418 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

88mphSlayer wrote...

really everybody got slapped in the face

if you blew up the base to weaken Cerberus you got screwed because Cerberus got stronger (way stronger) anyways

if you kept the base to strengthen Cerberus you got screwed because Cerberus hates your face regardless of what you do

say what you will about Dragon Age 2, at least they finally dropped the multiple endings facade because it never gets followed up on in any meaningful way, Bioware should follow the CD Projekt RED route and have a central story that doesn't change that provides the potential writers are asking for and then have side stories that can more easily be followed up upon in a sequel

True, players don't even get the dignity to choose whether to align with them or not.

[nickkcin11]

The sad thing is I bet all of the pro Cerberus people here hate Ashley. Cerberus is a manipulative organization. I think they want to preserve humanity which is why they resurrect you in ME2 but the alterior motive to that is that they are using you to strengthen themselves. Who knows what caused the TIM to join the Reapers but I bet it was power. Hell maybe he just got indoctrinated. The point is that all this arguing about Cerberus and BW screwing you over has got to stop. You don't even know the reason yet or what happened as a result of your decision. BW is usually pretty good about looking for ways a decision can have a positive outcome. In ME1 for example your decisions at the end are pretty straight forward with the paragon decision looking like a dumb choice. But ME2 comes around and the galaxy feels thankful that Shep did this if he/she did.

Modifié par nickkcin11, 11 mai 2011 - 12:15 .

[88mphSlayer]

nickkcin11 wrote...

The sad thing is I bet all of the pro Cerberus people here hate Ashley. Cerberus is a manipulative organization. I think they want to preserve humanity which is why they resurrect you in ME2 but the alterior motive to that is that they are using you to strengthen themselves. Who knows what caused the TIM to join the Reapers but I bet it was power. Hell maybe he just got indoctrinated. The point is that all this arguing about Cerberus and BW screwing you over has got to stop. You don't even know the reason yet or what happened as a result of your decision. BW is usually pretty good about looking for ways a decision can have a positive outcome. In ME1 for example your decisions at the end are pretty straight forward with the paragon decision looking like a dumb choice. But ME2 comes around and the galaxy feels thankful that Shep did this if he/she did.

TIM is basically Meredith

and i don't hate ashley, everybody called her a racist in ME1 and a lot of people said they left her to die on Virmire

that she doesn't trust Cerberus is pretty petty compared to being called a racist or easy to kill, i'm sure the pro-Cerberus folks would sooner let Ashley live than Kaiden

[kiti.the.great]

I don't care about neither Ashley nor Kaidan and I don't want VS in my squad in ME3, but my HATRED is reserved for Tali.

[aimlessgun]

Let's look at exactly what all this furor is over.

I: ME2 end, cerberus enemies in ME3, punishing renegades?
CH: not
punishing but you will see different results of that, as TIM obviously
benefits from that resource, but it doesn't punish renegades, it just
means some end-scenarious may be different or harder to get.

From the summary of the recent Hudson interview.

Wow. Clearly this means that renegades will be screwed. Yup.

And clearly it means all the basekillers were totally right, and the basekeepers are blind idiots. Uh huh.

Wait...different results? That sounds...completely non-commital and neutral! Almost as if we can't draw any conclusions from it at all!

It is incredibly easy to think of a situation where keeping the base is a good thing. For example, you fight a stronger Cerberus at the start, but after you kill TIM and take over, you get superCerberus, while basekillers just get crappy normal Cerberus.

Bam: different results, consequences, and pros and cons for each side.

[tjzsf]

aimlessgun wrote...

Let's look at exactly what all this furor is over.

I: ME2 end, cerberus enemies in ME3, punishing renegades?
CH: not
punishing but you will see different results of that, as TIM obviously
benefits from that resource, but it doesn't punish renegades, it just
means some end-scenarious may be different or harder to get.

From the summary of the recent Hudson interview.

"Different or harder to get"
Implies equal or greater difficulty.
Nope. Not a punishment. At all.

[aimlessgun]

tjzsf wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

Let's look at exactly what all this furor is over.

I: ME2 end, cerberus enemies in ME3, punishing renegades?
CH: not
punishing but you will see different results of that, as TIM obviously
benefits from that resource, but it doesn't punish renegades, it just
means some end-scenarious may be different or harder to get.

From the summary of the recent Hudson interview.

