6970 réponses à ce sujet

[Homebound]

Cerberus isnt the bad guy because of "Uber linear paragon fanwank", its because they do morally reprehensible things to attain their goals. Just because you defend that sort of action for them doesn't mean it's ok for them to for example, stuff tubes down an autistic man's throat such as the case in Overlord.

edit totp:

Modifié par Hellbound555, 19 février 2012 - 06:09 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Cerberus isnt the bad guy because of "Uber linear paragon fanwank", its because they do morally reprehensible things to attain their goals. Just because you defend that sort of action for them doesn't mean it's ok for them to for example, stuff tubes down an autistic man's throat such as the case in Overlord.

If this wasn't an example of "uber linear paragon fanwank", we'd be able to side with Cerberus, despite how morally reprehensible you might think their methods are. You know, let the player decide on his own, the very thing this series was supposed to be about from the beginning?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 19 février 2012 - 06:13 .

[Blacklash93]

BlueMagitek wrote...
Well yeah, Dragon Age is awesome because of that.  Freaking Dwarf Origins ftw.

Not that there were any bad origins, all of them were awesome in their own right, bu the Couslands get waaay too much love.

Templars are mostly a bunch of self-righteous crusaders with a "holy duty" to suppress mages where they're inconvinient and exploit them when they're useful. But they do have a point in that mages are very dangerous individuals whose freedom would possibly create another Tevinter and/or create a world ruled by powerful demons. Pretty much any mage who so much as steps a foot in that direction hurts so many people it's simply not worth the risk of keeping them free.

Most Mages are equally self-righteous and consider their freedom to be something that shouldn't even have to be debated. Most of them can't fathom the responsibilty on their shoulders that their magic burdens them with and probably wouldn't even know what to do with their lives with freedom. They're also terribly ungrateful to the Chantry for protecting them from those who would kill them from being what they are and teaching them how to use their gifts. But they are right in that they shouldn't be treated like sub-human drones who must be confined to a tower for their whole lives.

DA2 showed the worst of both sides and even if it makes both factions seem unlikable, at least you know there is no easy answer.

I wish the ME team could write and flesh out conflicts like ths. ME basically goes "Press X to end world hunger." with most of its issues.

[Homebound]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

Cerberus isnt the bad guy because of "Uber linear paragon fanwank", its because they do morally reprehensible things to attain their goals. Just because you defend that sort of action for them doesn't mean it's ok for them to for example, stuff tubes down an autistic man's throat such as the case in Overlord.

If this wasn't an example of "uber linear paragon fanwank", we'd be able to side with Cerberus, despite how morally reprehensible you might think their methods are. You know, let the player decide on his own, the very thing this series was supposed to be about from the beginning?

Hey I didnt want to side with Cerberus in the first place but the game in mass2 made me anyways.

[ObserverStatus]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

^ No sh*t, blacklash. DAII, despite all of its flaws, shows a million times more ambiguity (heh) than ME does.

And I agree with you, Kaiser, that would have been a good idea if renegades could work with Cerberus. But that would have taken a lot of work to create two completely separate paths, and I don't think BW'd be willing to do that.

What? No Wai! Name one major choice in ME2 with an easy answer!

[Seboist]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

^ No sh*t, blacklash. DAII, despite all of its flaws, shows a million times more ambiguity (heh) than ME does.

And I agree with you, Kaiser, that would have been a good idea if renegades could work with Cerberus. But that would have taken a lot of work to create two completely separate paths, and I don't think BW'd be willing to do that.

Not really, a Cerberus and non-Cerberus path could have largely been the same game with the context of missions and some minor bits being different.

An example of how such a thing could work would be with a mission involving the Quarians vs the Geth*. Depending on Shepard's choice he can side with the Quarians to battle Geth while advancing form point A to point B and if he chooses to side to with the Geth he naturally fights the Quarians and advances from the opposite direction. The map and it's content would largely be the same but the context isn't. This is how Witcher 1+2 and even Bioware's own DA:O handled things more or less.

* The Geth/Quarian plot in ME3 is another example of the uber linearity of ME3 with a contrived plot to prevent the player from taking sides in any tangible sense.

[Homebound]

Cerberus is so much more integral to the story than the geth/quarian ally subplot. Switching Cerberus up in that sense would make a completely different game where the conflict was which side you thought should dominate instead of gathering support for the Reaper invasion.

[Blacklash93]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

^ No sh*t, blacklash. DAII, despite all of its flaws, shows a million times more ambiguity (heh) than ME does.

