6970 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

More havoc than ever? I really doubt that they can top what they're doing now.

'Now' as in ME3? Sure (maybe), but ME3 is an extreme outlier to the normal behavior of Cerberus. For decades Cerberus has been cheating the system, not burning it... and even the context of ME3 is largely explained (in principal, if not practice) by the Cerberus end-goal gambit, which has undeniable implications even you should be willing to take advantage of.

It would be incredibly easy for any variation of Cerberus to eclipse the harm done by the old Cerberus the other 99% of the time that wasn't the Reaper War.


But since you surely were able to recognize a figure of speech, I'm sure this was all pendantic to you.

[Xilizhra]

Not really, I just thought it was an extremely odd thing to say.

I'm also, at the moment, deliberately ignorant of the details of the endgame gambit.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not really, I just thought it was an extremely odd thing to say.

Well, maybe you do have trouble with figures of speach in general. I supposed I dropped the ball on that evaluation.

[Dave of Canada]

I've been considering the Cerberus gambit and it still doesn't make much sense for them to be doing what they're doing, they could work against the Reapers while still striving to achieve that final goal. My Shepard agrees with it completely, I just don't see what Cerberus hopes to accomplish by going herpaderp and setting fire to the universe.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 16 novembre 2011 - 09:06 .

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Not really, I just thought it was an extremely odd thing to say.

Well, maybe you do have trouble with figures of speach in general. I supposed I dropped the ball on that evaluation.

Sometimes, yes.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave, there might be some un-named MacGuffin for the Cerberus goal that can only be obtained from the Reapers themselves. Something that Cerberus wouldn't be able to receive, and wouldn't be able to apply, if they joined the Galactic coalition.

Short of that, however, the initial outline doesn't make sense on its own. Cerberus would be better off pretending to ally and back-stabbing at the eleventh hour than outright opposition. They could even apply nearly all of the same plot devices (such as the Cerberus army).

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 16 novembre 2011 - 09:10 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Not really, I just thought it was an extremely odd thing to say.

Well, maybe you do have trouble with figures of speach in general. I supposed I dropped the ball on that evaluation.

Sometimes, yes.

Have to ask: are you a native english speaker? You have superb english in general, but if it's a second-tongue or you grew up in an immigrant household (or similar), it could explain.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Not really, I just thought it was an extremely odd thing to say.

Well, maybe you do have trouble with figures of speach in general. I supposed I dropped the ball on that evaluation.

Sometimes, yes.

Have to ask: are you a native english speaker? You have superb english in general, but if it's a second-tongue or you grew up in an immigrant household (or similar), it could explain.

Not so exotic: I just have a literalistic streak. It was far worse whan I was younger, but it comes up from time to time.

[Dean_the_Young]

Not-perfectly but still considerably understandable.

[XzorshTheConqueror]

My Shepard is paragon, and he supports Cerberus... there I said it. >.>

Or rather I should say he sees the potential that Cerberus has if some of their methods are altered. He felt he did a lot of good working for Cerberus in ME2, and thought that most of the Cerberus personnel he worked with were decent people. As a paragon determined to stay focused on the big picture, my Shepard grew frustrated with the inaction of both the Alliance and the Council, and saw Cerberus as the much-needed shadow organization to wage war against the Reapers. He blew up the base, because after witnessing the corruption of the Cerberus crew on the derelict Reaper, he knew that nothing good can come from researching the base. He respects TIM, believing him to be an ally committed to the same cause, but wouldn't allow that respect to compromise his ideals. Still, even after going against TIM's orders, he still plans on working with TIM, and Cerberus as a whole. He saw the anger in TIM over his decision to destroy the base, and is worried that TIM may be sacrificing his soul in order to win the war, something my Shepard is unwilling to do. Shepard will try to redeem TIM if possible, as he sees TIM as a compatriot and sympathetic figure, but if worst comes to worst, he will challenge TIM for leadership of the organization, and once in power, steer Cerberus towards the proper path of a pro-human, non-xenophobic, paragon agenda.

I'll be really pissed if my only dialog option for a paragon Shepard is "ZOMG I HATE U I'M GONNA PUT A BULLET IN YOUR BRAIN YOU RACIST FASCIST **** PIG!!!!"

*******

Amused that n-zi is censored but not fascist. >.>

Modifié par XzorshTheConqueror, 17 novembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[GodWood]

Pro-tip for everyone: To get past filter just put [ i ] [ / i ] in the middle of the word (without spaces)

E.g, N a [ i ] [ / i ] zi (again without spaces) = Nazi

[Sebby]

XzorshTheConqueror wrote...

