541 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

oldag07 wrote...

I haven't read most of this thread, but the jist of the OP complain is choices don't make as big of effect on 2nd game as he/she would have liked.

To quote Casey Hudson
""It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go. "
http://au.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

After ME1, they went on about how choices would matter, though, about how important they would be. Fans ate it up. Then ME2 came out and they didn't give us the divergence we were told to expect after all.

Now with ME3 looming, they say this, but frankly the same issues are there. There are the same budgetary issues with divergence. The only changes that would fit into the appearant budget they have to work with would be that all the 'major differences' would be in end dialogue, since that is the only area where the story is no longer constrained.

Fool me once.....

[Seboist]

Moiaussi wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

I haven't read most of this thread, but the jist of the OP complain is choices don't make as big of effect on 2nd game as he/she would have liked.

To quote Casey Hudson
""It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go. "
http://au.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

After ME1, they went on about how choices would matter, though, about how important they would be. Fans ate it up. Then ME2 came out and they didn't give us the divergence we were told to expect after all.

Now with ME3 looming, they say this, but frankly the same issues are there. There are the same budgetary issues with divergence. The only changes that would fit into the appearant budget they have to work with would be that all the 'major differences' would be in end dialogue, since that is the only area where the story is no longer constrained.

Fool me once.....

Yeah, if ME3 is going to show all this "big change" then why are we being pigeon holed into fighting Cerberus despite the fact that both CB endings imply some sort of continued cooperation?

In ME2 we're given all these hints that we can work hand in hand with Cerberus(albeit a bit begrudgedly) by handing Veetor to them, sending Rawling's data to them, keeping David with Overlord,keeping the CB and having unlockable Cerberus uniforms for all the Aliens but now we're stuck fighting them no matter what? So much for "choice".

In fact the only "change" will prolly be instead of fighting Cerberus troops armed with regular weapons, they'll be fighting us with Collector ones if we kept the base. It's another case of Renegades getting screwed.

Modifié par Seboist, 23 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[ExtremeOne]

Seboist wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

I haven't read most of this thread, but the jist of the OP complain is choices don't make as big of effect on 2nd game as he/she would have liked.

To quote Casey Hudson
""It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go. "
http://au.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

After ME1, they went on about how choices would matter, though, about how important they would be. Fans ate it up. Then ME2 came out and they didn't give us the divergence we were told to expect after all.

Now with ME3 looming, they say this, but frankly the same issues are there. There are the same budgetary issues with divergence. The only changes that would fit into the appearant budget they have to work with would be that all the 'major differences' would be in end dialogue, since that is the only area where the story is no longer constrained.

Fool me once.....

Yeah, if ME3 is going to show all this "big change" then why are we being pigeon holed into fighting Cerberus despite the fact that both CB endings imply some sort of continued cooperation?

In ME2 we're given all these hints that we can work hand in hand with Cerberus(albeit a bit begrudgedly) by handing Veetor to them, sending Rawling's data to them, keeping David with Overlord,keeping the CB and having unlockable Cerberus uniforms for all the Aliens but now we're stuck fighting them no matter what? So much for "choice".

In fact the only "change" will prolly be instead of fighting Cerberus troops armed with regular weapons, they'll be fighting us with Collector ones if we kept the base. It's another case of Renegades getting screwed.

  








Us renegade players have been screwed and Bioware is not even telling us why . Its bullsh*t that they say player choice matters .  Why is there this big fat retcon going on in 3 .  Like you said all through out 2 it was implied that you as a renegade Shepard would remain working with Cerberus going into 3.   

[Moiaussi]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Us renegade players have been screwed and Bioware is not even telling us why . Its bullsh*t that they say player choice matters .  Why is there this big fat retcon going on in 3 .  Like you said all through out 2 it was implied that you as a renegade Shepard would remain working with Cerberus going into 3.   

Because they have this belief that arbitrary betrayals make for good literature. Also, they have realized that fans will buy empty promises such as those made after ME1. Note that while they have said there will be more RP elements in ME3, they have also said that there will be less than ME1, and there also seemed to have been some tie in that part of the quote between gear and RP, as if gear customization was a more important RP element than actual dialogue or decision making/non-linear elements.

I loved ME1. I liked ME2 but mourned the loss of ME1's coherrence. Based on where they seem to have gone since, I am not holding my breath for ME3.

[MajesticJazz]

Seboist wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

I haven't read most of this thread, but the jist of the OP complain is choices don't make as big of effect on 2nd game as he/she would have liked.

