Poll: A Defense for Space Timmy's Presence at the end of ME 3

[RJ 17]

This is little bit off topic, but what constantly bothers me is that The Citadel was supposed to be a huge Mass Relay used to summon the Reaper forces, which were in sleep-mode outside our galaxy in the "black space". In the first Mass Effect this is prevented, the Citadel doesn't become Mass Relay.

In Mass Effect 2, during the ending cutscene we clearly see the Reaper forces moving towards our galaxy from the "black space". So how the hell:
1. They were able to move so frigging fast,
2. Went totally unnoticed by everyone in the whole galaxy until they attacked Earth?
3. The Citadel was meant so that the Reapers would get surprise attack, cripple the galaxy wide society and to preserve their powers. So shouldn't the Reapers be out of power (or something)?

Are these answered in the ME3?

1: Just like any other ship, they're capable of faster-than-light travel. It never really says how far into dark space they are, but it wouldn't take more than a few months to get from where they were to the outter rim of the galaxy.
2: In the ME 2 Arrival DLC, you learn there's a star system whose relay can link to any other primary relay in the galaxy. As such, it's the star system that the Reapers are goig to hit first. To prevent this from happening (apparently mere moments before the Reapers arrive), you crash an asteroid into the relay, escaping on the Normandy just before the impact. As such, the Reaper invasion hardly goes unnoticed. Again, it takes the Reapers a few months to get to the closest relay, then they make a b-line for Earth.
3: That's just the most efficient way for them to perform the harvest. If they take the Citadel, they gain control of the relay netowrk, as such they can put a hault to all interstellar travel, isolating each star system to make for easy pickings. It never says that they're incapable of waging a war of attrition, though. Clearly, they're more than capable.

Okay, and if we as an audience go "That was really stupid and anti-climatic"? It was the end of a trilogy. There was no final battle, the whole point of building a fleet was rendered useless because you end the conflict alone anyway. This makes it feel like we spent the majority of the game gathering forces just to waste time. Add in that this huge reveal is at the very end of the game and comes out of nowhere and you have a recipe for an angry audience.

And yet without said fleet, delivering the Crucible would be impossible, and Shepard would never have made it to the end in the first place. It's lame, I agree, especially since I heard there was originally supposed to be a part where you get to play around with ground force troop deployment when you're making the final push. The point is, though - and this was made clear from the beginning of the game - the sole purpose of building that fleet was to defend and deploy the Crucible, there were no illusions of using that fleet to beat the Reapers in a direct battle.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Indeed, it is foreshadowed towards the end of ME 3, my point was that it WAS foreshadowed. But again, I'd argue that if you put some thought...

Don't insult me.
I'll give you three strikes starting now, then I'm done.

...into the story as a whole, it should be clear that the Reapers are the tools of something else.

By your previous argument, there wasn't any foreshadowing of them being tools of anyone else until the third game. (you corrected me. I thought it was ME1, not ME3)
So either you're backpedaling, or you're re-interpreting the foreshadowing.

That said, however, while Timmy himself isn't foreshadowed, the fact that the Reapers are serving some greater purpose is. As I've mentioned, throughout the entire series, every Reaper you talk to refuses to shut up about the fact that you cannot possiby comprehend their motivations or reasoning. And at long last, in the climactic scene of the trilogy, you get to learn what those motivations and reasons are.

This is your interpretation, not irrefutable proof.

The Reapers talking about "You cannot understand our motivations" is vague writing and it in no way specifically alludes to the Star Child or its motivations.
Rather, it's a generic catch-all statement that the writer could fill with any reason they wanted later in the story. Which by logic, suggests that the story wasn't thought out in advance, but made up on the spot for each game.

Both of these apply to the "lazy audience reaction". Pretty much all my arguments have been formed by simply putting some thought into the story itself *snip*

Implying that my arguments had no thought put into them.
Classy.

Strike one.

There is a point to the plot. The plot is that there has been the cycle of mass extinction that has gone on throughout the galaxy's history. No one knows why it happens, it just does. Timmy gives you the "why": it's his solution to the problem that he was tasked with. The point of the plot is the fight for survival against forces greater than you.

Again, this applies to the CHARACTERS far more directly than the audience.
The audience can comprehend the motivations, but they cannot relate.

I can comprehend what it means to become pregnant, but I can never relate because I'm male.

So unless you've personally had to cope with a cycle of periodic annihilation deliberately put into action by intelligent forces beyond your control, in real life, I don't think you can relate.

So I don't get why you assume that I cannot comprehend the plot.
I get the plot. I really do. I just think the ending is cliche' and rather stupid.

All you have to do is keep in mind that it's a matter of perspective. From our perspective (player and character), nothing Timmy says or does makes sense. But from HIS perspective, everything he does makes perfect sense. It's the best solution that he was able to find.

