1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

The criticism of the smudboy videos is not that there aren't plot holes. It's not that there isn't a couple scenes with disappointing writing.

Yes, Shepard being intact enough to ressurrect is pretty fantastical.
Yes, the dialogue with VS on Horizon is head-scratching - not because of the way they acted but because it was so out of character, especially for Kaidan.
Yes, I'm still not sure of the purpose of the larvae.

However, there are a few problems with *some* criticism..

First, Smudboy and others sometimes go way too far in looking for plotholes. There are many very rational and even obvious reasons we can't mine the relay. There are obvious reasons Cerberus wouldn't build a fleet. There are obvious reasons for assembling a squad. Heck, there are even several ways that Mordin could have gotten a seeker. We don't need to be handheld through everything. In fact, if we were, the game would bog down and people would complain about that.

Second, there are plot holes in *everything*. ME1 has plotholes. Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate and anything with the word Star has plotholes. B5 has plotholes. LotR has plot holes. The television shows I watched last night all had plot holes. Sometimes this is because the writer just missed it. Sometimes this is because that the scene is really cool and worth a plot hole. The average person, doesn't really care unless it gets too ridiculous. I mean blowing up the Death Star was a massive plot hole but it was a great scene and no one cared.

Third, I touched on this earlier, the ME series is very cinematic. The designers deliberately did not want to weigh you down with tons of exposition. So, no, they're not going to explain why Shepard doesn't go to the bathroom and they're not going to explain all of TIMs operations. Smud asks why isn't TIM gathering intel?? Well, he intercept the "Turian" signal after their encounter with the Collector vessel. He must have been able to do that because he's got everything tapped because he's gathering intel. Do we really need to be handheld through everything.

In summation, again, its not that Iakus doesn't have a list of good points. And if people stopped there, the debate wouldn't drag on. In fact, I notice that whenever the general discussion of writing and plotholes come up, people keep returning to those points and that's fine. Just don't blow it all out of proportion.

[Zulu_DFA]

iakus wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Again, the complaint isn't that the VS doesn't join Shepard. The complaint is that the VS disregards Shepard, accuses him of being a traitor and storms off without giving him a chance to explain. In point of fact, I'm all for the VS not joining Shepard on Horizon (or at all, during the course of ME2), but it could've been handled MUCH better.

As others have suggested, they could've expressed sentiments similar to Wrex or Liara or Tali on Freedom's Progress: that they believe you and they wish they could help, but they have their own mission and they can't drop everything to join you until it's complete. It would've been a touching--if not exactly cheerful--reunion. Instead, they wag their finger in your face, accuse you of being a traitor and a liar, refuse to believe anything you say and then storm off with a condescending remark about knowing where their loyalty lies (which apparently is no longer with the person whom they commited the aforementioned mutiny for in the first game).

This.  Every.  SIngle.  Word.  But the bolded part in particular.

I have always been totally cool with the VS not joining the squad, even temporarilly.

I am totally fine with them being suspicious of an alliance with Cerberus, even temporarilly.  Heck I wish I could rail against TIM with half the intensity the VS expresses with Shepard.

But what I cannot condone, and cannot let go of, is the heavy-handed treatment, selective amnesia, and apparant failure of Shepard's charisma at a critical moment.  It's bad writing for no other reason it seems than to prepare the player to have a new trio of LIs paraded before you (at least, judging by the posts I've seen about the VS)

Simply hand-waving it away as "Well, they were just reacting irrationally" is kind of a convenient cop-out for lousy writing. If you want to play the irrational card then I could just as easily swing it the other way and say that their irrational reaction could've been to follow the person they used to trust implicitly without regard for how they'd been brought back or whom they were working for.

I notice there's a lot of hand-waving going on with ME2's story.

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

[Almostfaceman]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

iakus wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Again, the complaint isn't that the VS doesn't join Shepard. The complaint is that the VS disregards Shepard, accuses him of being a traitor and storms off without giving him a chance to explain. In point of fact, I'm all for the VS not joining Shepard on Horizon (or at all, during the course of ME2), but it could've been handled MUCH better.