To quote Casey Hudson
""It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go. "
http://au.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

After ME1, they went on about how choices would matter, though, about how important they would be. Fans ate it up. Then ME2 came out and they didn't give us the divergence we were told to expect after all.

Now with ME3 looming, they say this, but frankly the same issues are there. There are the same budgetary issues with divergence. The only changes that would fit into the appearant budget they have to work with would be that all the 'major differences' would be in end dialogue, since that is the only area where the story is no longer constrained.

Fool me once.....

Yeah, if ME3 is going to show all this "big change" then why are we being pigeon holed into fighting Cerberus despite the fact that both CB endings imply some sort of continued cooperation?

In ME2 we're given all these hints that we can work hand in hand with Cerberus(albeit a bit begrudgedly) by handing Veetor to them, sending Rawling's data to them, keeping David with Overlord,keeping the CB and having unlockable Cerberus uniforms for all the Aliens but now we're stuck fighting them no matter what? So much for "choice".

In fact the only "change" will prolly be instead of fighting Cerberus troops armed with regular weapons, they'll be fighting us with Collector ones if we kept the base. It's another case of Renegades getting screwed.

You also forget that we were able to give Legion to Cerberus to study, the first ever intact Geth and one with a unique personality. 

I don't know, but it has been said by someone that Bioware is just cateering to the anti-Cerberus crowd that became so huge right after ME2 came out. So I guess this is just Bioware p laying to their desires instead of trying to tell a stroy that they initially wanted to tell.

In a way, it is less of a retcon and more of fan service.

I mean seriously, with the Reaper attack and their Husk, don't you think it is a bit overkill to ALSO have Cerberus fighting you?

[Seboist]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

I haven't read most of this thread, but the jist of the OP complain is choices don't make as big of effect on 2nd game as he/she would have liked.

To quote Casey Hudson
""It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go. "
http://au.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

After ME1, they went on about how choices would matter, though, about how important they would be. Fans ate it up. Then ME2 came out and they didn't give us the divergence we were told to expect after all.

Now with ME3 looming, they say this, but frankly the same issues are there. There are the same budgetary issues with divergence. The only changes that would fit into the appearant budget they have to work with would be that all the 'major differences' would be in end dialogue, since that is the only area where the story is no longer constrained.

Fool me once.....

Yeah, if ME3 is going to show all this "big change" then why are we being pigeon holed into fighting Cerberus despite the fact that both CB endings imply some sort of continued cooperation?

In ME2 we're given all these hints that we can work hand in hand with Cerberus(albeit a bit begrudgedly) by handing Veetor to them, sending Rawling's data to them, keeping David with Overlord,keeping the CB and having unlockable Cerberus uniforms for all the Aliens but now we're stuck fighting them no matter what? So much for "choice".

In fact the only "change" will prolly be instead of fighting Cerberus troops armed with regular weapons, they'll be fighting us with Collector ones if we kept the base. It's another case of Renegades getting screwed.

You also forget that we were able to give Legion to Cerberus to study, the first ever intact Geth and one with a unique personality. 

I don't know, but it has been said by someone that Bioware is just cateering to the anti-Cerberus crowd that became so huge right after ME2 came out. So I guess this is just Bioware p laying to their desires instead of trying to tell a stroy that they initially wanted to tell.

In a way, it is less of a retcon and more of fan service.

I mean seriously, with the Reaper attack and their Husk, don't you think it is a bit overkill to ALSO have Cerberus fighting you?

Yeah I did forget about the whole Legion scenario(keeping him is to the dismay of TIM).

It does seem that they're pandering to the Anti-Cerberus crowd and maintaning their Paragon bias. Based on what we've seen in ME1 and 2 it makes absolutely no sense for TIM to be out hunting Shep. ME2 makes it clear he has a great admiration for Shepard several times and mourns his death in the bad ending.

[MajesticJazz]

Seboist wrote...


Yeah I did forget about the whole Legion scenario(keeping him is to the dismay of TIM).

It does seem that they're pandering to the Anti-Cerberus crowd and maintaning their Paragon bias. Based on what we've seen in ME1 and 2 it makes absolutely no sense for TIM to be out hunting Shep. ME2 makes it clear he has a great admiration for Shepard several times and mourns his death in the bad ending.

Also the novels Acension and Retribution makes it very clear that Cerberus respects the work that Shepard does even if Shepard isn't fully 100% on par with the Illusive Man's beliefs.