"Different or harder to get"
Implies equal or greater difficulty.
Nope. Not a punishment. At all.

"some end-scenarious may be different or harder to get"

Some, not all.

Easy to imagine Hudson was thinking of certain paragon type outcomes. Is it so farfetched to believe there are (good) renegade outcomes that are easier to get by keeping the base?

[The Elite Elite]

Ugh, why is it assumed that because Cerberus will be fighting us that means keeping the Collector Base is the "wrong" choice? The game isn't out yet, so we don't know what is going to happen. And, as someone who keeps the base in almost every playthrough, I'd be perfectly happy with keeping the base being a negative. That would mean there are actually consequences. Much more preferable to what we got so far. Killed Fist? You don't have to worry about him. Let him go? He's no longer a criminal but a dockworker. Let the council live? They dismiss claims about "Reapers." Let them die? You get a new council (possibly all human) that is no better. Yup, actually differences between Paragon and Renegade choices would be nice, even if it is simply as obvious as paragon choice = good, renegade choice = bad.

Modifié par The Elite Elite, 11 mai 2011 - 01:41 .

[seta66]

This thread is a perfect example of why the dev's are so illusive and afraid to speak before the game comes out.

[Bluko]

 So everybody is on the same footing regardless of the end decision in ME2?

Wow that like totally didn't happen in ME1!

Seriously the end decisions in these games are meant to be purely cosmetic, fluff, etc. You guys read way too much into the value of such things. It's the journey that ultimately matters, hence all the decisions that you make along the way are the ones that actually matter. Bioware isn't going to punish those for not making the right "end decision". That'd be stupid. The end of the games are so frantic in nature you really can't give a lot of thought to them and you more or less end up going with your gut instinct most of the time.

[Black-Xero]

...Wouldn't they just make a choice to retake the base or something? If Cerberus uses the technology to advance their equipment,Shepard should also be able to use those equipment that he's able to take throughout his battles with him.

[ObserverStatus]

Does this site really need anymore "Bioware hates me" threads? Seriously, if none of the choices you make in Mass Effect had consequences, it would be boring. My Shepard has taken a lot of gambles in his career, and I know that not all of them are going to pay off. I'm just going to deal with the consequences instead of griping about Bioware "invalidating" my choices.

Modifié par bobobo878, 11 mai 2011 - 01:42 .

[Spartanburger]

bobobo878 wrote...

Does this site really need anymore "Bioware hates me" threads? Seriously, if none of the choices you make in Mass Effect had consequences, it would be boring. My Shepard has taken a lot of gambles in his career, and I know that not all of them are going to pay off. I'm just going to deal with the consequences instead of griping about Bioware "invalidating" your choices.

^This.
To quote the game: "Deal with it."
You made your decision. Either replay the game and make a different one or learn to take the consequences of your actions, regardless of what they may be. 

[marshalleck]

Sure, I'm all for consequences. So when are paragons going to be punished for risky decisions, like letting psychotic batarian terrorists who want (and have already attempted!) to drop meteors on human colonies get away?

Consequences are cool, let's just be even-handed about it. As it stands now, Paragons get to see the most content AND have the most ideal outcomes to every single situation, even in cases such as letting Balak (a well-connected, funded, and determined terrorist) escape to save the lives of like five scientists.

Hell, the way things have been playing out if Balak ever comes back into the story we'll probably find out that his encounter with Shepard has led to a religious/spiritual conversion and he's going around helping the poor, the sick, rebuilding colonies, freeing batarian slaves, so on and so on. It's absurd. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 11 mai 2011 - 02:20 .

[Randy1012]

Wait, Cerberus is evil? I am shocked. Shocked!

[marshalleck]

Randy1083 wrote...

Wait, Cerberus is evil? I am shocked. Shocked!

They were in ME1. They were pointless stupid evil. Then Bioware made an entire game dedicated to showing that there were two sides to the coin; now that's all being scrapped because TIM has decided he wants to go ahead and work with Harbinger in ME3. 

Do you consider that good character development? It looks to me like more retarded Mac Walters comic book villain bull****. The same kind of thing he pulled with Liara before all the other writers had to fix his poor judgement with Lair of the Shadow Broker. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 11 mai 2011 - 02:23 .

[Seboist]

Bluko wrote...

 So everybody is on the same footing regardless of the end decision in ME2?

Wow that like totally didn't happen in ME1!

