435 réponses à ce sujet

[TuringPoint]

 I think it was a mistake because of the bad interpretations people come up with as a result.  Which isn't really their fault.  

The Catalyst/Starchild bit doesn't matter; it was representational for something that was supposed to be beyond our understanding, and it was supposed to bring closure to the dreams shepard was having.  The dreams about his death, which ultimately would have a result of galactic repercussions.

There is inherent ambiguity to space opera where the villain is concerned, that's what makes it "real".  The genre focuses on the dangers of the infinite unknown of space, which the trilogy is a little bit weak at because it focuses on the dangers of a machine race bent on murder and domination.  People started trying to figure out what was literally happening and it gets confusing from that angle.  

The much-criticised epilogue, too.  Going back to the 'soul' and the point of telling the story.  Did anyone care? lulz. What's science fiction?  That's what we call stories about shooting funky space aliens, right?

They could have made it Medal of Honor in space and people would be crapping accolades for the "story".

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 juillet 2013 - 05:50 .

[TuringPoint]

Judgement day and the Catalyst?  The two things don't really compare; you could compare the central premise of the machines versus the organics being in both series.  

I was saying/meaning to say "representational" rather than symbolic. Maybe a bad habit not to write out posts ahead of time, but you know what? I don't honestly give. What I think is still what I think, however long it takes me to write it out.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 juillet 2013 - 06:00 .

[TuringPoint]

I don't know. Maybe the catalyst was out of place. The whole thing with the doomed child running from the reapers was a little simplistic.  It's like saying "I'm Sorry" instead of giving a real apology, or telling a punchline without the joke itself, which would be very nuanced and brilliant if only you'd heard it.

The focus of my argument was on why putting so much time and effort and confusion into interpreting what the Catalyst was is pointless, and made it a lot worse than what it actually was.  It's fiction.  The whole starchild thing was thrown in to tie together an internal character arc with Shepard, which was very ambitious to do.  It made a degree of artistic since, but people read a lot into it.

It was also a plot device.  Plot devices aren't necessarily a bad thing if they maintain suspension of disbelief.  I found it was just fine for that since, well, why wouldn't a VI adopt the image of what had been lost to the fires of apocalypse?It could adopt any image, but it's not exactly sentient.  Not in the way people are.  That's why it was doing what it did.  It "believed" in its war, and war is brutal, so it became a brutal machine of deathbringing.  So maybe there really is nothing symbolic about it, and people just aren't able to follow the 'nuance' (which is not there in abundance).

I just don't understand why there needs to be confusion about the Catalyst.  For me it doesn't break a story to use the wrong images, somehow I tend to focus on/appreciate what it represents, and that in turn guides my interpretation of the images. 

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 juillet 2013 - 06:18 .

[Wolfva2]

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.

Well, I'd respond here but I can't.  Because you've already stated that most people agree with you.  Therefore, anyone who disagrees is in the distant minority and thus doesn't count.

Oh, what the heck.  First off, there is NO STARCHILD.  It's a computer program.  It takes on the image of a child that Shep watched die because that emotionally scarred Shepard.  The kid, who he would watch from his office window as the kid played, was on his mind.  It took this form as Shepard would be more apt to listen to a familiar face he sympathized with then a computer. 

The computer program, often referred to as 'starchild' or 'catalyst' (although Shepard turns out to actually be the catalyst when you think about it) is not Harbinger.  It created Harbinger as part of the solution it came up with when the following data was input:
All synthetic life will always try to wipe out organic life
Eventually synthetic life will succeed in it's goal of wiping out all organic life
Querry:  find a solution that will preserve life

It's solution was the harvest.  YES, it was programmed with faulty data; GIGO applies.  It created Harbinger and the other Reapers to 'harvest' life so life will continue.  They target spacefaring races that are on the verge (or slightly past) of creating synthetic life forms. 

