358 réponses à ce sujet

[KevShep]

Saphra Deden wrote...

pablodurando wrote...


There we're probably more variable such as Cerberus involvement throughout the series

No, I guarantee you they had no plans for Cerberus. If they'd been planning for Cerberus to play a large role they'd have been given more attention and development in ME1.

The Collectors are clearly something they pulled out of their ass as well as the "Reapers are organic constructs".

Just because cerberus is not introduced as a main player in the story untill ME2 does not mean that they did not plan on them being a big player in the main plot at all(same with the collectors). Its common sense that will tell you that in a rich stroy plot such as Mass Effect that they are not going to tell you all of the story and spoilers in the first Mass Effect.......that means that they will leave things out of the game and save them for the next game. Cerberus IS a major player in the whole ME story line....If you recall what cerberus is doing in ME1 then you would know that cerberus is trying to make genetic super soldiers from rachni,thorian creepers and experiments with Shepard and Tooms on Akuze and so on. The reapers just so happen to be using these cerberus "super soldiers" in ME3 and not to mention that cerberus is working for the reapers. 

[dreman9999]

1. One of the major consepts of ME is the human view of the universe and other races. Cerberus is one of those views and a strong one at that. We would never see the full story without Cerberus in the story about humanity.
2.Cerberus also is a scapegoat, allowing humanity to do things that are illegal by galactic standards to push humanity forward. Where you agree or not is the issues, just the add perceptive. This includes tech, politics and biotics which Cerberus has their hands deep in.
3, With Cerberus so involved in Humanity...It's impossible to have any major story about humanity without them. Being that they are the source of tech and political for for Humanity.

In short, just go with the flow and stop over thinking. At this point it's too late to take them out, they are hand in hand with humanity. On top of that ,we don't have the full story. We don't even know if It's the same Illusive Man controlling them now.

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:43 .

[alperez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

pablodurando wrote...


There we're probably more variable such as Cerberus involvement throughout the series

No, I guarantee you they had no plans for Cerberus. If they'd been planning for Cerberus to play a large role they'd have been given more attention and development in ME1.

The Collectors are clearly something they pulled out of their ass as well as the "Reapers are organic constructs".

Your disagreement with how Cerberus is being portrayed and the role they play in me3 at times completely clouds every single point you make, to the extent that you now believe what you want irrespective of evidence and logic.

Why in a game with one main storyline and antagonist (saren and sovereign) would they spend time giving more attention and devlelopment to a secondary plotline which they would expand on in the second game anyway?

Your introduced to Cerberus in me1 and thats it, putting time and effort developing them so they can play a larger role down the line makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering you put that time and effort in during the second act anyway.

Cerberus in me1 is shown to be an organisation that does questionable things for reasons we don't fully understand, in me2 those reasons are fleshed out, we're introduced more to the organisaton its goals, leaders and are taken into the grey are of Do we agree with those goals/methods or do we accept that those goals/methods while against our own beliefs are a necessary evil or not.

Then in me3 everything gets thrown on its head once again and we have this organisation for reasons we don't know seemingly changing sides (or staying with the side they may have been on all along) and trying to kill us.

But rather than believe this was always the intention you've convinced yourself that they've been making things up on the fly, have no idea what they orignally intended with Cerberus and instead have turned them from something that you thought they represented into something completely at odds with what role they originally were created to represent.

I agree somewhere along the way things have got a bit jumbled and some things seem to make no sense or seem to be a simplistic way of portraying Cerberus as nothing more than classic villians, but a big part of that seems to be because Cerberus fans refuse to accept that this was always the role they were intended to play.

[Bad King]

Saphra Deden wrote...

pablodurando wrote...


There we're probably more variable such as Cerberus involvement throughout the series

No, I guarantee you they had no plans for Cerberus. If they'd been planning for Cerberus to play a large role they'd have been given more attention and development in ME1.

Agreed:

"I only escaped because somebody destroyed Cerberus, their big organization."- Corporal Toombs in Mass Effect 1.

This implies that BioWare were only planning on having Cerberus in ME1- the bases Shepard destroys represented Cerberus in its entirety (apart from the space station where they were experimenting on the rachni). Of course, Toombs could be wrong, but still.

Modifié par Bad King, 20 juillet 2011 - 11:04 .

[dreman9999]

Bad King wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

pablodurando wrote...


There we're probably more variable such as Cerberus involvement throughout the series

No, I guarantee you they had no plans for Cerberus. If they'd been planning for Cerberus to play a large role they'd have been given more attention and development in ME1.

Agreed:

"I only escaped because somebody destroyed Cerberus, their big organization."- Corporal Toombs in Mass Effect 1.

This implies that BioWare were only planning on having Cerberus in ME1- the bases Shepard destroys pretty much represent Cerberus in its entirety (apart from the space station where they were experimenting on the rachni). Of course, Toombs could be wrong, but still.

