541 réponses à ce sujet

[Lapis Lazuli]

Nashiktal wrote...

Its called paragraphs. Learn to use them, and love them.

It's called question marks!!!! OMG for the first time in my life I am starving for punctuation!!!!!

But anyways. Good points made.

[Bluko]

Umm wow. I thought I was the "Ranting Swede" around these parts.  I'll try to be nice, even though some of what you're going on about seems a bit naive.

1. I don't remember Bioware promising that your decisions from ME1 would make ME2 a comepletely different game. Your decisions are simply carried over. By and large this Bioware has done, they basically carried over every decision you made from ME1. Everyone has these unreal expectations thats just because of a few (and usually relatively minor) decisions that the universe is going to completely change.  Look expecting there to be completely different game stories is just absurd. The story for Mass Effect is structured it's no some "choose your own adventure". Bioware is Dungeon-Master and ultimately the story plays out like they plan it, not how you plan it.

Maybe you don't like how they're handling it, and you know that's fine. But getting upset just cause ME2 isn't radically different if you're Paragon/Renegade is silly. I mean you get different conversations, meet different characters, what else do you want? Different levels/missions? That'd be nice, but I got to stress that each game is meant to be a standalone title. If they drastically altered what content you got in a play-through by adding additional missions just cause you played through ME1 and had a save still around, that wouldn't be very fair to new players. And guess what? They did do this. True they are very minor, but I'd say they still count.


2. Again the game has to play out a certain way. You can't honestly expect Shepard's reactions to always be attune to your own. What did you want to Renegade Interrupt slap  Ashley/Kaidan? Also I'd argue the  point of those confrontations was to ****** you off. Really you can't just expect everyone to kiss Shepard's feet all the time.


3. You're right. But who says you're working for the Alliance in ME3? Look guy it was inevitable you'd have to work in some manner with the Alliance again if you want to defend Earth from the Reapers. You know cause they're the Earth's military force.


4. Actually it does. Technically they designed the Normandy. Cerberus more or less stole the design. Do think the U.S. military would let an AWOL soldier run around with something like B-2 Bomber? I don't think so. Military forces are quite notorious for commandeering things when they want to. Hence why most people don't like invading armies.

Shepard is more or less a criminal in the Alliance's eyes now. Shepard may be a hero, but being a hero only lets you get away with so much.


5. *Sigh* Cerberus has always been bad. That was the point. They were never really meant to be the "good guys". The way I, and most people who actually did some of the side missions in ME1 see it: was that working with Cerberus was a deal with the devil. Basically you can think of T.I.M. as Hades, and being the powerful guy that he is; gives you back your life if you do something for him. Why would you trust Cerberus/T.I.M. to begin with? How many times do they send you into danger, danger they full well know of, but forget to tell you about? I mean seriously after the Collector Ship how can you trust T.I.M.?

Shepard may be important to T.I.M. but only to the point that they're directly useful to him. T.I.M. doesn't really care about saving galaxy, he just wants to take over it. So go figure once he has (or doesn't have) the Collector Base he wants to get rid of Shepard. T.I.M. only really cares about the Collector Base. Shepard was just a tool and nothing more. Shepard is expendable, you know like all other Cerberus personnel.


6. Do you really think the Reapers as powerful as they are can't use FTL travel to get to the Galaxy? They obviously can and will if need be. The Citadel just happens to be the most covenient and fastest way for them to attack the Galaxy. Also pretty sure the Reapers are the main focus of ME3.


7. What are you talking about? Renegades never sided with T.I.M. they simply don't disagree with him as much as Paragons do. Never did I get the feeling playing as pure Renegade that my Shepard was a Cerberus loyalist.

Seriously some of you guys bought way too much into the whole "Cerberus is teh good guys" just because they had logos everywhere and sent you emails with presents. They are and will always be bad. But yeah sometimes you have to work with one bad guys to get rid of another bad guy. You know: the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Also Tali and Garrus weren't really added as fan service in ME2. They were added cause they had little or no character development in ME1, and ME2 allowed them to flush out their stories and background a little more. Reason why Ashley/Kaidan and Liara got sidelined in ME2 cause this is presuambly happening to them in ME3 now.