Then Star Child (or the writers) didn't try very hard at all.

If his directive is to prevent conflict, and all other options have failed, then why not sterilize all the planets once and for all and deactivate the Mass Relays? Or reroute them in such a way that it causes annihilation?
(The Reapers proved that they can alter the behavior of the Mass Relays. See the Omega Relay in ME2)

It's hard to preach "This the ONLY way. I've tried everything." when obvious methods still exist. Knowing that, fulfilling even his (presumably flawed) directive with periodic purges should make no sense even to HIM when there's a Final Solution available.

My alternative plot isn't as convoluted (which you seem to confuse with "deep"), but it has a basis grounded firmly in logic other than "Malfunctioning God-Computer".
I can actually relate to wanting to stay on top of the food chain, if nothing else.

While this does simplify the plot, it also completely negates the mystery behind the Reapers.

Right. Because the canonical machinations of the Reapers are still a mystery to this very day.
...Except they aren't. Because Mass Effect 3 happened.

Your argument here is a paradox.

But it lowers the value of the Reapers as characters.

I don't see how.
The canonical mystery of the Reapers was revealed in ME3.
How would my version be any worse? Because it gets...revealed in ME2?

Because it's less complex? More rational? Requires less cherry-picking and personal interpretation?

I admit it's something I whipped up on the spot and it isn't terribly deep, but at least it sticks to what was established and foreshadowed in ME1/ME2, and the motivations for the villains require something other than willful idiocy or personal insanity.

And this ties back in with my "lazy audience" argument. You're faulting Bioware for trying to go for depth and thought-provoking themes, and your criticisms stem from a simple lack of perspective.

Now you've dipped into pretense. Strike two.

I have taken the Star Child's perspective into consideration, and it's nothing more than a tired cliche' "The AI who believes that purging is the only way to keep synthetics and organics from creating conflict." It's the Fatalist Computer.

That isn't "deep" at all; especially for sci-fi fans who have seen this exact same shit before. 2001's HAL was about as deep as this. Chrono Cross's FATE was a remarkably similar character to Star Child (corrupted/flawed logic).

The Cybermen and Daleks in Dr Who have deeper ramifications than this, and they're just analogies for extreme versions of the principles of Communism and Nazis respectively.

It all connects if you're willing to just put some thought into it.

Strike three.
Right or wrong, I do not care anymore.
Fuck this, I'm out.

 

[RJ 17]

Right or wrong, I do not care anymore.
Fuck this, I'm out.

Fair enough.
Have a pleasant day.

 

[TheOneBearded]

2. Went totally unnoticed by everyone in the whole galaxy until they attacked Earth?

They attacked the Batarians first. I believe they are the closest to one of the edges of the universe - nearest to where the Reapers were sleeping in dark space.

 

[TheOneBearded]

Just let a dead dog die already! This garbage needs to just be forgotten.

 

[worldruler8]

If you need to perform mental gymnastics, fine, but this is lazy writing. What you're defending doesn't need to be defended. In the grand scheme of things, the star child was foreshadowed in ME3. but in the grand scheme of things, the issue is that was this the best choice? probably not. The idea, least to Bioware, seems fresh and new. But it's not, it's a carbon copy of old scifi. Which ME never really was...

 

[Ardure]

The whole catalyst was a cop out... It gave a reason for shepard to go flying all over the place trying to find a way to destroy the reapers... As for Timmy I found he brought an element in a scifi game that was just awkward... you know that whole god element. Now I have no problem with religion and scifi mixing, I love Battlestar and Deep Space Nine... but here it was all a bit too convenient. It would have made more sense if Timmy was a VI ... and not a child, though I know he was designed to look like the boy from the very start of the game. The problem was that this particular religious element played NO ROLE until the final sequence which does not work.

In short... Bioware wrote themselves into a corner and needed a way to get out of that corner and that's what they came up with. That's what happens when you two full games of decision making a character building to have to compensate for I guess... The whole "Timmy" aspect of ME3's ending was really the only part of ME3 I had a problem with... I know gasp! I may not have liked some of the other aspects but the overall story was not my story, I just got to interpret it my own way.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Such effort to defend such shitty writing.

Foreshadowing a Deus Ex Machina for later does not in any way make it less of a Deus Ex Machina. If you want to interpret the foreshadowing in Mass Effect 1 as to refer to the Star Child, go ahead. But it isn't conclusive because the foreshadowing itself is VERY vague.
(probably was by design so that they could have wrote in any Deus Ex Machina they wanted later. Not specifically Star Child)

This is shitty writing.

Why? It's exactly like foreshadowing with the line "God works in mysterious ways." and then introducing God at the 11th hour for the plot resolution.

It invalidates *everything* that lead up to that point.
Not good for a story meant to bring closure as the end to a long trilogy.

