6970 réponses à ce sujet

[who would know]

Now I'm imagining you trying to design a FemShep specifically to Mr. Illusive's tastes. Maybe if you hogtied her with pretty ribbon?

Edit: Oh... goody. T.O.P. If somebody wants to refocus the conversation for this page so we don't slow down, feel free.

Modifié par who would know, 07 janvier 2012 - 11:19 .

[Sebby]

who would know wrote...

Now I'm imagining you trying to design a FemShep specifically to Mr. Illusive's tastes. Maybe if you hogtied her with pretty ribbon?

Sounds like a plan.

Edit: Oh... goody. T.O.P. If somebody wants to refocus the conversation for this page so we don't slow down, feel free.

You won't have to worry about slowdown when I'm around.

[Sebby]

I just remembered another plot point that went nowhere,

Retribution: TIM being open to the idea of cooperation with Anderson.

Which says a lot as he did a lot of damage to his organization throughout the course of the book.

[philiposophy]

I think what they've done with Cerberus in successive installments (even the supplementary stuff that I haven't read, only read/heard about) speaks volumes to their planning. ME2's incarnation had apparent differences with ME1's but was still vaguely reconcilable but ME3 sounds like such a radical change that I can't imagine they had all this planned from the initial conception.

Or to put it another way: www.youtube.com/watch

[Sebby]

philiposophy wrote...

I think what they've done with Cerberus in successive installments (even the supplementary stuff that I haven't read, only read/heard about) speaks volumes to their planning. ME2's incarnation had apparent differences with ME1's but was still vaguely reconcilable but ME3 sounds like such a radical change that I can't imagine they had all this planned from the initial conception.

Or to put it another way: www.youtube.com/watch

It's obvious they've planned absolutely nothing in advance and it's not just with Cerberus(who's the series' plot clay).

Heck, even the Cerberus leader hasn't always been consistent.

ME1: A "General" of sorts as mentioned in the Rachni side-quest.

Ascension: Now the Cerberus leader is some billionare CEO called the "Illusive Man" who's headquarted in the Cord-Hislop penthouse on Earth.

ME2: Still a billionaire but now he's in some space station somewhere and likes to stand in front of views of stars.  He's now also a playboy... but nothing is done with it while femshep can "romance" a bird-lizard with a literal boner and a frog man with lung problems. I don't know what they were thinking there...

Modifié par Seboist, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:24 .

[philiposophy]

The "General" isn't analogous to TIM though, is s/he? I thought Major Flores was simply addressing her superior, she doesn't make substantial enough comments to suggest that the "General" is the outright head of the organization.

In any case my hope/assumption for that had always been that she was speaking to an Alliance general. As part of the Cerberus/Alliance remaining one and the same theory.

[Sebby]

philiposophy wrote...

The "General" isn't analogous to TIM though, is s/he? I thought Major Flores was simply addressing her superior, she doesn't make substantial enough comments to suggest that the "General" is the outright head of the organization.

In any case my hope/assumption for that had always been that she was speaking to an Alliance general. As part of the Cerberus/Alliance remaining one and the same theory.

Well, when you have such a minor side quest faction as ME1 Ceberus that has so little exposition or purpose you take what you can get when it comes to info. I have no reason to believe this "General" isn't the Cerberus leader as it's doubtful they had come up with the "TIM" character concept at the time(just look at the inconsistency with Ascension and ME2 TIM).

You'll also notice how ME1 Cerberus was established as an "Alliance black ops gone rogue" while in ME2 it's Alliance background is only vaguely mentioned or has been quietly retconned.

Edit: ME1 Cerberus was meant to have a bigger role in the story before they removed a lot of it.

"There were whole plots of mine that were cut for Mass Effect 1. I
originally came up with the whole Cerberus plot line, which has a bigger
role in Mass Effect 2. You join the Illusive Man and his group. There
was a whole global plot, a plot that spanned many worlds involving
Cerberus in Mass Effect 1 that we ended up cutting. A few hints of that
plot remained, and that’s what we built on for ME2. The plot was
completely gone and the characters were gone. We built so much around
the Illusive Man for ME2." - Mac Walters

Link

Modifié par Seboist, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:37 .

[philiposophy]

Seboist wrote...

Well, when you have such a minor side quest faction as ME1 Ceberus that has so little exposition or purpose you take what you can get when it comes to info. I have no reason to believe this "General" isn't the Cerberus leader as it's doubtful they had come up with the "TIM" character concept at the time(just look at the inconsistency with Ascension and ME2 TIM).

That's a fair interpretation.

You'll also notice how ME1 Cerberus was established as an "Alliance black ops gone rogue" while in ME2 it's Alliance background is only vaguely mentioned or has been quietly retconned.

Yes, that was disappointing. I think the conspiracy I mentioned had potential. However I think the discord between 1 and 2 is not so bad as 3. What I've heard... 3 is just out of nowhere.

EDIT: just saw yours... wow, that might have been really interesting.

Modifié par philiposophy, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:40 .

