541 réponses à ce sujet

[ExtremeOne]

JeffZero wrote...

Just because you whistled past all the continuous references to Cerberus' less-than-kind activities strewn throughout ME2 doesn't mean they were out-and-out retconned out of existence.

Within an hour of meeting Jacob he talks about just how many practices the organization is responsible for that he doesn't agree with.

  


I never said that Cerberus 's past is right. What I am sayiing is a developer who has to do 2 retcons on a game's story is bull sh*t . So now in 3 I am suppose to believe that Cerberus is after Shepard for some mythical reason . when TIM brought him back to end this stupid reaper crap anyway . It makes no sense at all.  Bioware needs to just come clean and tell us . Oh and playing games with us over not telling us  gives added weight to it being bull sh*t 

[AlexMBrennan]

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 21 avril 2011 - 10:15 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

ExtremeOne wrote...

When a developer has to do 2 retcons in a franchise then you know something is seriously wrong with the franchise's story . ME 1 had one story and it was Cerberus was bad. ME 2 Cerberus is all about saving humanity and destroying the reapers and collectors so they bring back Shepard and destroy the collectors . Now in ME 3 its as if 2 never happened or they are retconing the series again for what reason.

This is not a retcon.

In Mass Effect 1, we learn that Cerberus is an organization that uses extremely questionable and dangerous science, and kills people to cover up its mistakes.

In Mass Effect 2, they refer to these experiments and explain why they were being done: they were all designed to try to help humanity, and backfired in unexpected ways. Thus Cerberus, while willing to do some ethically questionable things, are not just evil for the sake of evil. This isn't a retcon, it's new evidence changing our view of an organization. It's development.

Mass Effect 2 never denies the fact that Cerberus experimented on the Rachni or the Thorian Creepers, rather it gives us additional information, which gives us a new way to think about events that have already occurred. It would have been a retcon if Miranda had said "We never experimented on Thorian Creepers." Instead she said "Those were expiriments to create some new disposable soldiers to prevent human deaths in combat where ground troops are required, nobody was supposed to get hurt, the experiment backfired unexpectedly."

In Mass Effect 3, we don't know what happens. In the same way that Miranda gave new perspective on the ME1 Thorian Creeper experiment when we spoke with her in ME2, some new information about Cerberus may come to light. Unless it explicitly says "the events of ME2 did not happen," it is not a retcon.

(When Retcons refer to fixing overly complex continuity, they are talking about things like the Crisis on Infinite Earths. In the DC universe at that time, there were dozens of Batmans living in dozens of universes with dozens of different backstories. In a massive retcon, we were told that none of those events, none of those histories, none of those batmen ever actually existed. For ME3 to be a retcon, they'd have to say "by the way, Renegade players? The council is alive, so is the Rachni queen, and also Cerberus never got that collector base. If these things still occurred but do not matter, it is not a retcon. It is only a retcon if history is retroactively changed.)

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 21 avril 2011 - 10:19 .

[Centauri2002]

ExtremeOne wrote...


I never said that Cerberus 's past is right. What I am sayiing is a developer who has to do 2 retcons on a game's story is bull sh*t . So now in 3 I am suppose to believe that Cerberus is after Shepard for some mythical reason . when TIM brought him back to end this stupid reaper crap anyway . It makes no sense at all.  Bioware needs to just come clean and tell us . Oh and playing games with us over not telling us  gives added weight to it being bull sh*t 

Seriously, what makes you think they're not going to explain it all? You're just assuming they've made these huge leaps in logical storytelling. It may very well be explained in the game. Just play it and find out instead of jumping to all these conclusions. Why should they pander to people who are too impatient to wait for the game release for their answers?

[lawp79]

ExtremeOne wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Just because you whistled past all the continuous references to Cerberus' less-than-kind activities strewn throughout ME2 doesn't mean they were out-and-out retconned out of existence.

Within an hour of meeting Jacob he talks about just how many practices the organization is responsible for that he doesn't agree with.

