Games people and/or critics were too hard on.

[MetalDooley]

What's so bad about the Star Child, anyway? Sure, he replaced Harbinger as the main-villain of the Mass Effect trilogy, and came out of left-field as well, but I also found his intentions understandable. He wanted to unite organics and machines despite their differences, and unfortunately the only solution he could find was to turn both sides into Reapers in order to "preserve their DNA". It might not be up to par with the idea of the Reapers as an unknowable, alien threat with no reason as to why they harvest entire races, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be, again because the Catalyst had noble intentions.

What's so bad about him?Pretty much everything really

- Someone at Bioware decided it would be a good idea to introduce the major antagonist of the entire series 10 minutes from the end of the trilogy and give him something like 14 lines of dialogue.Sure his dialogue was increased in the extended cut but it doesn't change the fact that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters(if rumours are to be believed)thought this was a good idea to begin with

- He's a literal Deus Ex Machina.

- You said it yourself.He replaced Harbinger.Harbinger was set up for 2 games as the chief villain only for it to be suddenly be revealed out of the blue at the very end that "LOL sorry this person/thing that's never been mentioned for the entire trilogy is actually the real villain".I mean really!!

- He's completely unnecessary.They had a perfectly good ending lined up only to scrap it at the last minute and pull this one out of their asses

- The whole child thing to begin with.Seriously I hated the recurring nightmare bullshit as it made absolutely zero sense to me.Then the catalyst shows up and lo and behold it's the child from my nightmares.Fuck off

- His reason is retarded.He's some millenia old super intelligence and the best he can come up with is " kill everyone to save everyone".Seriously!We all seen the Xzibit "Yo dawg" meme and it really sums up just how dumb this is reasoning is

- His reason is also massively flawed and contradicts events from earlier in the game.He asserts that synthetics will always rebel against their creators yet only a few hours previously it was revealed that the Geth only rebelled in self defence when they were faced with extinction and as soon as they drove the Quarians from Rannoch they stopped pursuing them and allowed them to escape.For the next 300 years they lived in isolation never leaving the Perseus Veil until the Reapers got involved and at the end they were happy to reconcile with the Quarians(in my playthrough at least)despite the Quarians attacking them again.Yet we're never allowed to present this as evidence because "hurr durr synthetics kill organics durr"

Look I know you love Mass Effect.Hell so do I.1 and 2 are easily in my top 10 games of the last gen and even 3 had some fantastic moments(such as Tuchanka and Rannoch)despite its flaws.But that whole Star Child segment is just horribly written and completely unnecessary and I'll never change my mind on that.I stick by my assertion that the only way the ending could be "fixed" is by cutting out that whole part

 

[MetalDooley]

snip

None of which changes the fact that the Star Child segment is badly written and completely unnecessary.

 

[Darmani]

Metroid Other M

I played it, understood what was going on pretty well, then I found out that the way I interpreted it was far off what most other people seem to have understood it as. I saw it as presenting Samus as a broken person; the people I've spoken to see it as some crime against women, and it never gets beyond that. There exists such a violent distaste for it that I've given up even trying to talk about it.

Internet morality. You're progressive because you beat up homophobes, sexists, or racists. But this, YEAH.
I go even further by pointing out Samus's characterization is common among male heroes who are noted for machoismo. I will concede it has sexism in it (really folks that many buttshots) and other execution flaws (can't seem to figure when to start or stop talking; the story is not well distributed...and its a bit annoying they won't let you affect the plot in apparent ways)

I think there is totally a discussion to be had. Most of it is silenced under memes and blanket accusations of sexism

 

[MetalDooley]

What about Seymour Guado from Final Fantasy X? His intentions were almost the same as the Catalyst's: Destroy the world to save it. Surely, you had no problems with Seymour.

1)Never played it.Never intend to
2)The intentions of a Final Fantasy antagonist have nothing to do with Mass Effects ending being badly written.Leaving aside the Star Childs intentions for a moment,which I still contend are flawed at best and completely stupid at worst,I'll just repeat the first 3 points I made...

- Someone at Bioware decided it would be a good idea to introduce the major antagonist of the entire series 10 minutes from the end of the trilogy and give him something like 14 lines of dialogue.Sure his dialogue was increased in the extended cut but it doesn't change the fact that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters(if rumours are to be believed)thought this was a good idea to begin with

- He's a literal Deus Ex Machina.

- You said it yourself.He replaced Harbinger.Harbinger was set up for 2 games as the chief villain only for it to be suddenly be revealed out of the blue at the very end that "LOL sorry this person/thing that's never been mentioned for the entire trilogy is actually the real villain".I mean really!!

One of those things on it's own would be bad enough.All three together is just plain bad writing

3)As you asked yes "destroy the world to save it" is fucking stupid.That's like saying I'd better burn down my house to prevent it getting washed away in a flood