82 réponses à ce sujet

[Omnicrat]

In ME1, it was a covert branch of Alliance intellegence that went rouge (or didn't go rouge acording to some posters) and became a fully independant organization attempting to... do something.  It didn't seem to be a human centric group so much as a group of scientists and there military asociates doing research on ethically questionable (at best) topics.  Very few people know of the existance of Cerberus at this point.

Then, in ME2, Cerberus is an insainly well-funded terrorist organization that has the goal of asuring human dominance.  If you read the codex entry on Cerberus, it doesn't even mention the Alliance, but instead paints there history as having always been a terrorist organization.  It seems like everyone has known about Cerberus for a very long time.

If Cerberus used to be part of Alliance military intelegence, how does no one know who tim is?  Why would Cerberus have/need front corporations?  Whats the deal with that manifesto the codex talks about in ME2?  When did everyone find out Cerberus existed?

So, I'm thinking there are four possibilities, in order of precived likelyhood;  1)  Cerberus history was altered to make it fit the naritive the writers of Mass Effect wanted.  2)  I missed something (either in ME1, 2, or both[or it is explained in some other media]) and there is no discrepency.  3)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus to distance themselves from any connection to Cerberus that used to be there.  4)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus because they are still in the fold.

So, what is it?

[Abstract]

I believe part of the idea of Cerberus(You learn some of this from talking to Miranda) is that within the company they have several different divisions. I think in ME1 we may have only been seeing a small part of the much larger company. One thing EDI says is particularly revealing.

"Members from one branch cannot identify members from another"

In other words, each branch doesn't really know who is in the other branches

Modifié par Abstract, 22 janvier 2011 - 09:48 .

[Omnicrat]

Abstract wrote...

I believe part of the idea of Cerberus(You learn some of this from talking to Miranda) is that within the company they have several different divisions. I think in ME1 we may have only been seeing a small part of the much larger company. One thing EDI says is particularly revealing.

"Members from one branch cannot identify members from another"

In other words, each branch doesn't really know who is in the other branches

Right.  I got that.  But how is destroying a unit of human mariens greatly helping humans beyond arbitrary scientific understanding that doesn't have any practical aplications?  Besides that, this doesn't deal with a plethera of other issues I have stated, just what the group seems like.

[Zulu_DFA]

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

So.... what we are told by a rear admiral about Cerberus is better intel than that of the Shadow Broker? Those are our sources.

And you have to actually be part of a political unit before you can be seditionist. I get the impression though that you were sad when the Berlin Wall was torn down because to you it was one of the greatest ideas in the world?

I know plenty who are anti-immigration, but people being anti-emigration are rare.

[Omnicrat]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

Then why does Cerberus need front companies?  Why was the existance of Cerberus revieled to the public prior to the events of ME1 (unless I have my dates wrong) as a terrorist organization?  How could that happen and Admeral Kohuckoo (sp fail) think it is a top secreat government branch that no one knows about that just went rouge?

[Zulu_DFA]

Omnicrat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

Then why does Cerberus need front companies?  Why was the existance of Cerberus revieled to the public prior to the events of ME1 (unless I have my dates wrong) as a terrorist organization?  How could that happen and Admeral Kohuckoo (sp fail) think it is a top secreat government branch that no one knows about that just went rouge?

Do you realize what a "black op" is?

[Omnicrat]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

Then why does Cerberus need front companies?  Why was the existance of Cerberus revieled to the public prior to the events of ME1 (unless I have my dates wrong) as a terrorist organization?  How could that happen and Admeral Kohuckoo (sp fail) think it is a top secreat government branch that no one knows about that just went rouge?

Do you realize what a "black op" is?

I think.  1) just to be sure, you define it.  2)  re-read the bolded bits.

US black ops still get funding from the US government, why would Cerberus be different?  and there is still the whole contradictory preceptions thing...

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

So.... what we are told by a rear admiral about Cerberus is better intel than that of the Shadow Broker? Those are our sources.

