220 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

SandTrout wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

You are the living proof of how twisted this consumist society is. I always speak from a world were there is no money, people learn to live, not learn to work, when people learn to live they learn to help others because others will help you, its called cooperation and this is the best possible scenario of humanity itself. What is something of value for you? some people dont work for money or retribution, they work because they like to do it. Some people are bakers because they like the smell of hot bread in the morning.

/twitch

where?

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Let me rephrase: why should I lift a finger for people who have repeatedly used me to do their dirty work and then disown me as soon as it's expedient to do so?

Yep. Loyalty goes both ways. They disown me, I disown them. Period. I won't let that grudge get in the way of saving the galaxy, but that's all they can expect at this point.

As for humanity: no I don't think they're worth saving because of the way the story is written. It feels like everyone but Shepard and co. is a jerk, a fool, or helpless. I the player don't get a sense that these characters are worth fighting for. We need more Kate Bowmans and fewer Delans.

This. Delan is an ass, and I found his attitude too typical of too many people to not let my latent misanthropism come to the fore. I won't save humanity for fools and people who wallow in being a victim, and those who refuse to see beyond their comfortable illusions, but for the Kate Bowmans of the galaxy. ME3 needs to show more of those. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 juin 2011 - 05:04 .

[Han Shot First]

TheMarshal wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

TheMarshal wrote...

We're talking about humanity in general. Charles Saracino, Ethan Jeong, Udina, Harkin, Rear Admiral Mikhailovich, etc. etc. And you're kidding yourself if you don't think that there's not at least one high-ranking Alliance officer who's Cerberus.

what about Anderson, Kahoku, and hackett?

For all of Anderson's talk, the only thing he did to truly help Shepard out was getting the Normandy lockdown lifted.  Hackett put Shepard in a situation that at the very least had him/her going into hostile territory, and was fully prepared to let him/her take the blame for such an operation.  I don't know much about Kahoku, other than he died at Cerberus' hands.

We haven't seen the last of Hackett, and I think you'll find in ME3 that he's an ally rather than an enemy.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I like Hackett but I think it was too convient that he did what he did in arrival then refused to look at my logs on the issue makes me think he'll say I went rouge and that Kenson doesn't exist or something. I can't assume he'll do anything to help me during 3 and I can't say he's not with the reapers or Cerberus either I'll have to wait and see but he's given me reason to be weary of him at least.

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Renegade mission in ME1 shows that Hackett is willing to manipulate Shepard if he feels it serves the Alliance's interests. I don't expect that has changed in ME2 or ME3.

He's also shown to be very apathetic about Renegade Shepard's methods as long as it does the job (ex. wiping out Major Kyle's compound).

He's a manipulative and ruthless son of a **** and that's why I love him. He's TIM lite.

[Destroy Raiden_]

easygame88 wrote...

TheMarshal wrote...

The first is that a Shepard who has these feelings of disdain for the Alliance has always had these feelings.

So why would this Shepard enlist with the Alliance in the first place then

And why didn't that shepard just quit? If I hate my job and I hate the people who Iam working for I'll quit and either go freelance or find another job. If this anti-alliance shep was so he'd leave become a merc or join a militant group who also hates the Alliance and lives to cause trouble for them.

[XyleJKH]

Obvious troll is obvious

[Randall]

In the real world you often work in a job you hate (I've been doing that for the past 20 years) because you need the money, because it's something your good at or because there is nothing else. Shep joined up (depending on which background you chose) because she was a spacer brat and that was expected of her, or a colonist who wanted to get away from the small town mentality of her home world after it got raider by slavers and strike back, or because she was stuck on a rapidly dying and overpopulated earth. All sound like gd reasons so me. And you often find out the management in a job suck once you're there and there ain't much you can do about it. I think it makes her more believable that she is still doing her duty and what is right in spite of being manipulated and makes the system work for her.
BTW if you read Hackett's bio notes on the terminal in the shadow broker base, it shows that he believes in her - the alliance want to bring her in an interrogate her when it emerges she isn't dead and seems to be with Cerberus. Hacket denies them permission to do so. Sounds like he's protecting an asset to me, rather than just manipulating her. Just a thought!

[TheMarshal]

XyleJKH wrote...

Obvious troll is obvious

You're one of those people who likes to post "First!" on youtube comments pages, huh?

[TheMarshal]

Randall wrote...

In the real world you often work in a job you hate (I've been doing that for the past 20 years) because you need the money, because it's something your good at or because there is nothing else. Shep joined up (depending on which background you chose) because she was a spacer brat and that was expected of her, or a colonist who wanted to get away from the small town mentality of her home world after it got raider by slavers and strike back, or because she was stuck on a rapidly dying and overpopulated earth. All sound like gd reasons so me. And you often find out the management in a job suck once you're there and there ain't much you can do about it. I think it makes her more believable that she is still doing her duty and what is right in spite of being manipulated and makes the system work for her.
BTW if you read Hackett's bio notes on the terminal in the shadow broker base, it shows that he believes in her - the alliance want to bring her in an interrogate her when it emerges she isn't dead and seems to be with Cerberus. Hacket denies them permission to do so. Sounds like he's protecting an asset to me, rather than just manipulating her. Just a thought!

Hackett's SB dossier is actually rather cryptic in that it doesn't go into why he doesn't want the Alliance to interrogate Shepard, only that he denies their request to do so.  At first I took it to mean he was a good guy, and trusted Shepard enough to let her do her thing.  However it's entirely possible that he knew what Shepard was up to and didn't want the Alliance to interrupt her (meaning he could be working with Cerberus, or he could simply have contacts within Cerberus).  I suppose it's up to the judgment of the player to decide at this point.  I'm sure we'll find out his true motives in ME3.