At least the DA writing team has the "rushed" excuse for the writing flaws DA2 brought. They didn't start development until after Awakening was done which gave them what was probably a little less than a year. They did rather well considering that, IMO.

ME writers... blah. I'm not going to outright insult them as I know how disjointed their writing process is and how they've had writers coming and going for the entire series, but... they've made some decisions I really disagree with in this series after ME1.

I just think the DA writer team is significantly more talented. They've managed to keep the characterization, the lore consistency, and the overall plot tied together pretty well so far.

[Blacklash93]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Granted, the jury's still out on things like Morrigan and the OGB, and the big "battle" or "change" or whatever she and Flemeth are prophesying, but up to this point the story has been fairly solid.

The writers have already written out that we'll get completely unique storylines just off that choice with fans, as that's pretty unrealistic to expect. And the OGB has been made to be more of an "asset" for Morrigan rather than a game-changer for this earth-shattering event that is coming up.

The devs instead have said that they're hoping to make players talk to each other about the effects of that decision by the time of DA3 or whatever and go "Oh, that didn't happen in my game! I might try playing that again." Even if it's more flavor than substance, it'll still be better than say... what the ME team did with the Rachni.

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If Cerberus had a smaller role/presence in ME3 then they could also have a more diverse one. 

I agree that they should have had a smaller role in ME3. They had their time in the limelight in ME2 and giving them a huge presence in ME3 is just bound to p*ss someone off or result in a**pulls, like it has.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Seboist wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

^ No sh*t, blacklash. DAII, despite all of its flaws, shows a million times more ambiguity (heh) than ME does.

And I agree with you, Kaiser, that would have been a good idea if renegades could work with Cerberus. But that would have taken a lot of work to create two completely separate paths, and I don't think BW'd be willing to do that.

Not really, a Cerberus and non-Cerberus path could have largely been the same game with the context of missions and some minor bits being different.

An example of how such a thing could work would be with a mission involving the Quarians vs the Geth*. Depending on Shepard's choice he can side with the Quarians to battle Geth while advancing form point A to point B and if he chooses to side to with the Geth he naturally fights the Quarians and advances from the opposite direction. The map and it's content would largely be the same but the context isn't. This is how Witcher 1+2 and even Bioware's own DA:O handled things more or less.

* The Geth/Quarian plot in ME3 is another example of the uber linearity of ME3 with a contrived plot to prevent the player from taking sides in any tangible sense.

Or it could be like Knights of the Old Republic or Fallout: New Vegas ... when you choose your side.

[Homebound]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

@Saphra

Very true. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they thought that up.

ME1: Covert black ops group; extremely small
ME2: Shep's saviour and ally; has several isolated "cells"
ME3: Shep's sworn enemy and Reaper ally; has gigantic army just to fight Shep.

Cerberus' roll became more prominent as the game went on. Their was foreshadowing with this if you do the more cerberus-centric sidequests from mass1. They were very much that secret organization that worked behind the shadows. Seeing as you joined them in the later game, you'll obviously see more of what they do.

Modifié par Hellbound555, 19 février 2012 - 07:07 .

[Homebound]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

Cerberus isnt the bad guy because of "Uber linear paragon fanwank", its because they do morally reprehensible things to attain their goals.

According to whom?

I'll decide for myself what is morally reprehensible, thanks.

Im not sure what you're trying to say.

[Homebound]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

Cerberus' roll became more prominent as the game went on. Their was foreshadowing with this if you do the more cerberus-centric sidequests from mass1.

Where was this foreshadowing at? I did all of the ME1 Cerberus missions and, judging by the fact that Shepard "wiped them out," I'd say it was the opposite.

well i dunno about you but i always got the impression that cerberus was a lot more powerful than a black ops team. Being able to send thresher maws to solesurvivor Shep's backstory, killing that admiral, making an entire marine team disappear. the work they did with the rachni. And the next game build up on that.

[HiroVoid]

Hellbound555 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

@Saphra

Very true. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they thought that up.

ME1: Covert black ops group; extremely small
ME2: Shep's saviour and ally; has several isolated "cells"
ME3: Shep's sworn enemy and Reaper ally; has gigantic army just to fight Shep.

Cerberus' roll became more prominent as the game went on. Their was foreshadowing with this if you do the more cerberus-centric sidequests from mass1. They were very much that secret organization that worked behind the shadows. Seeing as you joined them in the later game, you'll obviously see more of what they do.

Actually, those were left overs from an abandoned side-plot where you could have actually sided with Cerberus at the end.  It does explain why they were prominent then anyway.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 19 février 2012 - 07:15 .