  


I never said that Cerberus 's past is right. What I am sayiing is a developer who has to do 2 retcons on a game's story is bull sh*t . So now in 3 I am suppose to believe that Cerberus is after Shepard for some mythical reason . when TIM brought him back to end this stupid reaper crap anyway . It makes no sense at all.  Bioware needs to just come clean and tell us . Oh and playing games with us over not telling us  gives added weight to it being bull sh*t 

Perhaps it makes no sense because as yet we do not actually know the reason why Cerberus are after Shepard.

[JeffZero]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

I'm not sure Vizard cared whether or not anyone knew he took that from Wikipedia. I don't agree with him on this, but for my money, I know I wouldn't.

Anyway, ExtremeOne, my argument is that there wasn't much retconning done between ME1 and ME2 and there's quite a bit of breathing room for BioWare's scribes to ensure the same from 2 to 3. In every thread you post in that's remotely related to this issue, you consistently state that the company needs to 'come clean'. It's a plot point. So no. They don't.

[ExtremeOne]

wulf3n wrote...

The Mass Effect Retcon is a more insidious version. They don't out and out say "yeah, that never happened" They just carry on like it never did.

  



well that explains it Bioware is basically saying 2 never happened. Mass Effect's story must be 1 and 3. and 3 being the real 2nd game in the series.  I am so thankful Bioware has some limits placed on what they can and can not with the Star Wars games they make .   

[wulf3n]

JeffZero wrote...
Anyway, ExtremeOne, my argument is that there wasn't much retconning done between ME1 and ME2 and there's quite a bit of breathing room for BioWare's scribes to ensure the same from 2 to 3. In every thread you post in that's remotely related to this issue, you consistently state that the company needs to 'come clean'. It's a plot point. So no. They don't.

ME1 council acknowledgeing the reaper threat  - - ME2 Council deny reaper threat
ME1 Cerberus a rogue black ops agency - - ME2 Cerberus a Terrorist organization that has never done a terrorist act.

Modifié par wulf3n, 21 avril 2011 - 10:22 .

[Last Vizard]

centauri2002 wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

To me, it's not a huge surprise TIM has changed his tune in ME3. I never trusted him and always expected him to stab me in the back throughout ME2. Heck, he set Shepard's team up at one point but that seems to be forgotten because they continued working together after that. His motivations have always been his own and we've not been privy to them. Shepard is just another tool to him. What do you do with a tool once it has outlived its usefulness? You throw it away. Shepard is probably more trouble than she's worth by the time ME3 rolls around.

Maybe for the cannon, but your talking like all Sheps think Cerberus is wrong, i think history vindicates organisations like TIM's.  You may have taken every chance to turn on TIM but my Shep didn't so this tool is still usefull in advancing TIM's goals (Humanity will benifit too).

the story will just rail road the player into a stupid situation where no matter what TIM will need to betray you.

No I was talking from my perspective. Hence the use of I.

However, Cerberus was never a selfless organisation. Their acts in ME1 point them more towards terrorists than anything. And we're never made clear on TIM's motivations nor his actual goals. Just because he tells you he wants to use you as some iconic figure and has you running around the galaxy for him, doesn't mean he's going to want you around when his real plan goes into motion. You know he has something else planned, he's TIM! 

Besides, if you had something planned that Shepard may or may not agree with, would you want Shepard in the picture to spoil it for you? That's a risky variable.

My point is, TIM turning on you is something that can be explained in the story without too much trouble. If your Shepard chooses to believe he's best buds with TIM, then that's his prerogative. 

Yes, Cerberus is out for its own goals the same as everyone else, most powerful countries fit the terrorist discription as i'm sure you know.  When i made my choice to save the CB i did it thinking that if TIM does stab me in the back i'll have to kill him so yes, its not outside the realm of possibility but it seems very unlikely.

All i want is a good story with no plot holes or obvious retcon elements ME 2 brought into the story, now the Reapers seem to have multiple ways of returning to the galaxy.... Nazzara was pretty stupid for a super computer, 2000 years of waiting since he used the Rachni and still gets himself killed when there is some method of FTL that is going to bring the Reapers to Earth in the next couple of days in ME time.