As others have suggested, they could've expressed sentiments similar to Wrex or Liara or Tali on Freedom's Progress: that they believe you and they wish they could help, but they have their own mission and they can't drop everything to join you until it's complete. It would've been a touching--if not exactly cheerful--reunion. Instead, they wag their finger in your face, accuse you of being a traitor and a liar, refuse to believe anything you say and then storm off with a condescending remark about knowing where their loyalty lies (which apparently is no longer with the person whom they commited the aforementioned mutiny for in the first game).

This.  Every.  SIngle.  Word.  But the bolded part in particular.

I have always been totally cool with the VS not joining the squad, even temporarilly.

I am totally fine with them being suspicious of an alliance with Cerberus, even temporarilly.  Heck I wish I could rail against TIM with half the intensity the VS expresses with Shepard.

But what I cannot condone, and cannot let go of, is the heavy-handed treatment, selective amnesia, and apparant failure of Shepard's charisma at a critical moment.  It's bad writing for no other reason it seems than to prepare the player to have a new trio of LIs paraded before you (at least, judging by the posts I've seen about the VS)

Simply hand-waving it away as "Well, they were just reacting irrationally" is kind of a convenient cop-out for lousy writing. If you want to play the irrational card then I could just as easily swing it the other way and say that their irrational reaction could've been to follow the person they used to trust implicitly without regard for how they'd been brought back or whom they were working for.

I notice there's a lot of hand-waving going on with ME2's story.

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

Er?  2+ years?  With Kaiden, perhaps.  With Ash - no.

I don't mind preconceptions against Cerberus at all.  Hell, any Shepard who's played the ME1 Cerberus missions will have some preconceptions.  Any Shepard who's an Akuze survivor and saw what happened to Toombs will have not just preconceptions but super-fly-TNT preconceptions.

And the VS knowing that Shepard knows all this should, yeah, weigh-in to the matter.  It's just a ******-poor writing event in a video game, not the end of the world happens all the time.

[JKoopman]

iakus wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

I would include Mordin and Seeker on the aforementioned list. At such a time we have yet to even confront the Seeker Swarm and somehow Mordin has captured one? What makes this particularly egregious is the possibility Mordin may be the last of four characters recruited prior to Horizon. This would insinuate he has discovered a Seeker, captured it and developed a resistance all within the span of a few minutes. He quite literally pulls the necessary plot device out from his ass.

I hold out the foolish hope that someday, someone will find some cut content on the discs that explains where it came from.  And restore it.  I mean, a single spoken line would neatly cover that little gap.

Yes, I too recall scratching my head the first time that scene played out and wondering aloud "Where the heck did that come from?" I had even walked through Mordin's lab on the way to speak with TIM and saw no captured Seeker, then suddenly less than 5 minutes later it's buzzing around angrilly and everyone is acting like it had always been there.

They wouldn't even have had to explain where exactly it came from to satisfy me (I could've simply assumed that Veetor had captured one and given it to Shepard or the team had found and scooped it up on the way back to the shuttle on Freedom's Progress, or BioWare could've simply thrown one line into Mordin's post-recruitment email stating that Cerberus' cleanup team had found a living specimen and sent it along to the ship), but at least have the Seeker present in the cage from the moment Mordin is recruited so it doesn't just seem to appear out of thin air.

Modifié par JKoopman, 17 mars 2011 - 07:49 .

[Iakus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

Modifié par iakus, 17 mars 2011 - 07:49 .

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

There is a big difference between defying the Alliance when you have proof that if you don't the whole galaxy is at risk, and doing it just because Shepard asked you to when you don't have a clear understanding of what is going on. I understand however that most of you don't have a problem with that, but the conversation itself.

You guys are overlooking the fact that he VS is not sure this IS the shepard they developed an attachment with. He was dead. This guy/girl shows up out of nowhere and is working with what they feel is the enemy. If Shep was changed by Cerberus in some way, the very idea would ****** the VS off to no end, so while talking to Shep they are having to deal with a whole lot at once, and simply did not react in a way we expected. Is this a plot hole? No. Is it bad writing? I would think that is a personal decision and would not call someone wrong for either choice. I would say that it's not the best written scene in the game, but every story has them.

I feel I should point out (since text has a way of not carrying over motives) that I am really enjoying these debates! A lot of you guys have very different points of views than mine, and I may not agree with them, but they have made me scratch my head more then once when you bring up a good point I had not considered.  I hope that nothing I have said has given anyone the impression that I feel they are stupid or anything like that. At he most, I would say some are not paying attention from time to time when they argue against something I never said, but considering I somehow missed the fact that we had data on the planet Shep fell to... I can't say I'm much better!