Modifié par Bluko, 19 avril 2011 - 05:33 .

[ExtremeOne]

Bluko wrote...

Umm wow. I thought I was the "Ranting Swede" around these parts.  I'll try to be nice, even though some of what you're going on about seems a bit naive.

1. I don't remember Bioware promising that your decisions from ME1 would make ME2 a comepletely different game. Your decisions are simply carried over. By and large this Bioware has done, they basically carried over every decision you made from ME1. Everyone has these unreal expectations thats just because of a few (and usually relatively minor) decisions that the universe is going to completly change. And guess what? Look expecting there to be completly different game stories is just absurd. The story for Mass Effect is structured it's no some "choose your own adventure". Bioware is Dungeon-Master and ultimately the story plays out like they plan it, not how you plan it.

Maybe you don't like how they're handling it, and you know that's fine. But getting upset just cause ME2 isn't radically different if you're Paragon/Renegade is silly. I mean you get different conversations, meet different characters, what else do you want? Different levels/missions? That'd be nice, but I got stress that each game is meant to be a standalone title. If they drastically altered what content you got in a play-through by adding additional missions just cause you played through ME1 and had a save still around, that wouldn't be very fair to new players. And guess what? They did do this. True they are very minor, but I'd say they still count.

2. Again the game has to play out a certain way. You can't honestly expect Shepard's reactions to always be attune to your own. What did you want to Renegade Interrupt slap  Ashley/Kaidan? Also I'd argue the  point of those confrontations was to ****** you off. Really you can't just expect everyone to kiss Shepard's feet all the time.

3. You're right. But who says you're working for the Alliance in ME3? Look guy it was inevitable you'd have to work in some manner with the Alliance again if you want to defend Earth from the Reapers. You know cause they're the Earth's military force.

4. Actually it does. Technically they designed the Normandy. Cerberus more or less stole the design. Do think the U.S. military would let an AWOL soldier run around with something like B-2 Bomber? I don't think so. Military forces are quite notorious for commandeering things when they want to. Hence why most people don't like invading armies.

Shepard is more or less a criminal in the Alliance's eyes now. Shepard may be a hero, but being a hero only lets you get away with so much.

5. *Sigh* Cerberus has always been bad. That was the point. They were never really meant to be the "good guys". The way I, and most people who actually did some of the side missions in ME1 see it: was that working with Cerberus was a deal with the devil. Basically you can think of T.I.M. as Hades, and being that powerful guy that he gives you back your life if you do something for him. Why would you trust Cerberus/T.I.M. to begin with? How many times do they send you into danger, danger they full well know of, but forget to tell you about? I mean seriously after the Collector Ship how can you trust T.I.M.?

Shepard may be important to T.I.M. but only to the point that they're directly useful to him. T.I.M. doesn't really care about saving galaxy, he just wants to take over it. So go figure once he  has (or doesn't have) the Collector Base he wants to get rid of Shepard. T.I.M. only really cares about the Collector Base. Shepard was just a tool and nothing more. Shepard is expendable, you know like just about all other Ceberus personnel.

6. Do you really think the Reapers as powerful as they are can't use FTL travel to get to the Galaxy? They obviously can and will if need be. The Citadel just happens to be the most covenient and fastest way for them to attack the Galaxy. Also pretty sure the Reapers are the main focus of ME3.

7. What are you talking about? Renegades never sided with T.I.M. they simply don't disagree with him as much as Paragons do. Never did I get the feeling playing as pure Renegade that my Shepard was a Cerberus loyalist.

Seriously some of you guys bought way too much into the whole "Cerberus is teh good guys" just because they had logos everywhere and sent you emails with presents. They are and will always be bad. But yeah sometimes you have to work with one bad guys to get rid of another bad guy. You know: the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Also Tali and Garrus weren't really added as fan service in ME2. They were added cause they had little or no character development in ME1, and ME2 allowed them to flush out their stories and background a little more. Reason why Ashley/Kaidan and Liara got sidelined in ME2 cause this is presuambly happening to them in ME3 now.