To me, it was clear that Cerberus was more of a necessary-evil. An organization that has done some terrible things to advance Humanity's spot in the galaxy, even if it means murdering/experimenting with humans (Like Paul Grayson in Retribution and Gillian Grayson in Acension). I always thought that as bad as Cerberus was, by the end of ME3 we would see the bigger picture and learn that while Cerberus still isn't "good" they have been supportive.

HOWEVER, Bioware being weak and pandering to fanservice decided to go with the "I want to kill TIM in ME3" fanbase has turned Cerberus from a necessary-evil into just pure evil.

Cerberu's reasons for trying to kill Shepard BETTER be good or else I'll hold it against Bioware as just trying to last minute retcon/fanservice.

[Seboist]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Seboist wrote...


Yeah I did forget about the whole Legion scenario(keeping him is to the dismay of TIM).

It does seem that they're pandering to the Anti-Cerberus crowd and maintaning their Paragon bias. Based on what we've seen in ME1 and 2 it makes absolutely no sense for TIM to be out hunting Shep. ME2 makes it clear he has a great admiration for Shepard several times and mourns his death in the bad ending.

Also the novels Acension and Retribution makes it very clear that Cerberus respects the work that Shepard does even if Shepard isn't fully 100% on par with the Illusive Man's beliefs.

To me, it was clear that Cerberus was more of a necessary-evil. An organization that has done some terrible things to advance Humanity's spot in the galaxy, even if it means murdering/experimenting with humans (Like Paul Grayson in Retribution and Gillian Grayson in Acension). I always thought that as bad as Cerberus was, by the end of ME3 we would see the bigger picture and learn that while Cerberus still isn't "good" they have been supportive.

HOWEVER, Bioware being weak and pandering to fanservice decided to go with the "I want to kill TIM in ME3" fanbase has turned Cerberus from a necessary-evil into just pure evil.

Cerberu's reasons for trying to kill Shepard BETTER be good or else I'll hold it against Bioware as just trying to last minute retcon/fanservice.

That's how I viewed them as well. Despite being my being so pro-Cerberus the only action my canon Shep did that was completely in their favor was keeping the Collecter base.

It strikes me as odd that Shepard can side with ultra violent Krogans, vicious insects that multiply faster than rats(Rachni),sociopaths (Zaeed,Morinth,Jack and Grunt) and a council that sterilizes an entire race but when it comes to allying with Cerberus in the galaxy's darkest hour the moral high ground has to be taken.

Modifié par Seboist, 23 avril 2011 - 03:11 .

[MajesticJazz]

Seboist wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Seboist wrote...


Yeah I did forget about the whole Legion scenario(keeping him is to the dismay of TIM).

It does seem that they're pandering to the Anti-Cerberus crowd and maintaning their Paragon bias. Based on what we've seen in ME1 and 2 it makes absolutely no sense for TIM to be out hunting Shep. ME2 makes it clear he has a great admiration for Shepard several times and mourns his death in the bad ending.

Also the novels Acension and Retribution makes it very clear that Cerberus respects the work that Shepard does even if Shepard isn't fully 100% on par with the Illusive Man's beliefs.

To me, it was clear that Cerberus was more of a necessary-evil. An organization that has done some terrible things to advance Humanity's spot in the galaxy, even if it means murdering/experimenting with humans (Like Paul Grayson in Retribution and Gillian Grayson in Acension). I always thought that as bad as Cerberus was, by the end of ME3 we would see the bigger picture and learn that while Cerberus still isn't "good" they have been supportive.

HOWEVER, Bioware being weak and pandering to fanservice decided to go with the "I want to kill TIM in ME3" fanbase has turned Cerberus from a necessary-evil into just pure evil.

Cerberu's reasons for trying to kill Shepard BETTER be good or else I'll hold it against Bioware as just trying to last minute retcon/fanservice.

That's how I viewed them as well. Despite being my being so pro-Cerberus the only action my canon Shep did that was completely in their favor was keeping the Collecter base.

It strikes me as odd that Shepard can side with ultra violent Krogans, vicious insects that multiply faster than rats(Rachni),sociopaths (Zaeed,Morinth,Jack and Grunt) and a council that sterilizes an entire race but when it comes to allying with Cerberus in the galaxy's darkest hour the moral high ground has to be taken.

Again, I'm going to allow Bioware to present their case so I'm going to play ME3 and I'll have the final verdict.