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

There is a big difference between defying the Alliance when you have proof that if you don't the whole galaxy is at risk, and doing it just because Shepard asked you to when you don't have a clear understanding of what is going on. I understand however that most of you don't have a problem with that, but the conversation itself.

You guys are overlooking the fact that he VS is not sure this IS the shepard they developed an attachment with. He was dead. This guy/girl shows up out of nowhere and is working with what they feel is the enemy. If Shep was changed by Cerberus in some way, the very idea would ****** the VS off to no end, so while talking to Shep they are having to deal with a whole lot at once, and simply did not react in a way we expected. Is this a plot hole? No. Is it bad writing? I would think that is a personal decision and would not call someone wrong for either choice. I would say that it's not the best written scene in the game, but every story has them.

I feel I should point out (since text has a way of not carrying over motives) that I am really enjoying these debates! A lot of you guys have very different points of views than mine, and I may not agree with them, but they have made me scratch my head more then once when you bring up a good point I had not considered.  I hope that nothing I have said has given anyone the impression that I feel they are stupid or anything like that. At he most, I would say some are not paying attention from time to time when they argue against something I never said, but considering I somehow missed the fact that we had data on the planet Shep fell to... I can't say I'm much better!

You don't come across as a know-it-all squee - just as one of us regular peeps who has opinions on a game they like.  You're good in my book.

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

There is a big difference between defying the Alliance when you have proof that if you don't the whole galaxy is at risk, and doing it just because Shepard asked you to when you don't have a clear understanding of what is going on. I understand however that most of you don't have a problem with that, but the conversation itself.

You guys are overlooking the fact that he VS is not sure this IS the shepard they developed an attachment with. He was dead. This guy/girl shows up out of nowhere and is working with what they feel is the enemy. If Shep was changed by Cerberus in some way, the very idea would ****** the VS off to no end, so while talking to Shep they are having to deal with a whole lot at once, and simply did not react in a way we expected. Is this a plot hole? No. Is it bad writing? I would think that is a personal decision and would not call someone wrong for either choice. I would say that it's not the best written scene in the game, but every story has them.

I feel I should point out (since text has a way of not carrying over motives) that I am really enjoying these debates! A lot of you guys have very different points of views than mine, and I may not agree with them, but they have made me scratch my head more then once when you bring up a good point I had not considered.  I hope that nothing I have said has given anyone the impression that I feel they are stupid or anything like that. At he most, I would say some are not paying attention from time to time when they argue against something I never said, but considering I somehow missed the fact that we had data on the planet Shep fell to... I can't say I'm much better!

Some other things to consider:

You mention they (the VS) don't know who Shepard is - but the story creates a problem with that when you walk into the Citadel and are instantly verified to be the "real" Shepard.  Ditto on Omega.  Speculation on my part, but it is reasonable to expect this intel is available to the VS.  In ME1, what does Shepard do?  He fights Reaper forces and saves colonies.  What does the VS come upon Shepard doing on Horizon?  Fighting Reaper forces and saving colonies.  It's not like they caught him at a Cerberus rachni-shocktroop plant.  There's Shepard risking his lifeblood to save lives and kick Reaper arse.  One of those lives, btw, happens to belong to the VS. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 17 mars 2011 - 09:50 .

[Rekkampum]

Il Divo wrote...

Rekkampum wrote...

Don't see how watching a big blue guy naked with a 100 meter dong qualifies as entertainment. Also, the heroine of that movie makes Miranda's Cerberus outfit look like Commando armor. Not to mention she was a terrible actress. That film, as Alan Moore famously said, was nothing more than jumble of "semiotic spaghetti".

And yet, for all its flaws (and there are many flaws) it was an incredibly fun film to watch, simply because it was an adaptation of something I loved. I have no illusions that the film is nothing compared to the graphic novel, but that does not negate the enjoyment I felt watching Rorschach escape from the police, his opening monologue, the Vietnam War, etc. It was a film that was designed to bring all our favorite moments from the comic book to the big screen, no more no less.