As for your first paragraph, I'm with you right up until the point where you conclude that Shepard is 'sticking it out' with the Alliance.  I'm not saying that saving people is the wrong thing to do, but I think someone with Shepard's skill, charisma, and connections could easily strike out on her own and do just as much if not more good for more people without the threat of being manipulated by people who see her as little more than a pawn in their plans.

[Randall]

Fair comment! Nice to see someone else giving this subject some thought.

Was intrigued that Hackett was going outside the Alliance with the whole Kenson thing, so he isn't exactly by the book. BTW (and maybe this isn't the place to get into this) was I the only one to feel a sour taste in my mouth at the end of Arrival? I know Shep isn't a huge fan of the Batarians, but surely there should have been a way to save some of those people? If you take the paragon path it doesn't feel like the right thing to do and the damn reapers are coming anyway. Maybe those Batarians would have fought with us against them. Can't see that happening now.

[eternalnightmare13]

jtav wrote...

I came out of Arrivala with an absolute hatred of the Alliance. I want them gone, never to rise again. I will do everything in my powe to subvert and undermine them and see they take maximum casualties. I wonder to what extent this will be possible? We could roleplay against Cerberus, but in a very shallow way.

Hopefully, there will be more big choices to make in ME3.  For example do you come to the aide of an Alliance space station/port that's under a Pearl Harbor style attack or do you go and help the turian homeworld or etc?  

[eternalnightmare13]

Randall wrote...

was I the only one to feel a sour taste in my mouth at the end of Arrival? I know Shep isn't a huge fan of the Batarians, but surely there should have been a way to save some of those people? If you take the paragon path it doesn't feel like the right thing to do and the damn reapers are coming anyway. Maybe those Batarians would have fought with us against them. Can't see that happening now.

Arrival, enjoyable but flawed, did feel like I was being forced down a certain path with the illusion of choice.  It didn't feel like a ME mission.  It may not have made a huge difference in the end but if they had had it so you get through to the batarians and say they tell you to ****** off or a few hundred escape before the destruction of the relay would at least be a better for Paragons then 'nah, you can't get through to them'.

[eternalnightmare13]

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Renegade mission in ME1 shows that Hackett is willing to manipulate Shepard if he feels it serves the Alliance's interests. I don't expect that has changed in ME2 or ME3.

He's also shown to be very apathetic about Renegade Shepard's methods as long as it does the job (ex. wiping out Major Kyle's compound).

He's a manipulative and ruthless son of a **** and that's why I love him. He's TIM lite.

He's pretty much the Rengade verision of Anderson, that's why I love him.

[eternalnightmare13]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Renegade mission in ME1 shows that Hackett is willing to manipulate Shepard if he feels it serves the Alliance's interests. I don't expect that has changed in ME2 or ME3.

Played that mission for the first time last night, and it really made me question how ''good'' the Alliance is.  Especially when I consider the whole 'gray box' data in Kasumi's loyaty quest in ME2 and Arrival.

[Bad King]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Renegade mission in ME1 shows that Hackett is willing to manipulate Shepard if he feels it serves the Alliance's interests. I don't expect that has changed in ME2 or ME3.

Played that mission for the first time last night, and it really made me question how ''good'' the Alliance is.  Especially when I consider the whole 'gray box' data in Kasumi's loyaty quest in ME2 and Arrival.

Not to mention the fact that they were controlling Cerberus operations for the time before they went rogue (or if Zulu is right, they still are controlling Cerberus).

Modifié par Bad King, 03 juillet 2011 - 03:19 .

[Han Shot First]

Just speculating, but I think Hackett's ultimate goal is the same as Shepard's. They both want to defeat the Reapers. Perhaps Hackett may have a ruthless or renegade streak in him when it comes to that task, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy or an enemy of Shepard. It just makes him a get-the-job-done-at-any-cost sort, which is what you need when it comes to the Reapers.

And that is coming from a player whose character leans Paragade.

I'm willing to bet that when the Earth gets attacked Hackett plays some role in getting Shep out of there. Vega is one of Hackett's men perhaps?

[HawkerFury]

i wonder if there will be a posibility of shep becoming a reaper, talk about overkill

[Polka14]

Roleplaying against the Alliance would be an interesting concept. i think humans are not exactly the most benevolent force in the galaxy and maybe a great catastrophe would be needed to stop their advance towards galactic dominance in a similar way that the genophage was needed to control the Krogan.

I don't think the player should be forced to save Earth. Saving the galaxy should be more important. humans are only one species anyway. but neither the alliance or cerberus inherently represents humans so even a pro-human shepard should be able to sacrifice them to protect the humans as a group if that particular Shepard considers saving the humans to be a top priority. mine will consider galactic stability to be a top priority not the continuence of any one species or planet.

but the question of roleplaying against the alliance remains. i would...consider it. roleplaying against it would be reasonable if done for a greater cause. there should be no reason any Shepard should be pro-alliance or pro-human be default. the extinction of humanity is an acceptable loss to ensure the defeat of the Reapers. should Shepard be allowed to oppose the alliance or even humanity itself without any rational reason? it probably will not be allowed because choices are unfortunately limited in regards to influencing the story.

it should be a choice to oppose humanity but the game would have to work more like fallout 3....

[Yanks27th]

SandTrout wrote...

If you seek to cause maximum human casualties and destruction of our species during a war in which the survival of every sapient being is at stake you are a traitor and should be hung.

Haha, don't you think hung is a bit harsh when we're talking about a video game, even if it is Mass Effect 2?
This type of thing is my biggest pet peave. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that their a "blind fool" or that they "deserve to be hung". To be honest, it makes you sound worse then the guy you're responding too. I'm not saying that you don't make a good point, because you do, but have some perspective dude