  




I think I should clear up one thing I never said Cerberus was the good guys. but lets face it they are willing to do what ever it takes to get the job done and they want to stop the reapers as well. So what logical sense is there for TIM and Cerberus to turn on Shepard. None based on Mass Effect 2. My point about fan service was in relation to the anti Cerberus fans who hated working with Cerberus in the 2nd game. so yeah ME 3 sounds like a bigt fat fan service to them. I like Garrus but I can not stand Tali. I simply pointed out the difference between the reapers in how they get to council space in the 1st game and their postion in the 2nd game at the end and the 2 do not match at all. so yeah the story telling is messed up. I understand how you feel about your Shepard but My Shepard became a Cerberus loyalist after horizxon and then after learning Anderson sold him out. by having spies spy on him. What Bioware is doing to us Cerberus fans is bull sh*t in 3 unless they have a logical answer. They may have built the first one but Cerberus knew about the first one anyway Edi even says that in the game. so what if Cerberus stole the plans they did build a new one. The Alliance has no business stealing it from Shepard. Shepard may be a criminal in the minds of the Alliance but that makes no sense neither. Oh so murder under the Alliance is fine but unless its under them. The Alliance did not give a dam about Shepard in 2 they used him as a recruitment tool. Now they want to put him trail is bullsh*t . If the reapers are the main focus of 3 then whats with the story of Cerberus hunting Shepard is it a side story or what is its purpose in the game . Why would I trust Cerberus and TIM. I sure as hell would not trust Anderson who has already sold my Shepard out just because he did not like him working with Cerberus. I like Cerberus and its ruthless attitude about doing what ever it takes to get the job done no matter who gets in its way.  The only thing I want them is to  explain why Cerberus is after Shepard in ME 3.  I fully  support ME 3 having a deeper rpg system in it I like rpg games. I just have some issues with them thats all. I am a huge fan of the Mass Effect games even though I personally like 2 better than 1 . yes I am a die hard Cerberus / TIM fan as well a ultra hardcore fan of Miranda. I like Garrus and grunt and wrex as well legion. I just think developers need to be called out on their bull sh*t some times. 

[Bluko]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I think I should clear up one thing I never said Cerberus was the good guys. but lets face it they are willing to do what ever it takes to get the job done and they want to stop the reapers as well. So what logical sense is there for TIM and Cerberus to turn on Shepard. None based on Mass Effect 2.

Since when has Cerberus done logical things? T.I.M.'s an ego-maniac besides. Do you think T.I.M. plans to keep Shepard around forever? What about when T.I.M. wants to take over and lead humanity? Do you really want  T.I.M. to rule the Galaxy after you beat the Reapers or something? I understand Martin Sheen's very cool and all, but come on. If you think T.I.M. won't sacrifice Shepard for his own ambitions at some point you are fooling yourself.

Besides what if T.I.M. and Cerberus got indoctrinated? Which frankly seems like a logical thing that might happen given that even dead Reapers can indoctrinate people. Also why wouldn't there be indoctrination tech aboard the Collector Base? Seems like a good idea to leave that stuff around and I'm sure the Reapers would, and considering they leave indoctrination devices all over the galaxy.

Basically I'm guessing this is what will happen:

-If you destroyed the Collector Base T.I.M. is pissed off at you. Obviously you're too "idealistic" to do what it takes to save the Galaxy. So why not kill Shepard and his band of traitors while taking back the Normandy?

-If you saved the Collector Base Cerberus and T.I.M. all get indoctrinated due to the Reaper tech.

Seems fine to me.


It's not fan service.  This is probably what they planned from the start. Since ME1 the Devs have had a general storyline laid out for the entire series. And I'm pretty sure something like this was planned before ME2 even came out.

[vader da slayer]

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-Bioware never said the ME1 decisions would have a direct and heavy/big impact in ME2, they said that the decisions made would have an impact in the story, not the next game.

2-I can't even....

3-The Alliance understands the importance of shepard while Cerberus is using him.There are 4 billion-ish reasons why the Alliance couldn't bring Shepard back but probably desperately wanted too.

4-Yes it actually makes perfect sense. Shepard is an Alliance N7 trained Marine and thereby anything under his command is by default the Alliances. Same can be said for any enemy vehicle comandeered by someone in an opposing military group. Said opposing military takes ownership of it if it is a significant item of interest and the individual isn't the "owner" but the military they work for.