Sure they were destroyed...With you never meeting their leader nor seeing him killed or killing him your self. In ME1, if their was a leader of a group, they made sure to show them to you if you to kill. Cerberuses leader was never show, so they had more plans for cerberus........

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 juillet 2011 - 11:07 .

[Seboist]

Cerberus along with the Shadow Broker were just vague concepts that Bioware thought they could potentially use in future titles. I doubt they had anything major planned for them pre-ME2.

[Bad King]

dreman9999 wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

pablodurando wrote...


There we're probably more variable such as Cerberus involvement throughout the series

No, I guarantee you they had no plans for Cerberus. If they'd been planning for Cerberus to play a large role they'd have been given more attention and development in ME1.

Agreed:

"I only escaped because somebody destroyed Cerberus, their big organization."- Corporal Toombs in Mass Effect 1.

This implies that BioWare were only planning on having Cerberus in ME1- the bases Shepard destroys pretty much represent Cerberus in its entirety (apart from the space station where they were experimenting on the rachni). Of course, Toombs could be wrong, but still.

Sure they were destroyed...With you never meeting their leader nor seeing him killed or killing him your self. In ME1, if their was a leader of a group, they made sure to show them to you if you to kill. Cerberuses leader was never show, so they had more plans for cerberus........

For all we know the leader could have been a military leader (one of the many commandos we killed). BioWare could easily have gotten away with never mentioning them again in the trilogy.

Modifié par Bad King, 20 juillet 2011 - 11:13 .

[Seboist]

The Cerberus leader was apparently some "General" as said in the audio logs in the space station at the end of the Rachni side quest. Which brings me to another point, they never had it planned what the concept of the Cerberus leader was even going to be.

ME1: Some General

Ascension novel: Apparently it's some billionaire CEO who's based in the penthouse of Cord-Hislop aerospace...........on Earth.

ME2: He's still a billionaire but now he's based on a constantly mobile space station that orbits in front of stars.

[Someone With Mass]

And that's why it's not good to connect every story in Mass Effect to them. It's inconsistent as hell.

[Inverness Moon]

Seboist wrote...

The Cerberus leader was apparently some "General" as said in the audio logs in the space station at the end of the Rachni side quest. Which brings me to another point, they never had it planned what the concept of the Cerberus leader was even going to be.

ME1: Some General

Ascension novel: Apparently it's some billionaire CEO who's based in the penthouse of Cord-Hislop aerospace...........on Earth.

ME2: He's still a billionaire but now he's based on a constantly mobile space station that orbits in front of stars.

Who's to say Cerberus doesn't have 3 heads? 

[Bad King]

Seboist wrote...

The Cerberus leader was apparently some "General" as said in the audio logs in the space station at the end of the Rachni side quest. Which brings me to another point, they never had it planned what the concept of the Cerberus leader was even going to be.

ME1: Some General

Ascension novel: Apparently it's some billionaire CEO who's based in the penthouse of Cord-Hislop aerospace...........on Earth.

ME2: He's still a billionaire but now he's based on a constantly mobile space station that orbits in front of stars.

Also, they didn't seem to have a pro-human agenda in ME1 (at least, it was never mentioned).

[Seboist]

Bad King wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The Cerberus leader was apparently some "General" as said in the audio logs in the space station at the end of the Rachni side quest. Which brings me to another point, they never had it planned what the concept of the Cerberus leader was even going to be.

ME1: Some General

Ascension novel: Apparently it's some billionaire CEO who's based in the penthouse of Cord-Hislop aerospace...........on Earth.

ME2: He's still a billionaire but now he's based on a constantly mobile space station that orbits in front of stars.

Also, they didn't seem to have a pro-human agenda in ME1 (at least, it was never mentioned).

True, Cerberus could have just been a drug cartel wanting to create supersoldiers to protect their shipments for all we knew.

[Inverness Moon]

Seboist wrote...

True, Cerberus could have just been a drug cartel wanting to create supersoldiers to protect their shipments for all we knew.

I doubt it. Their name symbolizes their purpose.

[didymos1120]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The fact that they never again refer to the fact that in ME1 Cerberus was said to be an Alliance Black Ops group that only went rogue in the last few months as well as the fact that it is implied to be lead by some "general" and not the Illusive Man is proof enoug[h] that Bioware had no real plans for them.

No, it's not proof.  It's evidence that's consistent with that notion, but it is still equivocal and subject to interpretation.  It's entirely possible that the overall plan for them didn't change, but that the original backstory did.

[Arijharn]

Wasn't the General supposedly General Williams? I.e, Ashley's grandfather?

I think what happened was that while BioWare always intended a trilogy, the individual story-lines weren't fleshed out due to the fact that saying upfront that it was going to be a trilogy was ridiculously risky. I mean, you know what else is supposed to be a trilogy? Too Human.

In another words, it wasn't decided at the start of production of ME1 that Cerberus was going to be responsible for bringing Shep back from the dead in 2 (or even that Shep would die). They had an over-arching goal of where the series was going to go, but that was literally about it.