My Shepard is paragon, and he supports Cerberus... there I said it. >.>

Or rather I should say he sees the potential that Cerberus has if some of their methods are altered. He felt he did a lot of good working for Cerberus in ME2, and thought that most of the Cerberus personnel he worked with were decent people. As a paragon determined to stay focused on the big picture, my Shepard grew frustrated with the inaction of both the Alliance and the Council, and saw Cerberus as the much-needed shadow organization to wage war against the Reapers. He blew up the base, because after witnessing the corruption of the Cerberus crew on the derelict Reaper, he knew that nothing good can come from researching the base. He respects TIM, believing him to be an ally committed to the same cause, but wouldn't allow that respect to compromise his ideals. Still, even after going against TIM's orders, he still plans on working with TIM, and Cerberus as a whole. He saw the anger in TIM over his decision to destroy the base, and is worried that TIM may be sacrificing his soul in order to win the war, something my Shepard is unwilling to do. Shepard will try to redeem TIM if possible, as he sees TIM as a compatriot and sympathetic figure, but if worst comes to worst, he will challenge TIM for leadership of the organization, and once in power, steer Cerberus towards the proper path of a pro-human, non-xenophobic, paragon agenda.

I'll be really pissed if my only dialog option for a paragon Shepard is "ZOMG I HATE U I'M GONNA PUT A BULLET IN YOUR BRAIN YOU RACIST FASCIST **** PIG!!!!"

*******

Amused that n-zi is censored but not fascist. >.>

I started off as somewhat weary of Cerberus at the start of ME2 and gradually become ambivalent about them. I saw them as a great ally against the Reapers/Collectors,albeit one that "I" couldn't fully trust and had some issues with(their excesses with Overlord and the like).

Now of course I've become full-blown pro-Cerberus thanks in part to the bullsh!t of ME3 and the over the top TIM/Cerberus hate.

Hail TIM! *leaps out of his chair and raises his right hand up high*

[XzorshTheConqueror]

Seboist wrote...

XzorshTheConqueror wrote...

My Shepard is paragon, and he supports Cerberus... there I said it. >.>

Or rather I should say he sees the potential that Cerberus has if some of their methods are altered. He felt he did a lot of good working for Cerberus in ME2, and thought that most of the Cerberus personnel he worked with were decent people. As a paragon determined to stay focused on the big picture, my Shepard grew frustrated with the inaction of both the Alliance and the Council, and saw Cerberus as the much-needed shadow organization to wage war against the Reapers. He blew up the base, because after witnessing the corruption of the Cerberus crew on the derelict Reaper, he knew that nothing good can come from researching the base. He respects TIM, believing him to be an ally committed to the same cause, but wouldn't allow that respect to compromise his ideals. Still, even after going against TIM's orders, he still plans on working with TIM, and Cerberus as a whole. He saw the anger in TIM over his decision to destroy the base, and is worried that TIM may be sacrificing his soul in order to win the war, something my Shepard is unwilling to do. Shepard will try to redeem TIM if possible, as he sees TIM as a compatriot and sympathetic figure, but if worst comes to worst, he will challenge TIM for leadership of the organization, and once in power, steer Cerberus towards the proper path of a pro-human, non-xenophobic, paragon agenda.

I'll be really pissed if my only dialog option for a paragon Shepard is "ZOMG I HATE U I'M GONNA PUT A BULLET IN YOUR BRAIN YOU RACIST FASCIST **** PIG!!!!"

*******

Amused that n-zi is censored but not fascist. >.>

I started off as somewhat weary of Cerberus at the start of ME2 and gradually become ambivalent about them. I saw them as a great ally against the Reapers/Collectors,albeit one that "I" couldn't fully trust and had some issues with(their excesses with Overlord and the like).

Now of course I've become full-blown pro-Cerberus thanks in part to the bullsh!t of ME3 and the over the top TIM/Cerberus hate.

Hail TIM! *leaps out of his chair and raises his right hand up high*

Yeah I was the same way at the very beginning of ME2, perhaps a little more hardcore in the holier-than-thou department. But I couldn't deny the good that came out of the partnership. My Shepard felt he accomplished much more in ME2 than in ME1.

The Cerberus hate also annoys me out of game. Of  course everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I feel the Cerberus bashers can be a bit rude towards those who don't agree with them. I don't really get it. I mean I don't like the Brotherhood of Nod from Command and Conquer, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who liked Nod and Kane. It's a game, afterall. ;p

[Sebby]

In my first playthrough of ME1 I went all "space punisher" against Cerberus and had Toombs kill Dr. Wayne and gave the Shadow Broker the data* to screw them over.

* I've retconned that decision since then.

[XzorshTheConqueror]

Seboist wrote...

In my first playthrough of ME1 I went all "space punisher" against Cerberus and had Toombs kill Dr. Wayne and gave the Shadow Broker the data* to screw them over.

* I've retconned that decision since then.