Nothing in the Shadow Broker's files contradicts the idea that Cerberus is doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work.

Moiaussi wrote...

And
you have to actually be part of a political unit before you can be seditionist. I get the impression though that you were sad when the Berlin Wall was torn down because to you it was one of the greatest ideas in the world?

I know plenty who are anti-immigration, but people being anti-emigration are rare.

The Alliance is not a nation. It's a syndicate. Not a "United States in space", but a "British East India Company in space". Therefor it's OK for Humans to settle anywhere they can, but they have to do that to (a) produce industrial output and generate revenue for the Alliance affiliated corporations, and ( rely on the Alliance provided commodities, such as security, in the first place.

Omnicrat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

Then why does Cerberus need front companies?  Why was the existance of Cerberus revieled to the public prior to the events of ME1 (unless I have my dates wrong) as a terrorist organization?  How could that happen and Admeral Kohuckoo (sp fail) think it is a top secreat government branch that no one knows about that just went rouge?

Do you realize what a "black op" is?

I think.  1) just to be sure, you define it.  2)  re-read the bolded bits.

US black ops still get funding from the US government, why would Cerberus be different?  and there is still the whole contradictory preceptions thing...

A "black op" is an operation illegal under the own laws of the government on behalf of which it is carried out. Therefore one of the parameters of such an operation is "plausible deniability" -- the measures necessary for the government to deny involvement.

The phrase "US black ops get funding from the US government" only means that a nosy journalist have digged deep enough into financial transactions to link an the government to a black op. However, the US government always dismisses such claims as "conspiracy theories", with the officials mentioned retiring from public service to never be prosecuted for their "corruption".

The existence of Cerberus was revealed to the public by the "Illusive Man's Manifesto". It was planned to be unofficial, plausibly deniable part of the Alliance from the very start. Hence, setting it as an extremist political movement. Therefore, all the wannabe operatives should have been recruited to serve "the cause" and not the Alliance from the very start. That said, as Evolution #1 shows, it was indeed started privately by Jack Harper, only to immediately get called upon by an Alliance general to extend his operational reach.

As for Kahoku, what's so surprising? The Alliance wasn't helping with the invesigation of his unit's fate, and then hanged him out to dry as well, when he got to the bottom of it. It's quite logical for him to assume that Cerberus was getting systematic, if unofficial, support from his, Rear Admiral Kahoku's, superiors (which mean the top brass).

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 22 janvier 2011 - 11:11 .

[Omnicrat]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Cerberus' "ret-conned" history is a cover-up for it's real function of doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work. Like, you know, saving the Human colonies in the Terminus Systems, but making the most seditionist one (Horizon) a target for the enemy attack in the process.

Then why does Cerberus need front companies?  Why was the existance of Cerberus revieled to the public prior to the events of ME1 (unless I have my dates wrong) as a terrorist organization?  How could that happen and Admeral Kohuckoo (sp fail) think it is a top secreat government branch that no one knows about that just went rouge?

Do you realize what a "black op" is?

I think.  1) just to be sure, you define it.  2)  re-read the bolded bits.

US black ops still get funding from the US government, why would Cerberus be different?  and there is still the whole contradictory preceptions thing...

1)  A "black op" is an operation illegal under the own laws of the government on behalf of which it is carried out. Therefore one of the parameters of such an operation is "plausible deniability" -- the measures necessary for the government to deny involvement.

2)  The phrase "US black ops get funding from the US government" only means that a nosy journalist have digged deep enough into financial transactions to link an the government to a black op. However, the US government always dismisses such claims as "conspiracy theories", with the officials mentioned retiring from public service to never be prosecuted for their "corruption".

3)  The existence of Cerberus was revealed to the public by the "Illusive Man's Manifesto". It was planned to be unofficial, plausibly deniable part of the Alliance from the very start. Hence, setting it as an extremist political movement. Therefore, all the wannabe operatives should have been recruited to serve "the cause" and not the Alliance from the very start. That said, as Evolution #1 shows, it was indeed started privately by Jack Harper, only to immediately get called upon by an Alliance general to extend his operational reach.