5-Hint: Cerberus was always evil. And in ME1 if you payed attention Cerberus was an Alliance black ops group that went rogue under the Illusive Man and made their mission the presservation and promotion of the Human race. And yes TIM does want to stop the reapers at ANY cost, that means even doing things like say destroying other races homeworlds or wiping out the entirety of other races in order to do so. Also the reason for Cerberus / TIM wanting you dead is unknown at this point and obviously has nothing to do with ME2 events and may hinge on something at the begining of ME3. Also that team on the dead reaper all went insane and either a) killed each other or were turned into husks, great track record there.

6-Logic and comon sense should tell you that the Reapers have a drive system (both FTL and sublight) and that should be evident from Soveriegn. With this knowledge they've hadbetween 2.5 and 3 years since the end of ME1 and the begining of ME3 to get in range of another Milky Way Relay in order to get to Earth. Not that hard a concept to understand. Also Cerberus is going to be there as a secondary threat that is going to try and be doing THEIR thing to stop the Reapers which will most likely be in direct opposition or hinderance to what you are currently doing (again logic and knowledge of how a story progress' might help you here).

7-How are they siding with Paragons? A paragon would have saved the rachni queen and there by would have to fight rachni husks in ME3 where as a Renegade would have killed the queen and wont see rachni at all in 3. Just because you think you have it hard for you doesn't mean its going to be easier on the other end of the spectrum. (big note, Im also not saying Renegades will have it easy so dont try to put those words in my mouth, I was giving one way in which paragons will have a downside to a decision they made, also Turian Council member, nuff said (I don't know if theres a Renegade version of the Turian Council member or not never killed them)).

Final big paragraph-complaining about Cerberus' attempt to kill sheapard at this point is useless as thats something thats going to hang around in all likelyhood. And just because someone wans't mentioned doesn't mean that said character isn't going to be in it. there was no mention of Tali either yet I can garauntee you she's in 3. Maybe if you paid any ounce of attention you would be able to understand the (somewhat) easy to follow plot line. This isn't some high browed plot that requires you to watch/read it a couple times before it sinks in its designed for the average gamer and if you play XBL/PSN/PC online at all you should know what that IQ level is. And Shepard ISNT an unstopable for hence the need for a team, just like those other characters you mentioned, they even had people helping them complete their missions. Also no one ever said he'd become as iconic (although if you ask me ME>SW>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST, especially from a technically correct viewpoint) as any of those characters and that wasn't what Bioware set out to do. They aren't trying to make the most memorable characters of all time they are trying to make (and doing VERY well at) making the most memorable story and universe of this console generation and maybe the next.

[ExtremeOne]

Bluko wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I think I should clear up one thing I never said Cerberus was the good guys. but lets face it they are willing to do what ever it takes to get the job done and they want to stop the reapers as well. So what logical sense is there for TIM and Cerberus to turn on Shepard. None based on Mass Effect 2.

Since when has Cerberus done logical things? T.I.M.'s an ego-maniac besides. Do you think T.I.M. plans to keep Shepard around forever? What about when T.I.M. wants to take over and lead humanity? Do you really want  T.I.M. to rule the Galaxy after you beat the Reapers or something? I understand Martin Sheen's very cool and all, but come on. If you think T.I.M. won't sacrifice Shepard for his own ambitions at some point you are fooling yourself.

Besides what if T.I.M. and Cerberus got indoctrinated? Which frankly seems like a logical thing that might happen given that even dead Reapers can indoctrinate people. Also why wouldn't there be indoctrination tech aboard the Collector Base? Seems like a good idea to leave that stuff around and I'm sure the Reapers would, and considering they leave indoctrination devices all over the galaxy.

Basically I'm guessing this is what will happen:

-If you destroyed the Collector Base T.I.M. is pissed off at you. Obviously you're too "idealistic" to do what it takes to save the Galaxy. So why not kill Shepard and his band of traitors while taking back the Normandy?

-If you saved the Collector Base Cerberus and T.I.M. all get indoctrinated due to the Reaper tech.

Seems fine to me.