Bioware's reasons for having Cerberus be a bad guy BETTER be some uber deep and philosphical reason as to why they suddenly are trying to kill humanity's best weapon against the Reapers. And it BETTER NOT be some predictable "Well TIM was indoctrinated the whole time since ME2" and some weak crap like that. It better be something convincing that would really make sense or else it'll just come across as Bioware turing Cerberus bad just for the hell of it.

Anothing thing that wont make sense is that why is the Alliance taking Shepard back after she has done all of the pro-Cerberus stuff for the Illusive Man?

She allowed the Overlord project to continue
She gave the Rawlings data to Cerberus and not the Alliance
She gave Legion to Cerberus
She gave the CB to Cerberus

Hell,  in one of my conversations with Miranda, she told Miranda that she wished that Cerberus would have recruited her earlier. I mean she was REALLY pro Cerberus but now she is back with the Alliance?

Bioware just cannot stay consistant. In ME1 Shepard was working for the Council, ME2 Shepard was working for Cerberus, and now ME3 she is with the Alliance where she was pre ME1.

[Iakus]

I've always been a aParagon player and hated Cerberus, so take my thoughts for what it's worth.  Also, ME 2 has really disillusioned me on the whole "choices matter" thing as well.

But if Cerberus is in fact gunning for Shepard, have we considered why that would happen?  So far Bioware's keeping their mouths shut but I can think of a few possibilities that don't involve betrayal/indoctrination (though both are certainly possible:

1) Schism within Cerberus.  The Illusive Man doesn't actually want Shepard dead, but other forces within Cerberus do.

2) For the Greater Good: TIM has discovered there is something about Shepard that the Reapers really want or need for their plans (can we say "Lazarus Project technology"?).  TIM is certainly not above sacrificing underlings "for the greater good"  If Shepard's death could guarantee human survival or victory, you can bet he'd do it.

3) Cerberus Coup:  TIM has been deposed and someone else is running the show in his place, like the Shadow Broker.  Said imposter is gunnin for Shep for his/her/its own reasons.  Perhaps even working fofr the Reapers.

4) It's all a misunderstanding  Remember how the Citadel and the Alliance all think Shepard's a traitor for working with Cerberus?  Perhaps TIM has come to the (possibly mistaken) conclusion that Shepard has betrayed him.  TIM, of course, does not dither over such things but is far more...proactive...

5) I Knew You Could Do It:  I admit this is a long shot, but could it be that these attacks on Shepard is an elaborate misdirection to make it look like Shep's on the outs with Cerberus?   They may be deliberately staged or perhaps even "real" attacks that TIM is reasonably certain SHep could survive Like the COllector SHip mission.

[jeweledleah]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Again, I'm going to allow Bioware to present their case so I'm going to play ME3 and I'll have the final verdict.

Bioware's reasons for having Cerberus be a bad guy BETTER be some uber deep and philosphical reason as to why they suddenly are trying to kill humanity's best weapon against the Reapers. And it BETTER NOT be some predictable "Well TIM was indoctrinated the whole time since ME2" and some weak crap like that. It better be something convincing that would really make sense or else it'll just come across as Bioware turing Cerberus bad just for the hell of it.

Anothing thing that wont make sense is that why is the Alliance taking Shepard back after she has done all of the pro-Cerberus stuff for the Illusive Man?

She allowed the Overlord project to continue
She gave the Rawlings data to Cerberus and not the Alliance
She gave Legion to Cerberus
She gave the CB to Cerberus

Hell,  in one of my conversations with Miranda, she told Miranda that she wished that Cerberus would have recruited her earlier. I mean she was REALLY pro Cerberus but now she is back with the Alliance?

Bioware just cannot stay consistant. In ME1 Shepard was working for the Council, ME2 Shepard was working for Cerberus, and now ME3 she is with the Alliance where she was pre ME1.

I have a Shepard who made pretty much the same choices, but

he was perfectly aware of Cerberus ruthlessness and that their methods are questionable if you wish to be nice, he just aproved of them.  He was pro-Cerberus even in ME1, but that doesn't mean he was blind to the fact that they are not exactly good guys.  he's not going to be happy with alliance comandeering his ship but he will deal.  why?  becasue the ends justify the means.  isn't it basicaly Cerberus moto?  you do whatever it takes to achieve your goal and if that means sleeping with the devil  (which in case of this particular Shepard means alliance), then that's what he's going to do. 

and as for Cerberus chasing Shepard, there could be plenty of reasons, including the fact that TIM no longer needs Shepard for whatever reason.  my shepard will take it in stride.  why?  becasue he also subscribes to theory of iliminating lose ends, no matter how expensive and useful they might have been before.

we don't know exactly how bioware will handle TIM chasing Shepard yet.  but.  its not as insensible as people make it out to be, concidering Cerberus modus operandi.

