proven the starchild's premises wrong if you resolved the Geth-Quarian conflict. Additionally, you probably called out the starchild's hypocritical premise that "synthetics always destroy organics" because the starchild is a synthetic destroying organics! Any reasonably intelligent person could have outdebated the starchild's arguments, and the fact that Shepard is forced by game design to accept the starchild's ideas insults one's intelligence. As players, we understand perfectly well what the starchild's ideas are, and we have many reasons to believe the are wrongheaded assumptions about the nature of organic/synthetic interaction. Now imagine again an eight year old preaching to you waht you know IS WRONG this to your face, while assuming that he knows more than you. Infuriating, am I right?

3. I have a myriad of other tangentially related reasons to despise the presence of starchild that I think would be a bit lengthy to catalogue in one post. I would have to develop them into an full length essay to really express my incredible dislike for the starchild and the mediocre endings in general.

Yes you can create peace, for now... but what if the geth change they minds about organics as they continue to advance? What if they start to see them as inferior or obsolete? What if new synthetics are created? What guarantees are there really for this not happening again as it has in the past?

Modifié par Armass81, 11 juillet 2013 - 09:33 .