It's not fan service.  This is probably what they planned from the start. Since ME1 the Devs have had a general storyline laid out for the entire series. And I'm pretty sure something like this was planned before ME2 even came out.

  



If thats true then Bioware has did a ****** poor job in story telling 

[AdmiralCheez]

Whoa, there, ExtremeOne. You don't dismiss a Bluko wall-o-text with one mere sentence!

Besides, if being betrayed by Cerberus honestly makes you feel betrayed, then you've wandered right into BW's cleverly-crafted trap.

[Moiaussi]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Look, the game has been out for over a year and ME3 is nearing completion.  If the devs haven't heard your complaints by now, they never will.

So all this really boils down to now is you moaning and complaining, over and over again.

I mean seriously, you got nothin' better to do with your time?

I came here to talk about the game, not endlessly complain about stuff I can't change or don't know anything about yet.

Suggestion, let me decide how I want to spend my time? I mean your concern would be touching if it was genuine but you replied to my post, 'moaning and complaining' about my alledged moaning and complaining.

If you came here to talk about the game, talk about it instead of complaining that some people want to talk of aspects of the game that aren't important to you.

We don't know what ME3 is like yet. It is still in production and we don't know what can or cannot still be changed. Even if the parts I am complaining about are as you suggest, etched in stone, other parts of the game may not be and criticism may help result in the rest of the game being better. Or it might help them develop a better game for whatever they do after the ME franchise.

What is your 'master plan' for a better world? Be a fanboi for everything, good or bad? What does that accomplish?

[Moiaussi]

Bluko wrote...

Umm wow. I thought I was the "Ranting Swede" around these parts.  I'll try to be nice, even though some of what you're going on about seems a bit naive.

1. I don't remember Bioware promising that your decisions from ME1 would make ME2 a comepletely different game. Your decisions are simply carried over. By and large this Bioware has done, they basically carried over every decision you made from ME1. Everyone has these unreal expectations thats just because of a few (and usually relatively minor) decisions that the universe is going to completely change.  Look expecting there to be completely different game stories is just absurd. The story for Mass Effect is structured it's no some "choose your own adventure". Bioware is Dungeon-Master and ultimately the story plays out like they plan it, not how you plan it.

Actually their promises were pretty strong. They said the choices would matter and implied that they would really matter. Instead the choices seem to have cosmetic effects at best. As for the 'wait until ME3' response, that is from fans defending the game, not so much from Bioware. Bioware are still saying 'choices matter' but are not being as agressive in saying how much this time. And choices which should have had an immediate effect, such as saving the Council and choosing Anderson vs Udina don't seem to make any difference at all in ME2. Spectre status seems to mean nothing. Even if the authority isn't respected in Terminus, it shouldn't be ignored by them either. The Council was insistant that Shepard not go anywhere near there lest he start a war, and now they order him to go there? And we find out there is a major Asari world (Illium) out there?

2. Again the game has to play out a certain way. You can't honestly expect Shepard's reactions to always be attune to your own. What did you want to Renegade Interrupt slap  Ashley/Kaidan? Also I'd argue the  point of those confrontations was to ****** you off. Really you can't just expect everyone to kiss Shepard's feet all the time.

While this is true, it was Bioware making the promises, not the fans. And Bioware is making a lot of the same promises now, and fans are buying into them just as they did after ME1, mostly on Bioware's reputation. Personally I would have liked a supported Council to have been more supportive. They could have said something like 'we don't like that you are working with Cerberus, but our own agents (the VS at least) report they are not behind these disappearances and we can't spare the resources right now as we are still rebuilding. We can't officially support you but still believe in you.' An option to call in Council backup on the final run, even if they ended up the ones to secure the base would likely not have been hard to fit in either.

There you go.. the Council is still supportive without needing radical changes.

7. What are you talking about? Renegades never sided with T.I.M. they simply don't disagree with him as much as Paragons do. Never did I get the feeling playing as pure Renegade that my Shepard was a Cerberus loyalist.