4)  As for Kahoku, what's so surprising? The Alliance wasn't helping with the invesigation of his unit's fate, and then hanged him out to dry as well, when he got to the bottom of it. It's quite logical for him to assume that Cerberus was getting systematic, if unofficial, support from his, Rear Admiral Kahoku's, superiors (which mean the top brass).

added numbers

1)  I thought black ops were like shadow ops.  They could be illigal by the laws of a country (like the US trying to assasinate people) but they could just be covert operations.  And wasn't that what the corseairs (sp) were for?  Why would the alliance have both?

2)  ... but my point was the funding didn't come from some type of front corporation.  Which is where EDI tells you the majority of Cerberus funding comes form.

3)  This explanation makes sence.

4)  My point was, why would Cerberus be publicly known as something, while Kahoku thinks it is something else (it acctually being that something else [which absolutly no one is supposed to know and Kahoku would have no way to know]) for no apparent reason?

[Zulu_DFA]

Omnicrat wrote...

1)  I thought black ops were like shadow ops.  They could be illigal by the laws of a country (like the US trying to assasinate people) but they could just be covert operations.  And wasn't that what the corseairs (sp) were for?  Why would the alliance have both?

2)  ... but my point was the funding didn't come from some type of front corporation.  Which is where EDI tells you the majority of Cerberus funding comes form.

3)  This explanation makes sence.

4)  My point was, why would Cerberus be publicly known as something, while Kahoku thinks it is something else (it acctually being that something else [which absolutly no one is supposed to know and Kahoku would have no way to know]) for no apparent reason?

1) Why wouldn't the Alliance have both?

2) EDI does say that "legitimate busiesses" generate income too. Plus all this materiel and personnel resources have to be listed as somebody's property and employees.

3) OK

4) Kahoku did some digging and came to the concusion he managed to share with you.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:45 .

[Burdokva]

Well, Zulu_DFA is actually acting like a sensible person that sees Cerberus as a needed political and military tool, rather than just bash in blind rage against. Respect, sir.

As for the story being retconned, it wasn't. To put it in simple terms - how many of you Americans knew about al-Qaeda before 2001? I would guess the vast majority didn't, although US political and military structure officials certainly knew that such a group existed.

Same for Cerberus. In Mass Effect it's not a widely-known organization and Alliance senior personnel are clearly aware of it's existence, if only vaguely; that doesn't mean it wasn't well funded or influential. For all we know in the two years Cerberus could have gained the attention of the public, be it due to its connection with Shepard (who is a widely known figure throughout the galaxy after the assault on the Citadel), a widespread terrorist campaign against government or military officials of other organizations or even for actively providing intel and assistance to remote Alliance colonies against hostile like batarians or pirates.

Modifié par Burdokva, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Omnicrat wrote...

In ME1, it was a covert branch of Alliance intellegence that went rouge (or didn't go rouge acording to some posters) and became a fully independant organization attempting to... do something.  It didn't seem to be a human centric group so much as a group of scientists and there military asociates doing research on ethically questionable (at best) topics.  Very few people know of the existance of Cerberus at this point.

Then, in ME2, Cerberus is an insainly well-funded terrorist organization that has the goal of asuring human dominance.  If you read the codex entry on Cerberus, it doesn't even mention the Alliance, but instead paints there history as having always been a terrorist organization.  It seems like everyone has known about Cerberus for a very long time.

If Cerberus used to be part of Alliance military intelegence, how does no one know who tim is?  Why would Cerberus have/need front corporations?  Whats the deal with that manifesto the codex talks about in ME2?  When did everyone find out Cerberus existed?

So, I'm thinking there are four possibilities, in order of precived likelyhood;  1)  Cerberus history was altered to make it fit the naritive the writers of Mass Effect wanted.  2)  I missed something (either in ME1, 2, or both[or it is explained in some other media]) and there is no discrepency.  3)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus to distance themselves from any connection to Cerberus that used to be there.  4)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus because they are still in the fold.