[JeffZero]

centauri2002 wrote...
Why should they pander to people who are too impatient to wait for the game release for their answers?

CGG's days-old Caesar comparison just rings truer and truer for me by the minute here. "I skipped to the end of the story and Brutus kills him! This is stupid! Caesar allied himself with Brutus. This is a huge retcon. Shakespeare needs to come clean."

[Centauri2002]

wulf3n wrote...

JeffZero wrote...
Anyway, ExtremeOne, my argument is that there wasn't much retconning done between ME1 and ME2 and there's quite a bit of breathing room for BioWare's scribes to ensure the same from 2 to 3. In every thread you post in that's remotely related to this issue, you consistently state that the company needs to 'come clean'. It's a plot point. So no. They don't.

ME1 council acknowledgeing the reaper threat  - - ME2 Council deny reaper threat
ME1 Cerberus a rogue black ops agency - - ME2 Cerberus a Terrorist organization that has never done a terrorist act.

They acknowledged the Sovereign threat. Once that was over, it was simply easier for them to deny any further threat as the product of a human's paranoia than act on it. That's just the way people are. Characters denying something happening isn't BioWare denying something happening.

And when did Cerberus suddenly not commit acts of terrorism? 

[JeffZero]

wulf3n wrote...

JeffZero wrote...
Anyway, ExtremeOne, my argument is that there wasn't much retconning done between ME1 and ME2 and there's quite a bit of breathing room for BioWare's scribes to ensure the same from 2 to 3. In every thread you post in that's remotely related to this issue, you consistently state that the company needs to 'come clean'. It's a plot point. So no. They don't.

ME1 council acknowledgeing the reaper threat  - - ME2 Council deny reaper threat
ME1 Cerberus a rogue black ops agency - - ME2 Cerberus a Terrorist organization that has never done a terrorist act.

I really need to replay the games before I make too much of a comment on those two. I'll just leave responses to the more seasoned.

[Last Vizard]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

[ExtremeOne]

JeffZero wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

I'm not sure Vizard cared whether or not anyone knew he took that from Wikipedia. I don't agree with him on this, but for my money, I know I wouldn't.

Anyway, ExtremeOne, my argument is that there wasn't much retconning done between ME1 and ME2 and there's quite a bit of breathing room for BioWare's scribes to ensure the same from 2 to 3. In every thread you post in that's remotely related to this issue, you consistently state that the company needs to 'come clean'. It's a plot point. So no. They don't.

 








yeah I went over board some. But when I see a retcon or what might be a retcon like this going on and no one calls out Bioware for it . Are we all sheeps and just buy anything they say. so yeah My mesage needs to change and it will. Its just sad a developer has no real idea of how to tell a complete story with out the need of a retcon in one part and then what could be a retcon in the last part 

[wulf3n]

centauri2002 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...

JeffZero wrote...
Anyway, ExtremeOne, my argument is that there wasn't much retconning done between ME1 and ME2 and there's quite a bit of breathing room for BioWare's scribes to ensure the same from 2 to 3. In every thread you post in that's remotely related to this issue, you consistently state that the company needs to 'come clean'. It's a plot point. So no. They don't.

ME1 council acknowledgeing the reaper threat  - - ME2 Council deny reaper threat
ME1 Cerberus a rogue black ops agency - - ME2 Cerberus a Terrorist organization that has never done a terrorist act.

They acknowledged the Sovereign threat. Once that was over, it was simply easier for them to deny any further threat as the product of a human's paranoia than act on it. That's just the way people are. Characters denying something happening isn't BioWare denying something happening.

And when did Cerberus suddenly not commit acts of terrorism? 

go to 6:46
Name 1 "terrorist" act cerberus has commited.

Modifié par wulf3n, 21 avril 2011 - 10:27 .

[Centauri2002]

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes, Cerberus is out for its own goals the same as everyone else, most powerful countries fit the terrorist discription as i'm sure you know.  When i made my choice to save the CB i did it thinking that if TIM does stab me in the back i'll have to kill him so yes, its not outside the realm of possibility but it seems very unlikely.