[Seboist]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Seboist wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Seboist wrote...


Yeah I did forget about the whole Legion scenario(keeping him is to the dismay of TIM).

It does seem that they're pandering to the Anti-Cerberus crowd and maintaning their Paragon bias. Based on what we've seen in ME1 and 2 it makes absolutely no sense for TIM to be out hunting Shep. ME2 makes it clear he has a great admiration for Shepard several times and mourns his death in the bad ending.

Also the novels Acension and Retribution makes it very clear that Cerberus respects the work that Shepard does even if Shepard isn't fully 100% on par with the Illusive Man's beliefs.

To me, it was clear that Cerberus was more of a necessary-evil. An organization that has done some terrible things to advance Humanity's spot in the galaxy, even if it means murdering/experimenting with humans (Like Paul Grayson in Retribution and Gillian Grayson in Acension). I always thought that as bad as Cerberus was, by the end of ME3 we would see the bigger picture and learn that while Cerberus still isn't "good" they have been supportive.

HOWEVER, Bioware being weak and pandering to fanservice decided to go with the "I want to kill TIM in ME3" fanbase has turned Cerberus from a necessary-evil into just pure evil.

Cerberu's reasons for trying to kill Shepard BETTER be good or else I'll hold it against Bioware as just trying to last minute retcon/fanservice.

That's how I viewed them as well. Despite being my being so pro-Cerberus the only action my canon Shep did that was completely in their favor was keeping the Collecter base.

It strikes me as odd that Shepard can side with ultra violent Krogans, vicious insects that multiply faster than rats(Rachni),sociopaths (Zaeed,Morinth,Jack and Grunt) and a council that sterilizes an entire race but when it comes to allying with Cerberus in the galaxy's darkest hour the moral high ground has to be taken.

Again, I'm going to allow Bioware to present their case so I'm going to play ME3 and I'll have the final verdict.

Bioware's reasons for having Cerberus be a bad guy BETTER be some uber deep and philosphical reason as to why they suddenly are trying to kill humanity's best weapon against the Reapers. And it BETTER NOT be some predictable "Well TIM was indoctrinated the whole time since ME2" and some weak crap like that. It better be something convincing that would really make sense or else it'll just come across as Bioware turing Cerberus bad just for the hell of it.

Anothing thing that wont make sense is that why is the Alliance taking Shepard back after she has done all of the pro-Cerberus stuff for the Illusive Man?

She allowed the Overlord project to continue
She gave the Rawlings data to Cerberus and not the Alliance
She gave Legion to Cerberus
She gave the CB to Cerberus

Hell,  in one of my conversations with Miranda, she told Miranda that she wished that Cerberus would have recruited her earlier. I mean she was REALLY pro Cerberus but now she is back with the Alliance?

Bioware just cannot stay consistant. In ME1 Shepard was working for the Council, ME2 Shepard was working for Cerberus, and now ME3 she is with the Alliance where she was pre ME1.

I really hope you're right that Bioware has good reasons for this or just hasn't shown us that we can still work with Cerberus yet but I can't help not to be skeptical over the impact the ME1 choices had in ME2.

Everything from the Council choice in ME1 being made irrelavant to the Pro-Paragon bias where Renegades get a big middle finger like in the Veetor situation ain't making things look good.

[ExtremeOne]

iakus wrote...

I've always been a aParagon player and hated Cerberus, so take my thoughts for what it's worth.  Also, ME 2 has really disillusioned me on the whole "choices matter" thing as well.

But if Cerberus is in fact gunning for Shepard, have we considered why that would happen?  So far Bioware's keeping their mouths shut but I can think of a few possibilities that don't involve betrayal/indoctrination (though both are certainly possible:

1) Schism within Cerberus.  The Illusive Man doesn't actually want Shepard dead, but other forces within Cerberus do.

2) For the Greater Good: TIM has discovered there is something about Shepard that the Reapers really want or need for their plans (can we say "Lazarus Project technology"?).  TIM is certainly not above sacrificing underlings "for the greater good"  If Shepard's death could guarantee human survival or victory, you can bet he'd do it.

3) Cerberus Coup:  TIM has been deposed and someone else is running the show in his place, like the Shadow Broker.  Said imposter is gunnin for Shep for his/her/its own reasons.  Perhaps even working fofr the Reapers.