So, what is it?

There is no contradiction. To start with, the Codex isn't an omniscient narrator, but an official Alliance/Council output reflecting their public views: this is also reflected in it's account of the Battle of the Citadel. Since the Alliance has never admitted ties to Cerberus and always called it a terrorist organization, and the Council has done the same, that's what they're going to say.

The Manifesto is a curiosity, but has as of yet never been linked to Cerberus (or TIM) directly. It could be by someone else otherwise insignificant. The important part of it is that it seems to be sympathetic/reflective of the viewpoint of Cerberus and its ideals, even if it isn't directly connected, and the Alliance attempt to publicly dismiss it coined the term 'Illusive Man' which just stuck when attributed to The Illusive Man.

When Cerberus exactly started remains a question unanswered, and interpretations may very. In a sense, Retribution (First Contact) saw TIM and his private team sent out on a high-risk, high-importance mission that the Alliance couldn't/wouldn't do. One might consider that the 'start' of it. If the Manifesto is actually linked/timed to the solid organizational start, that might be the start. Otherwise, the first public knowledge of Cerberus was the failed anti-matter raid.

Some Dramatic Implausibility (in the case of TIM, perhaps, though he may as well have outlived those who knew his name who aren't in with his group: simply because his name isn't shared doesn't mean it isn't known by anyone) exist in your questions, but the matter of funding is not one of them.

One of the aspects of the 'Black' world is that, in order to deny involvement, such organizations can't/don't want to simply rely on handouts from their countries. While governments have their means of trying to hide where the money they spend goes, even they don't want a permanent link between them and the group they want to deny. Cash  handovers works for smaller investments, but when you want something bigger, longer-term, and more significant, an alternative revenue source, one not linked to the government in question, is ideal. Money flows are just too easy to track over time when you know where or who to look at (like, say, a government).

Using seed money to start up front corporations and alternative money sources (crime, like when they cornered a significant part of the drug trade, or a classic 'using insider knowledge to play the market', or arranging money laundering setups to get money from private donors) can give an organization that sort of independent ability.

Cerberus was set up to be self-financing in order not to be tied to the Alliance, but in the end because it wasn't tied to the Alliance it had a much easier time breaking free*.

*Conspiracy theories may vary

[Dean_the_Young]

Omnicrat wrote...

In ME1, it was a covert branch of Alliance intellegence that went rouge (or didn't go rouge acording to some posters) and became a fully independant organization attempting to... do something.  It didn't seem to be a human centric group so much as a group of scientists and there military asociates doing research on ethically questionable (at best) topics.  Very few people know of the existance of Cerberus at this point.

Then, in ME2, Cerberus is an insainly well-funded terrorist organization that has the goal of asuring human dominance.  If you read the codex entry on Cerberus, it doesn't even mention the Alliance, but instead paints there history as having always been a terrorist organization.  It seems like everyone has known about Cerberus for a very long time.

If Cerberus used to be part of Alliance military intelegence, how does no one know who tim is?  Why would Cerberus have/need front corporations?  Whats the deal with that manifesto the codex talks about in ME2?  When did everyone find out Cerberus existed?

So, I'm thinking there are four possibilities, in order of precived likelyhood;  1)  Cerberus history was altered to make it fit the naritive the writers of Mass Effect wanted.  2)  I missed something (either in ME1, 2, or both[or it is explained in some other media]) and there is no discrepency.  3)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus to distance themselves from any connection to Cerberus that used to be there.  4)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus because they are still in the fold.

So, what is it?

There is no contradiction. To start with, the Codex isn't an omniscient narrator, but an official Alliance/Council output reflecting their public views: this is also reflected in it's account of the Battle of the Citadel. Since the Alliance has never admitted ties to Cerberus and always called it a terrorist organization, and the Council has done the same, that's what they're going to say.