So, WHY was it a bad choice?  Well, I disagree.  I think it was a good choice.  Not the BEST choice.  But it works for me.  Of course, that doesn't matter since you've already discounted every single person that disagrees with your assertion that only what YOU like is important, and most people agree with you.   But yes, some people think it was a bad choice; some people hate the idea of Shepard actually caring about a kid.  They want their Shep to be some uncaring, powerful Terminator type Cyborg tossing off humerous one liners as innocent people die in pain.  That there was a facet of Shep that they couldn't control greatly angers them.  Apparently, they're not aware that role play means assuming a role, not necessarily creating that role.  In this case, we assume the role of the best of Humanity, a self sacrificing soldier who cares for others.  They don't want to assume that role <shrug>.  I say they bought the wrong game, they say because they bought the game then they should get what they want . 

I'll point out something Harbinger said that he was 100% correct about.  Soveriegn to, I think. They both state that Shepard (and us, by extension) would not understand.  BOY were they right about that! <LOL>

Of course, I could have just read the thread before posting <LOL>.  Alorcormin has many good points, and he seems to be a much nicer person then I am as well.  So what he said.

Modifié par Wolfva2, 04 juillet 2013 - 06:23 .

[TuringPoint]

The Catalyst doesn't have a reason for choosing that image. It can't. It's a VI. The boy could be on the surface of Shepard's thoughts as he's fading away. Maybe TIM's brief but intense indoctrinating presence, wherein he read or downloaded some of Shepard's thoughts, inspired the Catalyst - being the serveant for the Reapers that he was at that point. The Catalyst is slave to the fact that the Crucible was just connected to it. In fact, maybe the image is a sign that in some way, Shepard's mind has started to seep into the Catalyst's functioning. Anderson is dead or at least unconscious and dying; TIM is dead as well as, before that, indoctrinated. Shepard is the only organic sentient being there, more or less under his own devices. TIM's frustration may have been in part related that, when he got to the Crucible/Catalyst controls, he couldn't do anything, because he was indoctrinated. He was right all along, in a way, but misguided into futility.

As for Shepard coming up with important questions, he's basically dying at that point and so is everyone around him. How many questions should he have? I think it's good to have questions, but the questioning has always been secondary to the action itself. It is, in fact, NOT the action on its own, it can't drive a plot. It is essentially static.

I recently finished reading a book trilogy which took on a few of the running themes that were in mass effect, and did it better. Just... putting that out there.

I think it's awesome that someone else agrees with me.  Could maybe be a bit nicer, although your points are valid - maybe not mean as much as inflammatory.

Something I'm trying to get across is that the images of the boy does something important for the soul of the story, but it's not really adequate  - the great joke without the joke.  I think you (wolf) said it a little better.  

The dreams of the boy were just simplistic enough that I feel comfortable critiquing it, but I'm not inclined to rip it to shreds and I don't want to bury it either.  This series has a lot of moments, themes, and facets that are slightly B-grade-ish.  Mostly because this was just an ambitious project, and it had a lot of different people working on it who all had their own ideas of what a space opera game series would be like.  What the world would be like, what the tone of the story should be, what sorts of characters should be involved.  I guess this leads to false expectations.  

You know what?  I'm fine with false expectations.  I like to be surprised.  That's why I'm happy with the ending, even before the EC.

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 juillet 2013 - 06:53 .

[justafan]

I believe the Starchild was supposed to be the purveyor of final exposition. I believe Bioware was going for the twist ending, what with the Reaper's motivations and the dramatic effects of the crucible weapon. They needed something to spout this explanation, so they chose a character they believed everyone, both new and old gamers, would have developed sympathy for, hence the child.

However, a ****** poor handling of logic led to the starchild we hate. Instead of a thought provoking twist ending, we got a plot-hole ridden torch-the-franchise-and-run. Everything the Catalyst says makes little to no sense, and even seems to ignore previous actions in the very game, as well as the common themes from the previous two games. This is why I believe the starchild was a bad choice storywise.

[Wolfva2]

Justafan has a point to. I know a lot of people were debating the Reapers motives. The whole expositional ending seemed built to satisfy that. We went from, "You will never understand!" to "Hey guys! Here's why this is happening!" It came across somewhat heavy handed, and, at least to me, seemed almost tacked on as an after thought. I still think ending the game with the Crucible joining the Citadel resulting in the destruction of the Reapers would have been a satisfactory ending, but they decided to be cute. It didn't work as well as they wanted.

Honestly? I'm ok with NOT knowing the Reapers motivation. After all, being inscrutable is a hallmark of the truly alien.