4) It's all a misunderstanding  Remember how the Citadel and the Alliance all think Shepard's a traitor for working with Cerberus?  Perhaps TIM has come to the (possibly mistaken) conclusion that Shepard has betrayed him.  TIM, of course, does not dither over such things but is far more...proactive...

5) I Knew You Could Do It:  I admit this is a long shot, but could it be that these attacks on Shepard is an elaborate misdirection to make it look like Shep's on the outs with Cerberus?   They may be deliberately staged or perhaps even "real" attacks that TIM is reasonably certain SHep could survive Like the COllector SHip mission.

  





Could there be a logical reason as to why Cerberus and TIM are after Shepard sure . But so far its starting to seem like it will not be logical . Because go back and play the end decision of 2 again . The Paragon choice is Shepard gives Cerberus the middle finger and says F U . The renegade choice is Shepard agrees with TIM and you would think as it ends that ok I have made my choice and I am with Cerberus now . Now comes ME 3 and we find out. No matter what choice you made at the end of 2 Cerberus is fater Shepard . That makes no sense at all based on the story of 2 . Oh and if you end 2 with Shepard dieing and saving the base  the SR 2 is back in Cerberus port . So you tell me what is wrong with this .  

[Quole]

ExtremeOne wrote...

iakus wrote...

I've always been a aParagon player and hated Cerberus, so take my thoughts for what it's worth.  Also, ME 2 has really disillusioned me on the whole "choices matter" thing as well.

But if Cerberus is in fact gunning for Shepard, have we considered why that would happen?  So far Bioware's keeping their mouths shut but I can think of a few possibilities that don't involve betrayal/indoctrination (though both are certainly possible:

1) Schism within Cerberus.  The Illusive Man doesn't actually want Shepard dead, but other forces within Cerberus do.

2) For the Greater Good: TIM has discovered there is something about Shepard that the Reapers really want or need for their plans (can we say "Lazarus Project technology"?).  TIM is certainly not above sacrificing underlings "for the greater good"  If Shepard's death could guarantee human survival or victory, you can bet he'd do it.

3) Cerberus Coup:  TIM has been deposed and someone else is running the show in his place, like the Shadow Broker.  Said imposter is gunnin for Shep for his/her/its own reasons.  Perhaps even working fofr the Reapers.

4) It's all a misunderstanding  Remember how the Citadel and the Alliance all think Shepard's a traitor for working with Cerberus?  Perhaps TIM has come to the (possibly mistaken) conclusion that Shepard has betrayed him.  TIM, of course, does not dither over such things but is far more...proactive...

5) I Knew You Could Do It:  I admit this is a long shot, but could it be that these attacks on Shepard is an elaborate misdirection to make it look like Shep's on the outs with Cerberus?   They may be deliberately staged or perhaps even "real" attacks that TIM is reasonably certain SHep could survive Like the COllector SHip mission.

  





Could there be a logical reason as to why Cerberus and TIM are after Shepard sure . But so far its starting to seem like it will not be logical . Because go back and play the end decision of 2 again . The Paragon choice is Shepard gives Cerberus the middle finger and says F U . The renegade choice is Shepard agrees with TIM and you would think as it ends that ok I have made my choice and I am with Cerberus now . Now comes ME 3 and we find out. No matter what choice you made at the end of 2 Cerberus is fater Shepard . That makes no sense at all based on the story of 2 . Oh and if you end 2 with Shepard dieing and saving the base  the SR 2 is back in Cerberus port . So you tell me what is wrong with this .  

You cant import a save if shepard dies.

Anyway, you kind of deserve this for siding witth cerberus anyway.

[ExtremeOne]

Quole wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

iakus wrote...

I've always been a aParagon player and hated Cerberus, so take my thoughts for what it's worth.  Also, ME 2 has really disillusioned me on the whole "choices matter" thing as well.

But if Cerberus is in fact gunning for Shepard, have we considered why that would happen?  So far Bioware's keeping their mouths shut but I can think of a few possibilities that don't involve betrayal/indoctrination (though both are certainly possible:

1) Schism within Cerberus.  The Illusive Man doesn't actually want Shepard dead, but other forces within Cerberus do.

2) For the Greater Good: TIM has discovered there is something about Shepard that the Reapers really want or need for their plans (can we say "Lazarus Project technology"?).  TIM is certainly not above sacrificing underlings "for the greater good"  If Shepard's death could guarantee human survival or victory, you can bet he'd do it.