The Manifesto is a curiosity, but has as of yet never been linked to Cerberus (or TIM) directly. It could be by someone else otherwise insignificant. The important part of it is that it seems to be sympathetic/reflective of the viewpoint of Cerberus and its ideals, even if it isn't directly connected, and the Alliance attempt to publicly dismiss it coined the term 'Illusive Man' which just stuck when attributed to The Illusive Man.

When Cerberus exactly started remains a question unanswered, and interpretations may very. In a sense, Retribution (First Contact) saw TIM and his private team sent out on a high-risk, high-importance mission that the Alliance couldn't/wouldn't do. One might consider that the 'start' of it. If the Manifesto is actually linked/timed to the solid organizational start, that might be the start. Otherwise, the first public knowledge of Cerberus was the failed anti-matter raid.

Some Dramatic Implausibility (in the case of TIM, perhaps, though he may as well have outlived those who knew his name who aren't in with his group: simply because his name isn't shared doesn't mean it isn't known by anyone) exist in your questions, but the matter of funding is not one of them.

One of the aspects of the 'Black' world is that, in order to deny involvement, such organizations can't/don't want to simply rely on handouts from their countries. While governments have their means of trying to hide where the money they spend goes, even they don't want a permanent link between them and the group they want to deny. Cash  handovers works for smaller investments, but when you want something bigger, longer-term, and more significant, an alternative revenue source, one not linked to the government in question, is ideal. Money flows are just too easy to track over time when you know where or who to look at (like, say, a government).

Using seed money to start up front corporations and alternative money sources (crime, like when they cornered a significant part of the drug trade, or a classic 'using insider knowledge to play the market', or arranging money laundering setups to get money from private donors) can give an organization that sort of independent ability.

Cerberus was set up to be self-financing in order not to be tied to the Alliance, but in the end because it wasn't tied to the Alliance it had a much easier time breaking free*.

*Conspiracy theories may vary

[Monochrome Wench]

The front orgainizations aren't just for funding reasons. The Normandy, built by a Cerberus company means that all the tech involved in it was known by 'the right people'. They have exploration/archeolgy companies to attempt to ensure that important new finds go to 'the right people'. These companies can do much to help fund Cerberus activities, but they also can be vital methods to gain information too.

[Zulu_DFA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

the first public knowledge of Cerberus was the failed anti-matter raid.

Wasn't it a successful anti-matter raid? AFAIK, the Codex says that "the terrorists" did steal the anti-matter. Some were left behind and died in a firefight but a single one, who said "Cerberus".

To me, looks like the poor bastards could have been framed to become "martyrs for the cause". Good PR if you know how to spin it.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:52 .

[Display Name Owner]

What I suspect is that Cerberus approached the Alliance at some point, maybe through one of its front companies, and offered to work with them. This was all just a way for the Illusive Man to plant a large number of agents throughout the Alliance, and when they had done so, Cerberus broke it's bonds and went fully independant again.



Basically it joined up with the Alliance to make a load of contacts and establish access to Alliance information. That's what I think anyway.

[Lvl20DM]

I read in an interview with Mac Walters that Cerberus was originally going to have a much larger role in ME1, but the planet hopping story-line was almost completely removed due to time and technical restraints. I think that's part of the reason that you see such a big difference between the way they are portrayed in ME1 and the games, novels, and comics thar followed.

As an aside, do we have a list of what was cut from ME1? I remember reading about multiple DLC's (including one set on Mars) that were never released.

[Cutlass Jack]

Cerberus wasn't accidently named. Its a multi-headed dog. The 'head' we fought in ME1 wasn't directly connected to the 'head' we work with in two. So I don't see it as a retcon as much as meeting another branch of the organization that goes about things an entirely different way.

The Illusive Man says as much. That each project is given an overall goal, but they determine the means to go about it. So one branch might decide to use humans in experiments with the hope of making humanity as a whole stronger. Jack's backstory seems to support that line of thinking.