[Ravensword]

Wolfva2 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.

Well, I'd respond here but I can't.  Because you've already stated that most people agree with you.  Therefore, anyone who disagrees is in the distant minority and thus doesn't count.

Oh, what the heck.  First off, there is NO STARCHILD.  It's a computer program.  It takes on the image of a child that Shep watched die because that emotionally scarred Shepard.  The kid, who he would watch from his office window as the kid played, was on his mind.  It took this form as Shepard would be more apt to listen to a familiar face he sympathized with then a computer. 

The computer program, often referred to as 'starchild' or 'catalyst' (although Shepard turns out to actually be the catalyst when you think about it) is not Harbinger.  It created Harbinger as part of the solution it came up with when the following data was input:
All synthetic life will always try to wipe out organic life
Eventually synthetic life will succeed in it's goal of wiping out all organic life
Querry:  find a solution that will preserve life

It's solution was the harvest.  YES, it was programmed with faulty data; GIGO applies.  It created Harbinger and the other Reapers to 'harvest' life so life will continue.  They target spacefaring races that are on the verge (or slightly past) of creating synthetic life forms. 

So, WHY was it a bad choice?  Well, I disagree.  I think it was a good choice.  Not the BEST choice.  But it works for me.  Of course, that doesn't matter since you've already discounted every single person that disagrees with your assertion that only what YOU like is important, and most people agree with you.   But yes, some people think it was a bad choice; some people hate the idea of Shepard actually caring about a kid.  They want their Shep to be some uncaring, powerful Terminator type Cyborg tossing off humerous one liners as innocent people die in pain.  That there was a facet of Shep that they couldn't control greatly angers them.  Apparently, they're not aware that role play means assuming a role, not necessarily creating that role.  In this case, we assume the role of the best of Humanity, a self sacrificing soldier who cares for others.  They don't want to assume that role <shrug>.  I say they bought the wrong game, they say because they bought the game then they should get what they want . 

I'll point out something Harbinger said that he was 100% correct about.  Soveriegn to, I think. They both state that Shepard (and us, by extension) would not understand.  BOY were they right about that! <LOL>

Of course, I could have just read the thread before posting <LOL>.  Alorcormin has many good points, and he seems to be a much nicer person then I am as well.  So what he said.

You should hang out w/ Seival and Auld Wulf since you guys share the same view of the ending, if you're pro synthesis. I don't know if you are, but I hope you are.

As for the starbrat, based on the kid that died on Earth, aka ventbrat. It really was a hamfisted attempt to make the audience care about this kid. This kid has no lines and only a few scenes before his demise, but the writers attempt to make us (the audience) give a damn about a glorified extra. People were dropping like flies left and right. Why should I care about some kid that got two scenes before his death? It would've been more effective if it was a dead LI or something.

And as for starbrat's asinine solution for preserving organic life in the galaxy. I'd like to post this image. I'm sure you've seen it around the forums before, but I'd like to show it again to everyone here:



Yeaaaaah. Real genius solution there. A better solution would've been to simply step in whenever organics were having a problem w/ a massive synthetic uprising or something along that nature and wiped out the opposing forces. The solution of saving organics by eradicating all spacefaring life within a given cycle is pretty much like curing a headache by cutting off the head. As one can see, that Catalyst is pretty much a complete ****** to come up w/ that sort of solution.

[Wolfva2]

Ravensword wrote...



You should hang out w/ Seival and Auld Wulf since you guys share the same view of the ending, if you're pro synthesis. I don't know if you are, but I hope you are.

As for the starbrat, based on the kid that died on Earth, aka ventbrat. It really was a hamfisted attempt to make the audience care about this kid. This kid has no lines and only a few scenes before his demise, but the writers attempt to make us (the audience) give a damn about a glorified extra. People were dropping like flies left and right. Why should I care about some kid that got two scenes before his death? It would've been more effective if it was a dead LI or something.