Seriously some of you guys bought way too much into the whole "Cerberus is teh good guys" just because they had logos everywhere and sent you emails with presents. They are and will always be bad. But yeah sometimes you have to work with one bad guys to get rid of another bad guy. You know: the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

There are many on these boards who buy into TIM's lines and are pro Cerberus. There are some of those who were pro Cerberus even in ME1 before being shown an allegedly 'kinder gentler' Cerberus. You and I can disagree with them, but that doesn't change their opinions. TIM abandoning or betraying a loyal Shepard really doesn't make a lot of sense unless TIM really is already indoctrinated, which doesn't make sense with other aspects of the plot.

[Moiaussi]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Whoa, there, ExtremeOne. You don't dismiss a Bluko wall-o-text with one mere sentence!

Besides, if being betrayed by Cerberus honestly makes you feel betrayed, then you've wandered right into BW's cleverly-crafted trap.

There is a difference though between feeling betrayed within the game and feeling arbitrarily betrayed by writer fiat. It wouldn't be the first time though that Bioware has gone to arbitrary dark plot twists.

Those are good occassionally but when it is every time, it becomes just as bad as sunshine and lolipop type overly optimistic twists. Both do happen in RL, but neither happens allllll the time.

[Bluko]

ExtremeOne wrote...

If thats true then Bioware has did a ****** poor job in story telling 

This is blasphemy! This is madness! Actually this is the Sparta System.

I dunno I'd say ****** poor is a bit extreme, but then that is your name.

But yeah it's starting to seem rather apparent ME2 was more about wasting your time, albeit it in a very entertaining and arguaby fun manner, rather then moving the plot forward in any meaningful way. Eh great now I'm starting to sound like someone else, though I fear he may ultimately be right in saying that you could skip ME2 and just go from ME1 to ME3 no worse for wear. Actually I wonder if this may be Bioware's intention that way ME3 is ultimately the most appealing game to all the fans... hmm.

Still the Cerberus betrayal has had writing on the wall for some time now. I mean Martin Sheen (the dude who voices him) flat out says he wouldn't trust him. Does that not seem rather foretelling of T.I.M.'s future? They tried to make T.I.M. seem like your friend that way when he betrays you'll totally hate his guts in ME3. Also did it really make sense for Cerberus to revive Shepard in the first place? I mean I dunno, but you'd think T.I.M. would be kind of pissed Shepard destroyed all those Cerberus cells/projects in ME1. Why would you revive a dude (or gal) who makes a habit of destroying your stuff?

And as for the Collector Base, it's more or less going to amount to the "Council Decision" a.k.a. did you save them or let them die? Which means yeah it'll basically play out the same, it'll just be slightly different. You know a few different lines of conversation perhaps. It's funny that people think the end game decision is the most important one. Frankly I've always dismissed (No not in the Turian Councillor way!) the Collector Base as something really important. I'd say the Character loyalty missions and their outcomes will have the most impact on ME3 then anything else.

Were it not for the Derelict Reaper and Legion's Loyalty Mission I would have just given up on ME2 as even being an actual sequel.

Modifié par Bluko, 19 avril 2011 - 04:46 .

[Durgon Ironfist]

Hmm my usual response to construct a carefully worded response disproving your logic, however this is the internet and it will be ignored. Realizing this I say that the OP's argument boils down to:

[Seboist]

This whole notion of Cerberus going after Shepard comes out of nowhere. They don't try to assassinate Shepard in ME1 despite her killing plenty of Cerberus operatives and taking out several bases. Now after ME2 where we see TIM spending countless money on reviving Shep, saying he admires her by saying she's a great asset to humanity(and mourns her death in the ending she dies even),now he wants her dead and during a REAPER INVASION?!

What's sad about this is that us Pro-Cerberus folk don't even get the dignity to see Cerberus being a non-entity so we can pretend we're still aligned with them(like we could pretend being Spectre meant anything when it didn't in ME2).

[008Zulu]

^
If your Paragon, its because you destroyed the base. If your Renegade you will find out why, probably in the intro. (my guess is TIM needs Shepard in order to make the Reaper he [TIM] wants to build)

[Clover Rider]

 

[ExtremeOne]

Some Geth wrote...

 

 


thats very cute 

[ExtremeOne]

008Zulu wrote...