It's simply a perfect example of What is talking about with how you can't simply copy and paste from one genre to another. The Godfather film was quite different from the book, yet it's widely considered one of the greatest films ever made. Watchmen is a pretty accurate conversion, yet was a colossal failure. Or look at any video game adaptation for a perfect example of this.

For you perhaps, but not me. The guy who played Rorschach was the best of all the actors, and the chief nemesis came off as cheesier than Xerxes in 300. For me, when a director tries to gain a certain "authenticity" by the kind of hyper truism in Watchmen, it becomes very hard for me to suspend disbelief and take the film as it should be - which is, a creative interpretation of that particular body of work through film. So I couldn't be forgiving of how stale the movie was at times or how souless the iconic events in the story were portrayed. Not to mention they changed the climax! I so hated that.

As to your latter comment, the Jason Bourne series also takes the protagonist of a book series and makes films with him, but they were pretty good. In this light, I can appreciate movie adaptations because both thematically and character-wise, they remained faithful and consistent to the series.  Oh, and while the LOTR games weren't perfectly faithful to the books, they were definitely fun and entertaining in contrast to most video games based on movies released. 

As long as the ME movie is thematically consistent and doesn't get lost in the trappings of fidelity to a particular Shepard, I think it can be great. Can we get JJ Abrams? He's creative and knows how to sell an image without overdoing it with cheap special effects.

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

You guys are overlooking the fact that he VS is not sure this IS the shepard they developed an attachment with. He was dead. This guy/girl shows up out of nowhere and is working with what they feel is the enemy. If Shep was changed by Cerberus in some way, the very idea would ****** the VS off to no end, so while talking to Shep they are having to deal with a whole lot at once, and simply did not react in a way we expected. Is this a plot hole? No. Is it bad writing? I would think that is a personal decision and would not call someone wrong for either choice. I would say that it's not the best written scene in the game, but every story has them.

"Not the best written scene in the game" is putting it mildly.  It was the one time I seriously thought that TIM might have lied and put a chip in Shepard's head.  And maybe the VS's as well.

Shepard:  "Ash!  Thank goodness!  You gotta warn Anderson!   It's the Collectors that are grabbing colonies! Find Tali, she'll te...

TIM:  Assuming direct control...

Shepard:  Hey Ash.  Long time no see.  Wanna join Cerberus?  It'll be like old times.

I feel I should point out (since text has a way of not carrying over motives) that I am really enjoying these debates! A lot of you guys have very different points of views than mine, and I may not agree with them, but they have made me scratch my head more then once when you bring up a good point I had not considered.  I hope that nothing I have said has given anyone the impression that I feel they are stupid or anything like that. At he most, I would say some are not paying attention from time to time when they argue against something I never said, but considering I somehow missed the fact that we had data on the planet Shep fell to... I can't say I'm much better!

I like a good debate.  Just ask Il Divo 

Modifié par iakus, 17 mars 2011 - 10:53 .

[Il Divo]

Rekkampum wrote...

As to your latter comment, the Jason Bourne series also takes the protagonist of a book series and makes films with him, but they were pretty good. In this light, I can appreciate movie adaptations because both thematically and character-wise, they remained faithful and consistent to the series.  Oh, and while the LOTR games weren't perfectly faithful to the books, they were definitely fun and entertaining in contrast to most video games based on movies released. 

This pretty much gets it. Even with the Bourne series, aside from the first film, the sequels actually had no relation to the novels. To use another example, look at V for Vendetta to see what I mean. Watchmen was a literal adaptation of the graphic novel and came out terrible (despite my enjoyment). V for Vendetta as a film was quite different from the graphic novel, but that actually was for the best, imo.

One of Alan Moore's biggest criticisms of comic-movie adaptations is that they do not take into account the differences of each medium. Comics, books, movies, even video games, each have their own unique method of telling a story, but if you merely copy/paste something will always be lost in the translation (as the Watchmen film demonstrates).

As long as the ME movie is thematically consistent and doesn't get lost in the trappings of fidelity to a particular Shepard, I think it can be great. Can we get JJ Abrams? He's creative and knows how to sell an image without overdoing it with cheap special effects.

I think that's going to be the primary issue, at least among the fan base. I can see the film being panned amongst gamers simply because the developers aren't able to cater to each person's image of Commander Shepard.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
I like a good debate.  Just ask Il Divo 

:nod:

Yep. I've been debating with you since early July, yet I am still entertained which should say something to our conversations.