Seriously the end decisions in these games are meant to be purely cosmetic, fluff, etc. You guys read way too much into the value of such things. It's the journey that ultimately matters, hence all the decisions that you make along the way are the ones that actually matter. Bioware isn't going to punish those for not making the right "end decision". That'd be stupid. The end of the games are so frantic in nature you really can't give a lot of thought to them and you more or less end up going with your gut instinct most of the time.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of a series that's sold on the basis on player choice and imported saves.

[aimlessgun]

Arcian wrote...

You know the Alliance can use that base too, right?

Right?

Exactly. Just because Cerberus starts the game with the base, doesn't mean they'll still have it at the end

[Seboist]

marshalleck wrote...

Randy1083 wrote...

Wait, Cerberus is evil? I am shocked. Shocked!

They were in ME1. They were pointless stupid evil. Then Bioware made an entire game dedicated to showing that there were two sides to the coin; now that's all being scrapped because TIM has decided he wants to go ahead and work with Harbinger in ME3. 

Do you consider that good character development? It looks to me like more retarded Mac Walters comic book villain bull****. The same kind of thing he pulled with Liara before all the other writers had to fix his poor judgement with Lair of the Shadow Broker. 

It's quite clear BW never knew what to do with Cerberus. In the first game they were some vague entity that represented the dark side of the Alliance,then they became a James Bond criminal organization with bases all over the place and the capability to build top of the line ships in ME2 and now they're devolving back into ME1 disposable mooks.

[marshalleck]

Seboist wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Randy1083 wrote...

Wait, Cerberus is evil? I am shocked. Shocked!

They were in ME1. They were pointless stupid evil. Then Bioware made an entire game dedicated to showing that there were two sides to the coin; now that's all being scrapped because TIM has decided he wants to go ahead and work with Harbinger in ME3. 

Do you consider that good character development? It looks to me like more retarded Mac Walters comic book villain bull****. The same kind of thing he pulled with Liara before all the other writers had to fix his poor judgement with Lair of the Shadow Broker. 

It's quite clear BW never knew what to do with Cerberus. In the first game they were some vague entity that represented the dark side of the Alliance,then they became a James Bond criminal organization with bases all over the place and the capability to build top of the line ships in ME2 and now they're devolving back into ME1 disposable mooks.

They can't even follow their own canon. In Retribution, Cerberus pretty much gets wiped out by Anderson, Sanders, and a turian task force. Then in ME3, which takes place like what a few months later, Cerberus has a fleet and a private army again? WTF?

Somebody needs to muzzle Mac Walters. This guy is out of control. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 11 mai 2011 - 02:36 .

[Seboist]

marshalleck wrote...

Seboist wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Randy1083 wrote...

Wait, Cerberus is evil? I am shocked. Shocked!

They were in ME1. They were pointless stupid evil. Then Bioware made an entire game dedicated to showing that there were two sides to the coin; now that's all being scrapped because TIM has decided he wants to go ahead and work with Harbinger in ME3. 

Do you consider that good character development? It looks to me like more retarded Mac Walters comic book villain bull****. The same kind of thing he pulled with Liara before all the other writers had to fix his poor judgement with Lair of the Shadow Broker. 

It's quite clear BW never knew what to do with Cerberus. In the first game they were some vague entity that represented the dark side of the Alliance,then they became a James Bond criminal organization with bases all over the place and the capability to build top of the line ships in ME2 and now they're devolving back into ME1 disposable mooks.

They can't even follow their own canon. In Retribution, Cerberus pretty much gets wiped out by Anderson, Sanders, and a turian task force. Then in ME3, which takes place like what a few months later, Cerberus has a fleet and a private army again? WTF?

Somebody needs to muzzle Mac Walters. This guy is out of control. 

The BW weirdness doesn't end there,by the looks of things I don't think they originally intended on Cerberus appearing beyond ME1. If you do the Tombs mission after completing the Kahoku related campaign he says "someone destroyed Cerberus".

They obviously can't keep their story on Cerberus straight. They completely retconned their Alliance origin as evidenced by that one hologram in Jack's loyalty mission saying "we're going to hitch on the Alliance's Ascension program" and that happened when they were supposedly still a part of it.

[DAT ASARI]

I called TIM being a Reaper slave or whatever first time I played Mass Effect 2. Played it MANY times since. I'm pretty sure that if you go through all 3 games Renegade, you're going to see Earth get destroyed.

If you're paragon, you will save the planet.