I just want a more balanced and unbiased look at Cerberus. Show us a reason why they should be considered morally 'gray' beyond just telling us that they're supposed to be morally 'gray.' I thought actually Overlord was heading in the right direction before they showed us the HR Giger contraption at least.

[Seboist]

Arijharn wrote...

Wasn't the General supposedly General Williams? I.e, Ashley's grandfather?

I think what happened was that while BioWare always intended a trilogy, the individual story-lines weren't fleshed out due to the fact that saying upfront that it was going to be a trilogy was ridiculously risky. I mean, you know what else is supposed to be a trilogy? Too Human.

In another words, it wasn't decided at the start of production of ME1 that Cerberus was going to be responsible for bringing Shep back from the dead in 2 (or even that Shep would die). They had an over-arching goal of where the series was going to go, but that was literally about it.

I just want a more balanced and unbiased look at Cerberus. Show us a reason why they should be considered morally 'gray' beyond just telling us that they're supposed to be morally 'gray.' I thought actually Overlord was heading in the right direction before they showed us the HR Giger contraption at least.

I doubt her grandfather would have still been alive at that point(her father sure wasn't). Besides, Evolution wasn't concieved until much later than ME1 so no way that they planned on it being him.

[Ultai]

Starting from ME1 myself and keeping up with the related media, Cerberus's continuity does seem thrown all over the place haphazardly. Was it CHud or Walters that said TIM has the best and worst qualities of humanity? It'd be nice to see the best qualities for just once, instead of being hellbent on shoving the worst down our throats all the damn time.

[CuseGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Bioware said that they already had made the whole story even before the first book came out.

They're full of ****.

yea, sounds like the writers of LOST, who swore they knew wut they were doing from day 1 except for how to implement ANYTHING that they imagined....

[alperez]

Saphra Deden wrote...


No, all I'm doing is pointing out bad story-telling. The fact that they never again refer to the fact that in ME1 Cerberus was said to be an Alliance Black Ops group that only went rogue in the last few months as well as the fact that it is implied to be lead by some "general" and not the Illusive Man is proof enoug that Bioware had no real plans for them. Nothing like what we got in ME2.

Believe in Bioware all you want, you're just a fanboy.

The never again refer to Cerberus as being a black op's group that went rogue is only true to a point (the point we're at now) they could still refer to this in me3. They may not or they may do so in glorious technicolor but whether they do or do not actually misses the point completely.

What we know in me1 is limited knowledge, its hints,rumours and speculation, we have a source for this info in me1 but whats to say that source wasn't wrong?

The same with the General to Illusive man implied comment you make, when something is implied it doesn't make it the complete and total truth, the very definition is that its implied not fact.

Cerberus is a shadowy secretive organisation its very nature would be to instill half truths and misinformation. so why when we get information about it from one source is it bad writing that later on when we receive more info about it from several sources we find that the original info was inaccurate?

Your Whole argument is that what we're told in me1 doesn't tally up with what we've been told since, while that's true to an extent, the writing isn't inconsistent due to the very nature of 1. the organisation itself and 2. expanding on an idea.

Introduce an element, give certain information about that element, investigate that element further only to find that what you know or what you thought you knew isn't the complete truth and in some case was completely way off base.

That's writing 101, yes in total the story should play out consistently and the writing itself should make sense, but considering A. we don't have the full story yet and B. The inconsistency you claim is based not on fact but implied fact, neither the narrative or the consistency itself is actually an issue, unless of course your own feelings about the direction are blinding you to anything other than your own opinion.

As for me being a fanboy coming from someone who's only goal on these forums is to scream and shout that their beloved Cerberus are being retconned to make them bad guys, i'll take that as a compliment.

[KevShep]

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...


No, it's not proof.  It's evidence that's consistent with that notion, but it is still equivocal and subject to interpretation.  It's entirely possible that the overall plan for them didn't change, but that the original backstory did.

If this was their plan all along then Bioware are bad story-tellers.

   At least as far as the ME story devs go they are not bad story tellers. The reason you dont understand it is because you dont know exactly whats going on in the whole series. The ENTIRE plot is still unkown because all of the big spoilers....ARE...centered around the main "unkown" plot, things dont make sense yet because ME3 is not out yet( the one that raps it all up). Its common sense that a story like this where the main enemy is an unknown enemy with an unknown plan would infact be an unknown plot to the main player all thourghout the series....It makes a more intresting game(s), it even starts forums like this that get people thinking about what is going on in the main plot. Thats why you cant figure it out because it was done on purpose by the devs which means that they have infact planned the whole story out.   

[TF141-Archer]

I don't know if it's been brought up but TIM was a big part of the beginning of the newest Reaper cycle. Bottom line while Cerebus is a big part of the series it's an important part. To me the time for other races, organizations, planets and characters to shine will be after this series. Mass Effects 1-3 focus on the Reaper threat, Commander Shepard, the Alliance, Cerberus etc etc. Everything that's been presented so far has had and will have it's time in the spotlight. I think the thing of Cerberus is that they have their little paws in every damn thing.