[Zulu_DFA]

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

[Elite Midget]

Plausible reason why Blasto didn't get in?

http://fc08.devianta...nna-d2kmyxk.jpg

Too unbalanced?

[CroGamer002]

Elite Midget wrote...

Plausible reason why Blasto didn't get in?



Too unbalanced?

[Whatever42]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.

Zulu has a good point. Anderson is rabidly anti-Cerberus, to the point that he would risk the galaxy to hurt Cerberus. And the VS has been working with Anderson for 2 years.

Shep certainly saw Cerberus do nasty things but Shep is single-minded about the Reapers to the point of obsession - those visions must have been pretty horrifying.

I agree that because of the relationship between the two that there should have been more dialogue and explanation but the VS being angry and deeply suspicious would certainly be in character.

[Ahglock]

Il Divo wrote...

This pretty much gets it. Even with the Bourne series, aside from the first film, the sequels actually had no relation to the novels. To use another example, look at V for Vendetta to see what I mean. Watchmen was a literal adaptation of the graphic novel and came out terrible (despite my enjoyment). V for Vendetta as a film was quite different from the graphic novel, but that actually was for the best, imo.

One of Alan Moore's biggest criticisms of comic-movie adaptations is that they do not take into account the differences of each medium. Comics, books, movies, even video games, each have their own unique method of telling a story, but if you merely copy/paste something will always be lost in the translation (as the Watchmen film demonstrates).
.

I don't think even the first was particularly close to the novels.  Yeah it was about a spy with amnesia but that is about it.  I can accept laser pointer informatioon instead of microfiche, that is fine adaption wise it is a logical change given the time differences.

But.
1.  In movie he was an assassin who lost his memory.  In the book he was a deep cover agent pretending to be an assassin trying to draw out the real assassin.

2.  In the movie the big bad is the US governemnt.  In the book, the true assassin it the bad guy, Borne gets caught in a bad place because not only is his memory lost, but all the people who are aware that he is undercover are dead, so all the government sees is the cover of an assassin. 

I don't know about you, but that changes the core feel of the move from the book to me.  Doesn't alter that I liked both of them quite a bit.  I especially liked the first borne movie because it was the first movie in years that avoided the matirx slow motion fight scenes.  The later borne movies relied too much on shaken camera syndrome to make the action enjoyable. 

[Nashiktal]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Ugh don't remind me. I wanted to take a shower after reading that book....

[Almostfaceman]

Nashiktal wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Ugh don't remind me. I wanted to take a shower after reading that book....

I guess their only saving grace is that the books/comics/extras are not canonical. 

[Rekkampum]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...
I like a good debate.  Just ask Il Divo 

:nod:

Yep. I've been debating with you since early July, yet I am still entertained which should say something to our conversations.

Every now and then iakus and I get into a huge discussion about something. The first one I remember was over the credibility of the VS on one of Sable Phoenix's threads. I've been slacking though. 

[onelifecrisis]

Ugh. I wish this guy would compress his arguments into bite-size chunks. He kicks off Part 1 with 5 full minutes of "why I am doing this". Then, in response to smudboy's first criticism of Shepard's death, 3 full minutes of "writers can write what they want, smudboy is not an authority". Bored now.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 18 mars 2011 - 05:37 .

[Iakus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.

 

Anderson's idea.  Shepard goes along with it, and the VS (who was in Flux too, btw) doesn't once say "Sorry, Commander.  This is where I get off.  I'm an Aliance soldier, I know  where my loyalties are"

Haven't read Retribution, so I can't comment on that.  But I must point out that Anderson stands up for Shepard against both the Council and Udina.  At what point did Anderson rail against Shepard for agreeing to aid with Cerberus?  Call him a traitor?  He actually calls out the Council for accusing Shepard of treason for working with Cerberus.

Sounds like the VS in three years became even more anti-Cerberus than Anderson.  And without a word of in-game explanation as to why

[Zulu_DFA]

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The VS had served with Shepard for a brief period of time (less than half a year).

The VS seems to have served next to Anderson for 2 years+. It is entirely plausible that the VS has got some preconceptions against everything Cerberus during this time. That is all.

And during that time, the VS has been witness to everything Shep found and experienced.  Including what Cerberus did.