[Nightwriter]

Seboist wrote...

Edit: ME1 Cerberus was meant to have a bigger role in the story before they removed a lot of it.

"There were whole plots of mine that were cut for Mass Effect 1. I
originally came up with the whole Cerberus plot line, which has a bigger
role in Mass Effect 2. You join the Illusive Man and his group. There
was a whole global plot, a plot that spanned many worlds involving
Cerberus in Mass Effect 1 that we ended up cutting. A few hints of that
plot remained, and that’s what we built on for ME2. The plot was
completely gone and the characters were gone. We built so much around
the Illusive Man for ME2." - Mac Walters

Link

I weep. I weep for the lost content.

[Sebby]

Unreleased track for a ME1 Cerberus(?) DLC by Sam Hulick

[Nightwriter]

That sounds very familiar.

[philiposophy]

I remember that thread, I think. It was very interesting. While I always enjoyed Bring Down the Sky, I'd never thought of Balak as having much to him: he was callous and evil. But the points about shirking responsibility made me think he might be deeper than he appeared. I don't think this mitigates what he allegedly does in ME3 though, it sounds plain daft.

Modifié par philiposophy, 08 janvier 2012 - 12:41 .

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's really not a hint of change, Xil.

A hint of change would be an indication that he would CHANGE his priorities or actions. None of Balak's motivations for the attempted murder of millions had anything to do with a lack of human nobility.

They did have to do with humans stealing batarian resources and territory, or so he believed.

[Sebby]

philiposophy wrote...

I remember that thread, I think. It was very interesting. While I always enjoyed Bring Down the Sky, I'd never thought of Balak as having much to him: he was callous and evil. But the points about shirking responsibility made me think he might be deeper than he appeared. I don't think this mitigates what he allegedly does in ME3 though, it sounds plain daft.

What they did with Balak in ME3 makes one wonder what narcotics the devs were under the influence of when they wrote it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's really not a hint of change, Xil.

A hint of change would be an indication that he would CHANGE his priorities or actions. None of Balak's motivations for the attempted murder of millions had anything to do with a lack of human nobility.

They did have to do with humans stealing batarian resources and territory, or so he believed.

Which does not contradict what I said, nor did it change during the course of BDtS.

[Nightwriter]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Quite frankly, I always thought that Balak had just a hint of change if you spare him. Just something in his tone of voice; it's like an extremely tiny version of "Human nobility.

I have a post somewhere around here talking about Balak. I should dig it up.

I don't think there was any sense of change in Balak at the end, but I do think that his statements implied he felt guilty doing what he was doing. He was not born or raised to be an evil man; he was made that way by circumstances at some point.

It's all in who he blames for his actions and the fact that he won't take responsibility for any of it. Instead it's the humans' fault, the Alliance's fault, and Shepard's fault. Balak is just retaliating. They hurt him and his people and he wants them to hurt in turn.

Balak was butthurt that his race got snubbed and decided to take it out on innocent people. He is much too married to his hatred to show us any signs of change.

I don't doubt that he's struggled. And the Hegemony's iron fist of propaganda has such a strong influence on batarian culture that one can hardly be surprised that some of them turn out like Balak. But there are certain lines a person crosses after which sympathy becomes limited. Trying to kill millions of people is one of those lines.

[HiroVoid]

Seboist wrote...

philiposophy wrote...

I remember that thread, I think. It was very interesting. While I always enjoyed Bring Down the Sky, I'd never thought of Balak as having much to him: he was callous and evil. But the points about shirking responsibility made me think he might be deeper than he appeared. I don't think this mitigates what he allegedly does in ME3 though, it sounds plain daft.

What they did with Balak in ME3 makes one wonder what narcotics the devs were under the influence of when they wrote it.

Employee 1: Alright we need to bring back Balak and wrap that up.
Employee 2: Alright.  Let's have him try to take out parts of humanity on his own.
1: Wait.  We can't punish players for importing.  We need to make sure whoever imports him doesn't get punished.
2: Alright....Let's make him a general.  Oh.  Let's also have him give the players back-up and info you normally wouldn't get.
1: Won't that tick off the people who imported and killed him.
2: Meh.  They can just get off whatever the default people get.

[philiposophy]

Balak isn't dead in my game. He was incarcerated by the Alliance. I expect that will be treated as if I killed him, or if ME2 is anything to go by, it will be treated as if I didn't do anything.

[Sebby]

philiposophy wrote...

Balak isn't dead in my game. He was incarcerated by the Alliance. I expect that will be treated as if I killed him, or if ME2 is anything to go by, it will be treated as if I didn't do anything.

Yup, there's no difference between killing and capturing besides a few words of throw away dialogue.

[Sebby]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

But there are certain lines a person crosses after which sympathy becomes limited. Trying to kill millions of people is one of those lines.

I didn't say anything about sympathy, just that he has a conscience. He's not an emotionless killer. In other words, he's a person and a well-rounded character.

Perhaps the best villain in the series so far, or at least on par with Saren.

That's if you ignore his ME3 treatment.