That's precisely what the Star Child is; it's that "God who works in mysterious ways".
Why are the Reapers acting under the contradictory-logic of "We must kill all of you so that you don't kill each other"?
Because Star Child says so, and it has its own agenda that the CHARACTERS (not necessarily the audience) allegedly "cannot understand".

Oh. How awfully convenient. So instead of the Reapers acting like patently-retarded murder machines, it's the Star Child who told them to do that because he's the collective will of the Reapers. OK. So what's *his* motivation?

Never explained.

If the so-called "answer" to a specific question leads back to the same exact question, then it isn't a valid answer for the audience.
It's a cop-out to avoid having to answer that question, and that's one of the worst things you can do in a story that's designed specifically to bring closure.

It was kind of explained. The machines kill organics before the organics are killed off by machines. Simple really. Also, really, really, really stupidly bad writing. Not to mention that the Geth and EDI invalidate the whole premise. It's like they got George Lucas to skim the series and write an ending.

Seriously the ending I wanted was just that the Reapers... win. I mean it took them a hundred years to kill the Protheans. Our galaxy was on the ropes in a matter of weeks. There should have been some heavy handed "learn to play nice with each other" message and then the Reapers win. Maybe they say something nice about Shepard and move on. This Square Enix style throw a god-kid Timmy thing in was just Bioware shitting the bed in the last five minutes of an otherwise damn good series.

Though on the other hand. They did make a trilogy of games where choices in one game have an effect on the others. Which I don't think has been done before. So kudos for that at least.

 

[The_Lost_King]

TLDR Version: While Space Timmy himself might not be necessary, the role that he fills most certainly is. To find out why, you're just gonna have to read the long version, or at least the last few paragraphs. P.S. If you don't like to read, I suggest getting off the internet...as it requires quite a lot of reading.

Alright, we all know that one of the biggest rage-inducing factors of the ME 3 ending was lil' Space Timmy. People thought he was shoe-horned in, that he utterly broke the flow of the game, made certain elements of the game meaningless, etc etc etc. I forget what topic it was in, but I had a discussion with someone regarding this matter and the more I discussed it, the more I came to realize that while you might not like Space Timmy himself, SOMEONE had to fill the role that he filled.

As for complaints about him, I might as well start with this list as provided in a different topic by I.Muir

Ah mass effect, you can always pretend that the star child never even existed and go straight to the reapers destroyed ending. I think there is a mod that does that for you too.

I won't derail your thread with my defense of the ME 3 ending, suffice to say that I've come to realize that Space Timmy is necessary for the story...well, more specifically, the role he fills is necessary for the story.

This thread was way more successful than I ever thought it would be
Guess we all just love video games
Chances are it will dissipate soon anyway.

So tell me your take on why he should be there and ill just sum up everybody's arguments on why he shouldn't be

1: His presence contradicts the protheans being able to disable of the citadels automatic function as a huge mass effect gate or whatever they are called I forgot
2:He gives a motivation to the reapers where none before was necessary and thus removes their shroud of unknowable terror
3:Having given you the choices available I believe it wasn't really explained why damaging the .... thing, jumping into it and whatever else did anything at all
4:Many feel that they were just given the illusion of choice, all of which nullified any branches they had taken along the way in the game and the implication of each choice wasn't really elaborated on differently for each ending. Even if it would have just been a chord of sinister background music to imply that there was more danger on the horizon or not.
5:I forgot the rest but my friend believes he is simply the by product of a certain writer wanting to force a young boy into the game any way they can. What that writers original purpose for the character was is supposed to be disturbing to say the least.

*snip*

What a load of bull.
1. When was this an issue? It could also be explained that they didn't understand the technology, so they couldn't fully disable it just dampen any transmissions to the keepers.
2. The Reapers are supposed to be scary mysterious and completely inunderstandable. The fear was what made them. They are called Reapers for God's sake. Plus if you are going to give us a reason make it make sense
3.Well the space magic that powers the universe is actually explained, and it could never merge synthetic and organic dna(mostly because synthetics have no dna). It could destroy Reapers but it couldn't control them.
4. The fleet sucked. IT was entirely useless. You could go through the game not trying to get any fleet at all and you could still make it to citadel station. Plus The only things I needed the ending to explain was the bullshit that it created in the last 10 minutes. All I needed to know if the Crucible had destroyed the reapers was how my squadmates were doing and how the other races are doing. Then the ending came in and left 1000 things to explain.
5. No one had to guide Shepard all he needed to do was to get the crucible hooked up to Citadel Station. Then bing bam boom the Reapers are dead cue slide show about how cute shepard and LI's babies are and how the rest of the squad and races are doing.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

This is little bit off topic, but what constantly bothers me is that The Citadel was supposed to be a huge Mass Relay used to summon the Reaper forces, which were in sleep-mode outside our galaxy in the "black space". In the first Mass Effect this is prevented, the Citadel doesn't become Mass Relay.