^
If your Paragon, its because you destroyed the base. If your Renegade you will find out why, probably in the intro. (my guess is TIM needs Shepard in order to make the Reaper he [TIM] wants to build)

 




that sounds like a logical reason  

[hawat333]

Well, as you know for sure, TIM was overwatching Shepard being rebuilt.
Only after it was done has he started wondering where he put his watch. At the beginning of ME3, he finds out!

[008Zulu]

ExtremeOne wrote...

008Zulu wrote...

^
If your Paragon, its because you destroyed the base. If your Renegade you will find out why, probably in the intro. (my guess is TIM needs Shepard in order to make the Reaper he [TIM] wants to build)

 




that sounds like a logical reason  

I only came to the conclusion when Harbinger is prattling on about wanting to keep Shepard and later with Paragon Shep saying TIM wants the base to build his own Reaper.

You notice how TIM didn't deny it either.

[ExtremeOne]

008Zulu wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

008Zulu wrote...

^
If your Paragon, its because you destroyed the base. If your Renegade you will find out why, probably in the intro. (my guess is TIM needs Shepard in order to make the Reaper he [TIM] wants to build)

 




that sounds like a logical reason  

I only came to the conclusion when Harbinger is prattling on about wanting to keep Shepard and later with Paragon Shep saying TIM wants the base to build his own Reaper.

You notice how TIM didn't deny it either.

  




I still think Bioware is screwing everyone's Shepard out of the ultimate choice of either siding with Cerberus no matter what they are doing ot siding with the Alliance. I hate the fact that the choice is already made for you. if that is the case they should have made Mass Effect games with no player choice in it.  Fine Bioware you made one choice for My Shepard but you will not stop him from being a Ultra hardcore renegade player and a total ass to the alliance in 3  

[AdmiralCheez]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I still think Bioware is screwing everyone's Shepard out of the ultimate choice of either siding with Cerberus no matter what they are doing ot siding with the Alliance. I hate the fact that the choice is already made for you. if that is the case they should have made Mass Effect games with no player choice in it.  Fine Bioware you made one choice for My Shepard but you will not stop him from being a Ultra hardcore renegade player and a total ass to the alliance in 3 

You don't take betrayal very well, do you?

Cerberus doesn't want you any more.  Deal with it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I still think Bioware is screwing everyone's Shepard out of the ultimate choice of either siding with Cerberus no matter what they are doing ot siding with the Alliance. I hate the fact that the choice is already made for you. if that is the case they should have made Mass Effect games with no player choice in it.  Fine Bioware you made one choice for My Shepard but you will not stop him from being a Ultra hardcore renegade player and a total ass to the alliance in 3 

You don't take betrayal very well, do you?

Cerberus doesn't want you any more.  Deal with it.

They didn't give Paragon players the choice to be Alliance in ME2. Then we could have gone running after the VS and said "but waaaaaaaaaaait! I quit! Don't be mad, baby!" 

There's a resource limit to how much they can let the plot diverge. Doing two whole different framing stories, one Cerberus-affiliated and one Alliance-affiliated would have been crippling in terms of content.

[ExtremeOne]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I still think Bioware is screwing everyone's Shepard out of the ultimate choice of either siding with Cerberus no matter what they are doing ot siding with the Alliance. I hate the fact that the choice is already made for you. if that is the case they should have made Mass Effect games with no player choice in it.  Fine Bioware you made one choice for My Shepard but you will not stop him from being a Ultra hardcore renegade player and a total ass to the alliance in 3 

You don't take betrayal very well, do you?

Cerberus doesn't want you any more.  Deal with it.

  





I will deal with it by being a total ass and renegade to the Alliance and its friends in 3 . If that means letting Cerberus murder the salarians well then so be it. One way or another the Alliance will feel pain and suffer in 3. Yeah I will save the galaxy. 

[Dante Angelo]

You honestly thought the Illusive Man was not gonna betray you?? I knew he was going to turn on me the first time I spoke to him

[Seboist]

Dante Angelo wrote...

You honestly thought the Illusive Man was not gonna betray you?? I knew he was going to turn on me the first time I spoke to him

Did I think the guy who sheds tears when Shepard dies regardless of what happens to CB was going to betray me? No, I honestly didn't.

Though It shouldn't be surprising considering ME's "choices" have been purely cosmetic thus far.