These experiences, whether they ultimately lead to being a LI or not, seemed to have inspired a degree of loyalty in the VS.  Enough to help Shep and Anderson defy the Council and steal one of the Alliance's most advanced warships.

A deed which, seen in a certain light, many would call treasonous, a betrayal  of everything the Alliance stands for.  Too bad Shepard didn't know where his loyalties lay then, huh?

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.

 

Anderson's idea.  Shepard goes along with it, and the VS (who was in Flux too, btw) doesn't once say "Sorry, Commander.  This is where I get off.  I'm an Aliance soldier, I know  where my loyalties are"

Haven't read Retribution, so I can't comment on that.  But I must point out that Anderson stands up for Shepard against both the Council and Udina.  At what point did Anderson rail against Shepard for agreeing to aid with Cerberus?  Call him a traitor?  He actually calls out the Council for accusing Shepard of treason for working with Cerberus.

Sounds like the VS in three years became even more anti-Cerberus than Anderson.  And without a word of in-game explanation as to why

Well, Kaidan was always kinda liberal.
And Ashley... Might have had those girly days or something. That's what my Shep thought anyway.

Does this suit you?

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That was Anderson's idea BTW. And in three years he, in certain light, would betray the Alliance again over a whim of a woman he was in love with, and this time even disregarding the looming Reaper threat. But that's a whole another discussion.

Zulu has a good point. Anderson is rabidly anti-Cerberus, to the point that he would risk the galaxy to hurt Cerberus. And the VS has been working with Anderson for 2 years.

Shep certainly saw Cerberus do nasty things but Shep is single-minded about the Reapers to the point of obsession - those visions must have been pretty horrifying.

I agree that because of the relationship between the two that there should have been more dialogue and explanation but the VS being angry and deeply suspicious would certainly be in character.

Funny you should mention that because, if Anderson is the the origin of Kaidan/Ashley's anti-Cerberus sentiment and himself is as rabidly anti-Cerberus as you suggest (to the point where he would risk the entire galaxy's destruction just to take them down?) then one would presume that he himself would have an equally bad reaction to Shepard working with Cerberus. He does not. In fact, he invites you to the Citadel at great risk to his own political reputation because he "want[ed] to give you a chance to explain your actions [and] maybe get the Council to see things from your point of view", reinstates your Spectre status, offers to keep the Council off your back and to provide you with any assistence he can, talks candidly with you about the state of the Citadel and the progress with the geth war, laments his retirement and the frustration of the Council's denial of the Reapers, regrets not being able to do more to help you and sends you off with the promise that he'll always be there for you if you want to talk; albeit with the warning to be careful because Cerberus can't be trusted. Shepard can even ask for Anderson to join him on his mission, and Anderson's reply is simply to say that he's "too old to go racing across the galaxy" and that the front line is Shepard's place. He's cool, rational, reasoned and doesn't utter the word "traitor" once in the entire conversation.



Compare that to the Horizon reunion; and keep in mind that Kaidan/Ashley were with you through far more than Anderson ever was and had their lives personally saved by Shepard multiple times.

Modifié par JKoopman, 18 mars 2011 - 06:53 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Funny you should mention that because, if Anderson is the the origin of Kaidan/Ashley's anti-Cerberus sentiment and himself is as rabidly anti-Cerberus as you suggest (to the point where he would risk the entire galaxy's destruction just to take them down?) then one would presume that he himself would have an equally bad reaction to Shepard working with Cerberus. He does not. In fact, he invites you to the Citadel at great risk to his own political reputation because he "want[ed] to give you a chance to explain your actions [and] maybe get the Council to see things from your point of view", reinstates your Spectre status, offers to keep the Council off your back and to provide you with any assistence he can, talks candidly with you about the state of the Citadel and the progress with the geth war, laments his retirement and the frustration of the Council's denial of the Reapers, regrets not being able to do more to help you and sends you off with the promise that he'll always be there for you if you want to talk; albeit with the warning to be careful because Cerberus can't be trusted. Shepard can even ask for Anderson to join him on his mission, and Anderson's reply is simply to say that he's "too old to go racing across the galaxy" and that the front line is Shepard's place. He's cool, rational, reasoned and doesn't utter the word "traitor" once in the entire conversation.

Very good point.  Any material from comics/books/whatever is non-canonical anywho.