All i want is a good story with no plot holes or obvious retcon elements ME 2 brought into the story, now the Reapers seem to have multiple ways of returning to the galaxy.... Nazzara was pretty stupid for a super computer, 2000 years of waiting since he used the Rachni and still gets himself killed when there is some method of FTL that is going to bring the Reapers to Earth in the next couple of days in ME time.

There's quite a few things about Mass Effect that I'm not particularly happy with. Shepard's lack of emotional depth in ME2, being one, although at least BioWare made up for that somewhat in LotSB. But, when it comes to plot points like this, I'm willing to give them a little slack. Sure, there are many things I'd do differently if I was writing the story myself but it's their vision. I'm going to wait until the story is concluded before I make my final judgements. 

I think BioWare are very aware, by now, that people are watching them very carefully on several matters, plot points being one of them. One would hope they wouldn't make any silly mistakes at this point. I'm just going to wait and see how Mass Effect 3 pans out before making any snap judgements. If all goes well, perhaps everything will be explained. One can hope. 

[JeffZero]

Well, Extreme (I'm not quoting because I'm using the PS3's very space-limiting web browser) I really do think there's going to be some rationale to this. I genuinely believe that. But I think it was a mistake on BioWare's part to let this bit leak so soon since they -- understandably -- don't want to spoil the reasoning. Especially not over half a year before the game launches since it sounds so important.

That's another thing. They speak as though it's this big thing so I'd imagine there's going to be a lot factored into it. And there will probably be significantly less necessary explanation for those who blew up the Collector Base. For them it's a matter of 'well, TIM already isn't pleased.' For the rest of you, I have faith it will be interesting.

[The BS Police]

wulf3n wrote...
ME1 council acknowledgeing the reaper threat  - - ME2 Council deny reaper threat

With the ending of Mass Effect 1 the Council did not have enopuigh time to digest what happened, afterwords once the shockfactor of the attack on the Citadel wore out they decided that there was not enough evidence to support that Soverign was a Reaper.

ME1 Cerberus a rogue black ops agency - - ME2 Cerberus a Terrorist organization that has never done a terrorist act.

So sabotage, Assasinations and an attack on the Migrant Fleet are not terrorists actions? I disagree. 

[ExtremeOne]

centauri2002 wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes, Cerberus is out for its own goals the same as everyone else, most powerful countries fit the terrorist discription as i'm sure you know.  When i made my choice to save the CB i did it thinking that if TIM does stab me in the back i'll have to kill him so yes, its not outside the realm of possibility but it seems very unlikely.

All i want is a good story with no plot holes or obvious retcon elements ME 2 brought into the story, now the Reapers seem to have multiple ways of returning to the galaxy.... Nazzara was pretty stupid for a super computer, 2000 years of waiting since he used the Rachni and still gets himself killed when there is some method of FTL that is going to bring the Reapers to Earth in the next couple of days in ME time.

There's quite a few things about Mass Effect that I'm not particularly happy with. Shepard's lack of emotional depth in ME2, being one, although at least BioWare made up for that somewhat in LotSB. But, when it comes to plot points like this, I'm willing to give them a little slack. Sure, there are many things I'd do differently if I was writing the story myself but it's their vision. I'm going to wait until the story is concluded before I make my final judgements. 

I think BioWare are very aware, by now, that people are watching them very carefully on several matters, plot points being one of them. One would hope they wouldn't make any silly mistakes at this point. I'm just going to wait and see how Mass Effect 3 pans out before making any snap judgements. If all goes well, perhaps everything will be explained. One can hope. 

  



I have always said I will give them a chance and part of that will be at E3. Then when the game comes out and I play it .   

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Last Vizard wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon[1]) (sic) ...

You do realise we'll figure out that's copied from Wikipedia, right? Also, have you ever heard of relative links? Or considered checking that the code actually does what you think it does? Of course not - it's computers! They'll magically do whatever you want them to do (rather than, say, what you tell them to)

what? the point was to show how easy it is to find the definitions that apparently only the hard core BW fans know.