About the only part that feels 'retconned' to me (or just bad writing) is that everyone (not just humans) seems to recognize Cerberus on sight in ME2. Which seems counter to their whole 'secret organizaton' schtick.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 22 janvier 2011 - 05:55 .

[Exile Isan]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
About the only part that feels 'retconned' to me (or just bad writing) is that everyone (not just humans) seems to recognize Cerberus on sight in ME2. Which seems counter to their whole 'secret organizaton' schtick.

I think that may have had more to do with the fact that people recognize Shepard and that TIM blabbed that Shepard was working for Cerberus. Or they could be like Mordin and have "crossed paths occassionally" with Cerberus. Or Samara who had just heard rumors about Cerberus.

[Cutlass Jack]

Exile Isan wrote...

I think that may have had more to do with the fact that people recognize Shepard and that TIM blabbed that Shepard was working for Cerberus. Or they could be like Mordin and have "crossed paths occassionally" with Cerberus. Or Samara who had just heard rumors about Cerberus.

That certain key people knew it didn't bother me. But it Seemed like every port I parked in recognized it as a Cerberus ship by its markings before even knowing who I am. That Cerberus even has a logo they blatantly paint on ships amuses.

Though my favorite moment was Ashley somehow confirming I was working with Cerberus on sight. Even though I showed up with Garrus and Mordin. Like I was wearing an 'I'm with Cerberus' T-Shirt with the pointing finger.

But that has nothing to do with this topic really.  

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 22 janvier 2011 - 06:17 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

It's just different divisions working under TIM.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lvl20DM wrote...

I read in an interview with Mac Walters that Cerberus was originally going to have a much larger role in ME1, but the planet hopping story-line was almost completely removed due to time and technical restraints. I think that's part of the reason that you see such a big difference between the way they are portrayed in ME1 and the games, novels, and comics thar followed.
As an aside, do we have a list of what was cut from ME1? I remember reading about multiple DLC's (including one set on Mars) that were never released.

Regarding Cerberus, Amistan Banes seems to have been cut.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Nothing in the Shadow Broker's files contradicts the idea that Cerberus is doing the Alliance's dirty and wet work.

The fact that a manefesto was published publicly brings it into question. Also there is nothing in the dossier even suggesting alliance ties, which is a pretty huge oversight, considering.

The Alliance is not a nation. It's a syndicate. Not a "United States in space", but a "British East India Company in space". Therefor it's OK for Humans to settle anywhere they can, but they have to do that to (a) produce industrial output and generate revenue for the Alliance affiliated corporations, and ( rely on the Alliance provided commodities, such as security, in the first place.

Where are you getting all these details on the Alliance that don't seem to be anywhere else? You aren't the first to just make such random claims. The Alliance is a democracy with free elections. There is of course the ongoing debate about the influence of corporations in 'free elections', but I hope we can agree to set that aside?

What are you talking about providing for alliance affiliated corps? If someone can pay for the transport, why do you conclude it is impossible for them to set up an actual independant colony? I take it the mercs that are acting as pirates, the same ones that both the Alliance and Council were afraid of war with are really Alliance agents too? Good citizens all?

Fabrication tech isn't exactly solely Alliance, nor is the knowledge needed to make such equipment. Why, precisely, would such worlds not be able to purchase from Illium? Or Omega? Or just bring parts and build their own machine shops and later, factories?

Where is your Berlin Wall keeping everyone from doing these things?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 22 janvier 2011 - 06:33 .

[Babli]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Regarding Cerberus, Amistan Banes seems to have been cut.

I still hope that this plot line will come back.

As for being retconned..it´s funny, I´m sure there is a lot of retconning in some parts of story, but Cerberus looks the same. We just got to see their perspective.

But it would make things more interesting if they mentioned Illusive Man in first game. That would make me curious about meeting him in second game. Without it it was just like "nah, I´m going to meet Illusive Man..hey, cool star behind you, man". I think his character came AFTER they´ve done first game.