I took a similar hardline (except I persuaded Toombs to let the authorities arrest Dr. Wayne and I gave the data to the Alliance), but I didn't really understand what Cerberus was, and assumed that the research bases I wiped out were all that Cerberus was. Bizzare ex-Alliance black ops group eliminated, Noveria here I come! My Sheperd was initially dismayed when he realized he was resurrected by the very organization he assumed was wiped out.

[Sebby]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Seboist wrote...

In my first playthrough of ME1 I went all "space punisher" against Cerberus and had Toombs kill Dr. Wayne and gave the Shadow Broker the data* to screw them over.

* I've retconned that decision since then.

I still give the SB the data. I think a good relationship with the SB (whoever they are currently) is very helpful.

I doubt TIM would give a puff whether you killed Dr. Wayne or not.

The metagaming reason why I didn't retcon the decision that caused the deaths of both Toombs and Wayne is that it ties up Cerberus loose ends.

Modifié par Seboist, 17 novembre 2011 - 03:50 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...
There's also the fact that "good storytelling" doesn't necessarily mean "that which caters to your narcissistic sensibilities," but eh.

Oh silly you.

[Sebby]

XzorshTheConqueror wrote...

The Cerberus hate also annoys me out of game. Of  course everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I feel the Cerberus bashers can be a bit rude towards those who don't agree with them. I don't really get it. I mean I don't like the Brotherhood of Nod from Command and Conquer, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who liked Nod and Kane. It's a game, afterall. ;p

You don't see people in the Witcher community bashing each other for supporting the Order, Scoia'tael, Iorveth or Roche either.  Then again those games have equally viable paths where one isn't a gimped troll version of the other.

[HiroVoid]

And you apparently don't have people over there representing the company that goes 'Hahaha! You actually played that way and want that to be a viable path in a future game. Hahaha!'

[Sebby]

HiroVoid wrote...

And you apparently don't have people over there representing the company that goes 'Hahaha! You actually played that way and want that to be a viable path in a future game. Hahaha!'

There's quite a bit of irony with those arrogant self-centered pricks who spew garbage like "you should have picked the winning side"  while at the same time labeling the renegade path as the "douche" one.

[Ultai]

Yea I've noticed. Over there you actually have people discussing the different paths and such as normal human beings without vitriol . But then again, both paths offer different content. Both each offering good reasons why either Roche or Iorveth is the one to choose, and the game, or devs sure as hell don't try to hammer home an obvious better choice, because everyone more or less in the game has their own agenda. Hell you can even choose if you want a final boss battle, or end the game without one.

[Sebby]

You don't have convenient one note whipping boys like the Batarians or the three merc groups in Witcher either. There each group has legitimate motivations,grievances and what have you. Which is why I was able to fully enjoy a Scoia'tael/Iorveth path playthrough even though my main canon one is Order/Roche.

Like I've said in a group, Bioware couldn't come up with a mature morally grey story if their lives depended on it and ME3 proves it.

[BlueMagitek]

XzorshTheConqueror wrote...

Seboist wrote...

In my first playthrough of ME1 I went all "space punisher" against Cerberus and had Toombs kill Dr. Wayne and gave the Shadow Broker the data* to screw them over.

* I've retconned that decision since then.

I took a similar hardline (except I persuaded Toombs to let the authorities arrest Dr. Wayne and I gave the data to the Alliance), but I didn't really understand what Cerberus was, and assumed that the research bases I wiped out were all that Cerberus was. Bizzare ex-Alliance black ops group eliminated, Noveria here I come! My Sheperd was initially dismayed when he realized he was resurrected by the very organization he assumed was wiped out.

This.  When I first played ME 2, after the shock of having Shepard die up front, I was a tad annoyed when it was Cerberus who brought Shepard back.  But I typically keep the base; after all, throwing away an advantage against omnicidal death machines isn't the smart thing to do.  TIM and Cerberus can be used against the Reapers, as are all assets that we've accumulated throughout the two games. ~_^

[Killjoy Cutter]

If Bioware could decide that "Renegade" meant "ruthlessly pragmatic" and impliment that consistently, I'd be all for a nuanced tradeoff between Paragon and Renegade. Hell, there are Renegade decisions in ME1 and ME2 that are clearly the more productive choice.

But, as we get into ME2, Bioware seems to be unable to decide what "Renegade" actually means; it's very inconsistent.

If we isolate the decisions where Bioware seems to have decided that "Renegade" does in fact mean "giant space-douche LoL", then for those decisions, I have absolutely no problem with the results not being even -- I have no problem with people who decide to act that way paying for it.

And because Bioware can't seem to make up their mind in ME2, it's hard to tell what people mean when they say "I want Paragon and Renegade to both have an upside and a downside", do they mean they want they want idealism and ruthless pragmatism to be a tradeoff, or do they mean that they want to be able to act like a LoLzing giant space-douche and not face any consequences?