And as for starbrat's asinine solution for preserving organic life in the galaxy. I'd like to post this image. I'm sure you've seen it around the forums before, but I'd like to show it again to everyone here:



Yeaaaaah. Real genius solution there. A better solution would've been to simply step in whenever organics were having a problem w/ a massive synthetic uprising or something along that nature and wiped out the opposing forces. The solution of saving organics by eradicating all spacefaring life within a given cycle is pretty much like curing a headache by cutting off the head. As one can see, that Catalyst is pretty much a complete ****** to come up w/ that sort of solution.

Auld and I disagree on many things.  I think the ending was ok, could have been better, and should have ended with the merging of the crucible and citadel.  I pick destroy every time; synthesis is an abomination for me.

I dunno what your back ground is, but mine is 26 years of law enforcement.  People who spend their lives protecting others tend to have soft spots for children.  To YOU the kid dying was a 'ham fisted attempt' to make players care.  To ME, and I'd dare say to many soldiers, LEOs, firemen, EMTs, etc, it was a realistic depiction of what happens when a person with a protectors mindset sees a child die because he was powerless to save him.  We all have our 'starbrat' I suppose.  Mine is a 12yr old girl killed by a DUI; standing there directing traffic while the drunk screamed how she couldn't feel anything (severed spine) and the girls mother begged to know if her daughter was ok while they chopped the car apart to get her out still haunts me 20 years later.   Now, you might laugh and think rude names about me, but people who've been there understand.  Psychologically speaking, Shepard being so affected by the child makes sense.  Mass death is just a number.  1 death is a tragedy you remember.

Example:  Anne Frank.

As far as the AI's solution; yes it's asinine.  Hence my reference to GIGO.  Garbage in, Garbage out.  However, you miss the same point many others do.  They're not tryign to save HUMAN, or TURIAN, or whatever life.  They're trying to save LIFE as an entity.  Not specific species.  That pic is even more asinine because it's inaccurate.  In fact, it would only be accurate (or funny) if the Reapers were attempting to wipe out ALL life.  Which is what they believe synthetics WILL do.  Life is an organism, space faring races are boobs; and synthetics are breast cancer.  To save the life of the patient, Reapers are doing a masectomy.

[Alien Number Six]

I have PTSD. Shepard's dreams stem from PTSD in my opinion. The Catalyst looked into Shepard's mind hoping to give Shepard a friendly image to display itself as. It sees the reoccuring image of the child killed on earth and takes it's form thinking Shepard must care about the child very much and view it's image as a friendly one. She doesn't. For Shepard the child represents everyone she has ever lost during the war. This is the problem. Organics and Synthitics don't understand each other. How bad was it before the cycles started that the Reapers became the solution? How extreme was the situation to consider liquifing whole races to save their knowledge and genetic material? Instead of wrapping up the series with a little bow BioWare went the long way around. Some people get it, most did not.

[o Ventus]

The effect of the kid's death on Shepard is so unbelievable because it's baseless and takes strange mental precedence over every other death that Shepard has witnessed, with those other deaths almost always involving people whom Shepard is more emotionally involved in.

Sole Survivor? Shepard's entire platoon was eaten by a thresher maw.

Colonist? Shepard's family was slaughtered before his eyes.

Virmire? Shepard just left behind Kaidan or Ashley, whom s/he may or may not be romancing at this point in time.

ME2 Shepard may have been romancing Tali, only for her to be taken and killed by the Seeker swarms on the Collector base.

ME3 Shepard may be involved with Miranda, only to see her killed by her father on Horizon.

All of these potentially heart-wrenching things, but some f**king kid who only dies because he's too stupid to listen to me is supposed to make me "sad"? No, to hell with that. That's borderline exploitative.

[Bat32391]

I thought the whole starbrat thing was stupid. They should have just used Harbinger.

[Wolfva2]

And in none of those origin stories is Shepard in charge. In the case of the later deaths, they happen to adult soldiers fighting in a war. They aren't an innocent child that Shep tried to save. That you can not see the difference is, I think, a good thing. I hope for your sake you never find out just how wrong you are.

[Xamufam]

Alien Number Six wrote...