3) Cerberus Coup:  TIM has been deposed and someone else is running the show in his place, like the Shadow Broker.  Said imposter is gunnin for Shep for his/her/its own reasons.  Perhaps even working fofr the Reapers.

4) It's all a misunderstanding  Remember how the Citadel and the Alliance all think Shepard's a traitor for working with Cerberus?  Perhaps TIM has come to the (possibly mistaken) conclusion that Shepard has betrayed him.  TIM, of course, does not dither over such things but is far more...proactive...

5) I Knew You Could Do It:  I admit this is a long shot, but could it be that these attacks on Shepard is an elaborate misdirection to make it look like Shep's on the outs with Cerberus?   They may be deliberately staged or perhaps even "real" attacks that TIM is reasonably certain SHep could survive Like the COllector SHip mission.

  





Could there be a logical reason as to why Cerberus and TIM are after Shepard sure . But so far its starting to seem like it will not be logical . Because go back and play the end decision of 2 again . The Paragon choice is Shepard gives Cerberus the middle finger and says F U . The renegade choice is Shepard agrees with TIM and you would think as it ends that ok I have made my choice and I am with Cerberus now . Now comes ME 3 and we find out. No matter what choice you made at the end of 2 Cerberus is fater Shepard . That makes no sense at all based on the story of 2 . Oh and if you end 2 with Shepard dieing and saving the base  the SR 2 is back in Cerberus port . So you tell me what is wrong with this .  

You cant import a save if shepard dies.

Anyway, you kind of deserve this for siding witth cerberus anyway.

  




I know you can not import a dead Shepard into 3 .  I was simply making a point that even with that ending It makes the story of the Alliance taking the SR 2 even more stupid .  Oh yeah so us renegade players deserve to get screwed like this from our choices not meaning any dam thing . I tell you what if ME 3 has a stupid ass reason for this I will call them out on this . Because its high time someone to call them out and say hey your player choice system and story has been bull sh*t 

[The Minority]

Am I the only one who finds Extreme One's rage funny?

[CitizenSnips]

The scope of a 3rd installment of a large scale game taking into account every single decision made in the first two installments AND having those decisions change the story in a meaningful way is beyond any game company that wants to make a profit or even stay in business. Bioware would essentially have to make multiple (or dozens) of games worth of content just for ME3, only a fraction of which any one player would see on a given playthrough. Players shouldn't blame Bioware for that. Players should blame Bioware if that's what Bioware claims it can deliver (which I haven't seen evidence for or against).

[ExtremeOne]

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

The scope of a 3rd installment of a large scale game taking into account every single decision made in the first two installments AND having those decisions change the story in a meaningful way is beyond any game company that wants to make a profit or even stay in business. Bioware would essentially have to make multiple (or dozens) of games worth of content just for ME3, only a fraction of which any one player would see on a given playthrough. Players shouldn't blame Bioware for that. Players should blame Bioware if that's what Bioware claims it can deliver (which I haven't seen evidence for or against).

  







They should have never had player choice at all in the ME series. If it was not going to mean anything at all. Bioware has been spewing the same story of oh player choice will matter in 3 . Well in 3 based on the info so far . We know what choice matters and its the paragon choices .  They are clearly backing the paragons and the Anti Cerberus fans in 3 . Thats just the cold hard truth and it is bull sh*t .  We saw the liara fan service with LOSTB and saw the hackett fan service with arrival . Cloaked under this bridging the gap to ME 3 banner . It was brutally clear that those dlc packs were fan service to the ME 1 and alliance fans .  

[AngelicMachinery]

You know, I play renegade myself this whole "Paragon Favoritism" thing makes me laugh though. Sure paragon ends up with more content from the other games (Because they tend to leave people alive in they're play throughs instead of shooting them). As for being hunted by Cerberus it is abit annoying, but, keeping renegade Shep on a leash would be difficult and dangerous. If TIM got the base in the end he might feel that whacking Shepherd is just good business, he's got a bunch of new toys why bother with someone whom he can't directly influence?

Modifié par AngelicMachinery, 23 avril 2011 - 05:12 .