In Mass Effect 2, during the ending cutscene we clearly see the Reaper forces moving towards our galaxy from the "black space". So how the hell:
1. They were able to move so frigging fast,
2. Went totally unnoticed by everyone in the whole galaxy until they attacked Earth?
3. The Citadel was meant so that the Reapers would get surprise attack, cripple the galaxy wide society and to preserve their powers. So shouldn't the Reapers be out of power (or something)?

Are these answered in the ME3?

1: Just like any other ship, they're capable of faster-than-light travel. It never really says how far into dark space they are, but it wouldn't take more than a few months to get from where they were to the outter rim of the galaxy.
2: In the ME 2 Arrival DLC, you learn there's a star system whose relay can link to any other primary relay in the galaxy. As such, it's the star system that the Reapers are goig to hit first. To prevent this from happening (apparently mere moments before the Reapers arrive), you crash an asteroid into the relay, escaping on the Normandy just before the impact. As such, the Reaper invasion hardly goes unnoticed. Again, it takes the Reapers a few months to get to the closest relay, then they make a b-line for Earth.
3: That's just the most efficient way for them to perform the harvest. If they take the Citadel, they gain control of the relay netowrk, as such they can put a hault to all interstellar travel, isolating each star system to make for easy pickings. It never says that they're incapable of waging a war of attrition, though. Clearly, they're more than capable.

Okay, and if we as an audience go "That was really stupid and anti-climatic"? It was the end of a trilogy. There was no final battle, the whole point of building a fleet was rendered useless because you end the conflict alone anyway. This makes it feel like we spent the majority of the game gathering forces just to waste time. Add in that this huge reveal is at the very end of the game and comes out of nowhere and you have a recipe for an angry audience.

And yet without said fleet, delivering the Crucible would be impossible, and Shepard would never have made it to the end in the first place. It's lame, I agree, especially since I heard there was originally supposed to be a part where you get to play around with ground force troop deployment when you're making the final push. The point is, though - and this was made clear from the beginning of the game - the sole purpose of building that fleet was to defend and deploy the Crucible, there were no illusions of using that fleet to beat the Reapers in a direct battle.

That is another thing. Why were they so obessed with building the Crucible? They said multiple times that they didn't know what it was or what it would do when activated. Shepard: "So you want to pour all of our resources into something when we don't know what it does or can do and that we kind of sort of know how to build. And this is plan A for stopping the Repaers. Why can't we just try....fighting them?"
Shepard in my head is best Shepard. The game just had so much lazy writing. I just don't want you trying to rationalize this stuff in an effort to defend Bioware here. They can write characters and character arcs, they write a good main story once in a blue moon.

 

[orangeban]

Well, here's the thing, I don't care how much sense his presence makes when you explain it, I don't care if you can find logic in all the actions, the truth is, I shouldn't have to go away and have what the Hell is going on explained to me by a third party source, the game should tell me. We shouldn't have to take rough stabs in the dark about how our choices actually work, how the technology works etc. etc., those should be things explained in game. That's the whole point of the codex!

 

[w9496]

Good read, and made quite a bit of sense. It explains a few things in ways I haven't thought of before.

Still a lot of hate for the ending. Sometimes I feel like the only person on this site that enjoyed it.

 

[Murmillos]

I still say the best ending of ME3 wouldn't have included timmy at all.
The whole endings is like dressing up an aborted fetus and expecting us to call it a baby.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Ungh...here we go AGAIN.

Did Bioware need the Starkid to convey the points, counterpoints, arguments, solutions and logic of their ending? Yes, in five minutes the themes and logic built up in the previous 99.9% of the series are overturned and done quite neatly and completely. The Starkid is vital to this design decision.

That's not the problem.

The problem is why the HELL they needed to introduce new themes, arguments, problems, points, solutions and logic AT THAT STAGE in their game rather than build off the themes present in the game. If you need to walk out a narrator to explain your situation in the last five minutes so you can wrap the game properly, then you have FAILED in your storytelling and player involvement.

That's the problem kiddies. Not is the Starkid well suited for it's role in the narrative, rather, WHY is the starkid NECESSARY for the narrative to make sense.

 

[DioWallachia]

Class dismissed.

I think you will have a nice topic of discussion if we try to argue WHY the 2 writers thought that the game felt so "videogamey" and that they COULDN'T elaborate something "artistic" with the already established lore.

Lets invite the people to instead of just bitching, lets just come up with ideas to fix it.


In fact, lets think the ways that Space Timmy COULD have made sense in other stories, or at least think of the proper foreshadowing/clues before its sudden appearance.

EDIT: Also, a proper foreshadowing to how The Crusible is SUPPOSED to work would be nice

EDIT2: The guy above this post is kinda what i want.