I have PTSD. Shepard's dreams stem from PTSD in my opinion. The Catalyst looked into Shepard's mind hoping to give Shepard a friendly image to display itself as. It sees the reoccuring image of the child killed on earth and takes it's form thinking Shepard must care about the child very much and view it's image as a friendly one. She doesn't. For Shepard the child represents everyone she has ever lost during the war. This is the problem. Organics and Synthitics don't understand each other. How bad was it before the cycles started that the Reapers became the solution? How extreme was the situation to consider liquifing whole races to save their knowledge and genetic material? Instead of wrapping up the series with a little bow BioWare went the long way around. Some people get it, most did not.

Paul grayson in the novel mass effect retribution had same sort of dreams, hearing things like shep was hearing harbinger subconsciously in me2 he was implanted with cerberus implants & got indoctrinated trough them. seeing oily shadows hearing dead comrades, hearing reaper hums on the normandy seing things thats not there is part of the process. (that book explains the indoctrination process) & in the finalhourdocumentary it showd that shep would have fallen under reaper control at the end trying to resist it while fighting this.



the dreams are just cut content, but it was removed way to late in the game & the dream theory began


Edit: part of edi was reapertech
So no it's not ptsd just cut content
illusive man got the technology from captured collectors

Modifié par Troxa, 04 juillet 2013 - 11:42 .

[o Ventus]

Wolfva2 wrote...

And in none of those origin stories is Shepard in charge. In the case of the later deaths, they happen to adult soldiers fighting in a war. They aren't an innocent child that Shep tried to save. That you can not see the difference is, I think, a good thing. I hope for your sake you never find out just how wrong you are.

Shepard isn't in charge when the child dies either. What's your point?

Ashley/Kaidan's deaths somehow have less impact because they're adults? Disregarding that they may be extremely close to Shepard and that he is directly responsible for their deaths?

Shepard didn't even try to help that kid. All Shepard did was say "come with me", to which the kid said no and crawled away. That child died because he was stupid. I'm not going to feel bad for somebody whom I have no emotional connection to, after they die solely because they didn't listen to me.

As far as this discussion goes, I probablhy won't see how "wrong" I am, because neither you nor the writers have put any effort in explaining to me exactly why I should care for this faceless child. Am I supposed to cry simply because it's a little boy? That's, as I said, borderline exploitative.

[crimzontearz]

Under a purely storytelling perspective a writer should NEVER introduce a main character at the end of a story

personally tho, I hate the fact Bioware tried to push emotional response on me through the child from earth through all the game culminating with the Bratalyst, his presence and speech make me feel like I basically acquiesced to ITS way of envisioning how it would all end basicallyas he allowed me to win

Lastly, he is a vessel for Mac's artistic crap

[Nightdragon8]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

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.

this I would disagree with, if it was Harbinger its a character we already know and with the Leviathian DLC it told us that Harbinger was the first reaper. The other problem is that, so far all things point to all the reapers pretty much being VI insted of AI. I mean why hasn't 'any' of them said... you know i don't think its right. (maybe they have or maybe they just weeded out all the "bad" programming elements) 

The reas I hate the brat, is 2 reason mainly its playing on 1) the form of a child is to show "innoencece" and considering all of Shep's nightmares, should make the audience simpitic to what it is saying., Now I am fulling willing to accept that was intentional as a sort of mind game to play on the Player/Shep. 2) They drop the choices and introduce the character at the last minuite. We don't get even the time to figure out if its just trying to manipulate us or telling us the truth.

Also, it adds a TON of questions... like, if the catalyist was the citidel... tell me agian why they needed the keepers to open the Mass Relay to darkspace agian? If the reapers could project itself into the Citidel, why would they need to go anywhere near it?

[crimzontearz]

StreetMagic wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Under a purely storytelling perspective a writer should NEVER introduce a main character at the end of a story

personally tho, I hate the fact Bioware tried to push emotional response on me through the child from earth through all the game culminating with the Bratalyst, his presence and speech make me feel like I basically acquiesced to ITS way of envisioning how it would all end basicallyas he allowed me to win

Lastly, he is a vessel for Mac's artistic crap

I'm not even sure "artistic crap" is like this. It actually seems maliciously and irresponsibly done. Part of me actually thinks it was all written in a fit of spite. Against what, I'm not sure. Maybe he's just not doing well. Who else gets a dream job and ruins a beloved franchise in the last 5 minutes?

I want you to read this while thinking about the original ME3 ending