[DPSSOC]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh yeah so us renegade players deserve to get screwed like this from our choices not meaning any dam thing . I tell you what if ME 3 has a stupid ass reason for this I will call them out on this . Because its high time someone to call them out and say hey your player choice system and story has been bull sh*t 

I'm reminded of a friend's rather cynical summation of divine given free will
Deity: Rejoice human for I have given you choice.  You have the power to choose, and to think, and to be whatever you want.
Human: That's amazing.  Ok I choose this.
Deity: Fantastic and now I'm going to punish you for it.
Human: Why?
Deity: Because you chose wrong.
I like to think, and this may be delusion on my part, that this is the fault of the marketers.  In ME1 Renegade never came across as evil, it was just a different mindset with different value judgements but equally valid.  Now this is a great system to have, different but equal, because it doesn't reward or punish behaviour it merely responds to it.  Unfortunately the marketers got a hold of it and realized that, if they wanted to go for mass appeal they'd have to simplify it a bit.  The idea that two completely different viewpoints could be equally valid doesn't sit well with Average Joe so we need to make one of them wrong they say.  And that's what brought us to where we are now, that's my theory based on wild speculation and wishful thinking and I'm sticking with it because the alternative is considerably less pleasant.

[Saaziel]

The Minority wrote...

Am I the only one who finds Extreme One's rage funny?

It is rather funny , though sad considering how long its been going on and how much time there's left to ME3 launch. And it can only get worst as it goes forward; One little tidbit of information and its pandemonium. Can you imagine when other details are released ... Some wont be happy until they can romance TIM and curb stomp every alien on interrupts .

I keep wondering if X1 had an equal and opposite going from ME1 to ME2. Constant rants about :" My paragon shep would never ally with Cerberus! OMG Bioware favours Renegades , they'd better have a good explanation or I'll curb stomp every Cerberus on the ship. Paragons are screwed !" .

Also I agree with Machinery; I play Renegade , and the favouritism isn't even an issue.

Modifié par Saaziel, 23 avril 2011 - 05:11 .

[didymos1120]

DPSSOC wrote...

 In ME1 Renegade never came across as evil, it was just a different mindset with different value judgements but equally valid. 

Uh, yes it did.  RenShep acted like a sadistic psycho on many occasions.  It was one of the most annoying flaws of ME1 to me: picking a renegade response and getting a gleeful killer instead of the hard, resolute soldier I'd have expected.

[CitizenSnips]

As far as videogames go, the Mass Effect series is on the top of the heap in regards to choice and consequence. Teamates can die, allies/enemies made, species eradicated/ saved, quests available due to decisions made in previous games, free reign on where to go and what to do, etc. but there are limits and there is a core story to be told. Bioware won't make Mass Effect: Extremeone Edition so either adjust your expectations to be more realistic or continue to take it way too personally. Moaning about Bioware advocating every choice you didn't make and complaining that the characters in LotSB and Arrival are "fanservice" just paints you in a very ****y color.

[Seboist]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

You know, I play renegade myself this whole "Paragon Favoritism" thing makes me laugh though. Sure paragon ends up with more content from the other games (Because they tend to leave people alive in they're play throughs instead of shooting them. As for being hunted by Cerberus it is ab it annoying, but, keeping renegade Shep on a leash would be difficult and dangerous. If TIM got the base in the end he might feel that whacking Shepherd is just good business, he's got a bunch of new toys why bother with someone whom he can't directly influence?

There's plenty of "replacement cameos" that could have been added for Renegades who killed certain people in ME1, in fact almost all the "killables" had logical replacements.

It's not only the cameo issue that's against Renegades but entire outcomes like Paragons can save the Council with minimal losses and there aren't any humans who lash against Shep for being an "alien stooge" . This is in stark contrast to where if the Council is sacrificed, aliens are accusing Shepard of scheming to put humans on a power trip.

Another good example is the whole Veetor situation. Paragon outcome gets the info AND Veetor coming to Tali's assistance in her loyalty. Renegade on the other hand just get the info....... so, uh what's the pay off?

That on top of criminals all being reformed and now Cerberus after us no matter what really paints a bleak picture for Renegade.

[DPSSOC]

didymos1120 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

 In ME1 Renegade never came across as evil, it was just a different mindset with different value judgements but equally valid. 

Uh, yes it did.  RenShep acted like a sadistic psycho on many occasions.  It was one of the most annoying flaws of ME1 to me: picking a renegade response and getting a gleeful killer instead of the hard, resolute soldier I'd have expected.

Hmm, rose coloured glasses perhaps.  Or maybe I just wasn't Renegade enough.  Or maybe my personal concept of good and evil is so viciously skewed that I should really seek professional help.  I'm making a pure Renegade playthrough of ME1 soon so that should hopefully rule out 1 and 2.