Your definition in no way contradicted mine. I explained what the portion you bolded "or to simplify an excessively complex continuity structure." actually refers to: cases like the Crisis on Infinite Earths, when whole worlds are said to have never existed, for the purpose of allowing there to be one, easy-to-reference "true" continuity.

(If you don't know what the Crisis on Infinite Earths is, I'd look it up; it's really interesting. It's also the best possible example I can give for a true "retcon".)

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 21 avril 2011 - 10:33 .

[wulf3n]

The BS Police wrote...
 With the ending of Mass Effect 1 the Council did not have enopuigh time to digest what happened, afterwords once the shockfactor of the attack on the Citadel wore out they decided that there was not enough evidence to support that Soverign was a Reaper.

That's very true, but i never said it wasn't plausible that they changed their mind. It's a retcon because theirs no mention of them ever admiting to it, they don't try and explain why the may have prematurely acknowledged the threrat, they just pretend like it never happened.

The BS Police wrote...
ME1 Cerberus a rogue black ops agency - - ME2 Cerberus a Terrorist organization that has never done a terrorist act.
So sabotage, Assasinations and an attack on the Migrant Fleet are not terrorists actions? I disagree. 

Terrorism is the use of terror to further ones goals. The sabotage and assassinations aren't about causing fear, and the MIgrant fleet while similar in appearence to a terrorist act, was just a means to cover their escape, it wasn't their goal.

Modifié par wulf3n, 21 avril 2011 - 10:36 .

[ExtremeOne]

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Extreme (I'm not quoting because I'm using the PS3's very space-limiting web browser) I really do think there's going to be some rationale to this. I genuinely believe that. But I think it was a mistake on BioWare's part to let this bit leak so soon since they -- understandably -- don't want to spoil the reasoning. Especially not over half a year before the game launches since it sounds so important.

That's another thing. They speak as though it's this big thing so I'd imagine there's going to be a lot factored into it. And there will probably be significantly less necessary explanation for those who blew up the Collector Base. For them it's a matter of 'well, TIM already isn't pleased.' For the rest of you, I have faith it will be interesting.

  






I am hoping it has a logical reason for it . They should have not put this in the GI article . If it is a huge part of ME 3 . 

[Centauri2002]

wulf3n wrote...

go to 6:46
Name 1 "terrorist" act cerberus has commited.

Cerberus aren't terrorists in the real sense of the word, I suppose. They don't commit acts to spread fear (at least, not as their main objective - other species fearing humanity can't be seen as a bad side effect in their eyes though) but for the furthering of humanity. There are quite a number of people who do not understand their actions and who do fear them though. I'm sure to some the term terrorist would fit them, or it's convenient term. It's hard to define exactly what Cerberus is. 

[Sandbox47]

ExtremeOne wrote...

 In 2007 Bioware released a game that would introduce a game based on Player’s choice and those choices would matter in other games of the series. The Game was Mass Effect 1 . The Year is 2010 and Bioware would release Mass Effect 2 and the idea with it was the Player’s choices in Mass Effect 1 would have a impact on the story of Mass Effect 2. That is not what happened many of the choices that were made in Mass Effect 1 had little to no real impact in 2. I have huge issues with Bioware since reading Game Informer’s Mass Effect 3 article. Issue 1 - A Player’s choices in the games will matter in other games. If this is true then in Mass Effect 2 I gave Cerberus the collector’s base at the end of the game. Now in Mass Effect 3 you say Cerberus is after Shepard and is out to kill him or her. That flies in the face of a player’s choices in Mass Effect 2 will have impact in Mass Effect 3. Issue 2 - Shepard can be a total renegade to everyone else in Mass Effect 2 but when it comes to certain people like for example Anderson sending spies to spy on Shepard on horizon he has no real way to get even. Even worse when Kaiden or Ashley chew Shepard’s ass out and call him traitor on horizon there is no real way to respond to them.. 

That is garbage and now in Mass Effect 3 Shepard is suppose to work with either of those 2. Issue 3 - The Alliance unless I have missed something in Mass Effect 2 this group had no real interest in Shepard. They only cared because Cerberus brought Shepard back to life. It makes no sense at all for Shepard to take orders from a group that does not care if he or she dies or not. At least in Mass Effect 2 Cerberus understood the value of Shepard. Issue 4 - The Alliance taking The Normandy SR - 2. This makes no logical sense at all. Stealing from Shepard is wrong. even if Shepard destroyed the base in Mass Effect 2 the SR 2 is his ship not the Alliance’s. Issue 5 - What was the whole point of Cerberus in Mass Effect 2 if you are just going to turn them evil in 3 Bioware. This sounds to me like you have no real story and it has no logic to it. If Cerberus is evil why did you even do Mass Effect 2. I mean from all that I  have heard in Mass Effect 1 Cerberus is the enemy of the Alliance. So in 2 Cerberus are a pro human group that brings Shepard back to life. They want to stop the reapers like The Illusive Man says in Mass Effect 2 he will do what ever it takes to stop the reapers. Why turn them evil. 

Is it because you have no other ideas. Or is the real reason you are doing this to simply make the anti Cerberus fans from Mass Effect 2 happy in Mass Effect 3. I have heard rumors that Cerberus could be under the control of the reapers and that explains why they are out for Shepard in 3. That makes no sense. I mean if that was the case wouldn’t Cerberus had tried to kill Shepard in Mass Effect 2. I am sure some will say well Cerberus got corrupted by reaper tech from the Collector’s Base. That makes no sense as well since Cerberus had a team working on the dead reaper in 2. Issue 6 - The Reapers it seems as if Bioware wanted to make theme out like Mass Effect’s version of The Borg from Star Trek. The only difference with that is The Borg actually attack and do what they say they will do. In Mass Effect 1 we were all told that the reapers could only get into Council space by using the Mass relay in the Citadel. Then at the end of Mass Effect 2 the reaper fleet is at the edge of the galaxy. So something does not seem right with the story in Mass Effect. Its real clear the reapers are not the big enemies in Mass Effect 3 because if they were then why turn Cerberus and make them a enemy in 3 as well .

 It sounds like you needed a second enemy in the 3rd game. If you need a second enemy in your game that means the story is a joke. If the reapers are the most dangerous enemy in Mass Effect and they invade Earth shouldn’t that be the main focus of Mass Effect 3. Issue 7 - Bioware and its clear cut decision to side with the Paragon fans with Mass Effect 3. This pisses me off to no end. How can a company that says the Mass Effect games are based on player’s choice make a clear choice to side with the paragons is mind blowing. They give us Cerberus and renegade fans a Big F U in Mass Effect 3. These games are not based on player choice at all. If they really are then the start of Mass Effect 3 would be totally different depending on the choices you made in Mass Effect 2. Either it starts out with you being aligned with Cerberus or being aligned with the Alliance. No thats not how Mass Effect 3 starts out. Its clear from the GI article which side Bioware is supporting and its the Anti Cerberus and paragon fans.

 So the paragon ending to Mass Effect 2 is the cannon ending. Then it brings up the question of why even have a renegade and paragon choice at the end of Mass Effect 2. This makes no sense at all. If choice ultimately does not matter then it has no place in the game simple as that. Players like myself and many others made a choice to give Cerberus the base and basically decided to work with them. Now in Mass Effect 3 we are told that our choices mean nothing and us wanting to work with Cerberus is not even possible in the game. Its a load of sh*t just because the forums started ****ing and moaning about how they hated Cerberus. So you basically did stupid fan service and rewarded them just like you did with tali and Garrus in Mass Effect 2. Since you want to reward fans then you need to reward us Cerberus and renegade fans as well. Bioware you need to start giving a dam about all of you’re fans instead of ass kissing the select few that you like.   

One huge thing I noticed in the GI article is there is no mention of Miranda and Jacob in Mass Effect 3. Why the hell aren’t they in the game. Is this going to be another Mass Effect reboot of the franchise as many claimed Mass Effect 2 was. Really is fan service controlling the way you guys create the story for Mass Effect 3. I wonder is there any real story to the Mass Effect games because there seems to not be one that connects all 3 games. Mass Effect is nothing more than a mere rip off of Star Wars and Star Trek. The only problem is Commander Shepard is and never will be as iconic as Captain Kirk and Luke SkyWalker as well Lord Vader and all the other iconic characters with in the Star Wars and Star Trek Universes. What I find funny is how Commander Shepard is the one unstoppable force in the Mass Effect Universe. I guess someone watched the Matrix and said we need our Neo for this game. In Star Trek Captain Kirk and Captain Picard dealt with things with reason and logic or in some cases by force. The point is no one in the Star Trek ever coward in fear of those 2 men. If Shepard is suppose to be this unstoppable force then why does he need a team to help him at all. 

1. Flies in the face... how? I bet that if you hand the base to TIM in ME3 - he will have that base. Does it matter what he does with it?
2.Well whom do you want Shepard to work with, really? Zaeed's blue suns? You can't do it alone, can you, genius?
3.But the Alliance is very all-important, are they not? They can deffinetly help Shepard kick the Reaper's ass. Or shoot it or whatever. Taking orders is something Shepard has failed at a lot though, so I see no problem with the Alliance ordering her around.
4. Well yeah but... I mean, if you're a criminal then you don't get to keep your gun during the trial, do you? And the Normandy is a big gun. With upgraded gun power. And anyway, maybe they wanted the ship for themselves. Seeing how their old Normandy got blown to hell.
5. I am speechless at your stupidity, no offense. It's a very interesting twist to the story. Try readin a real book before pointing this cr*p out. That happens a lot in stories. And I've no doubt that there is a perfectly good reason for it. Like money, fear or monkey poo. I don't know.
6. Aha! A valid point! But tell me - if the Reapers are beaten and the Cerberus has been helping everyone through out the battle - would they not gain more political influence over the aliens? I see no problem, aside from the obvious one, with fighting on two fronts. And I'm dead certain that when Shepard is fighting the Reaper front he won't have to worry about Cerberus.
7. No idea how to reply to that, there's a lot. Hmm. I'll say this: If you kill someone and hand yourself over you'll face the consequences straight away. If you kill someone and run for it you'll be caught and face the consequences. Don't overthink it.
8. Stupid troll.

[Last Vizard]

centauri2002 wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

Yes, Cerberus is out for its own goals the same as everyone else, most powerful countries fit the terrorist discription as i'm sure you know.  When i made my choice to save the CB i did it thinking that if TIM does stab me in the back i'll have to kill him so yes, its not outside the realm of possibility but it seems very unlikely.

All i want is a good story with no plot holes or obvious retcon elements ME 2 brought into the story, now the Reapers seem to have multiple ways of returning to the galaxy.... Nazzara was pretty stupid for a super computer, 2000 years of waiting since he used the Rachni and still gets himself killed when there is some method of FTL that is going to bring the Reapers to Earth in the next couple of days in ME time.

There's quite a few things about Mass Effect that I'm not particularly happy with. Shepard's lack of emotional depth in ME2, being one, although at least BioWare made up for that somewhat in LotSB. But, when it comes to plot points like this, I'm willing to give them a little slack. Sure, there are many things I'd do differently if I was writing the story myself but it's their vision. I'm going to wait until the story is concluded before I make my final judgements. 

I think BioWare are very aware, by now, that people are watching them very carefully on several matters, plot points being one of them. One would hope they wouldn't make any silly mistakes at this point. I'm just going to wait and see how Mass Effect 3 pans out before making any snap judgements. If all goes well, perhaps everything will be explained. One can hope. 

Your right but i'm the type that can't overlook this sort of thing, i love the ME universe and the story so far but it rubs me the wrong way when they add thermal clips (makes no military sense) and the before mentioned extra back doors into the galaxy that even the Vanguard doesn't know about and other such plot holes.... I'll just say that BW failed me back when i was a hard core BW fan with ME 2 and i don't think they'll achieve redemption with ME 3.