358 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Twizz089 wrote...

Alot of people are saying that there is too much Cerberus in the games, but who would the enemy be if not Cerberus? Like a poster above me mentioned you cant have squad based combat against gaint reapers

Indoctrinated locals who aren't Cerberus.

[exskeeny]

I look at Mas Effect as a story about humanity. Sure it's based in a galactic setting but I believe it forces us to look inwardly on ourselves.

ME1 is about mankind finding it's place in the galaxy.

ME2 is about the lengths you would go to to preserve humanity.

ME3 at a guess( because we don't know the story yet or for definite the choices we will have to make.) is about humanity proving it's worth to the galaxy.

Along the way we meet Cerberus which embodies some stark realities about mankind.Cerberus, to me is: Mankinds overall dominance, our own dark past and how we treated/treat each other on a daily basis. This is why we fight cerberus. Cerberus is the worst of us. Cerberus and it's ideals are the true enemy of mankind. The reapers are a threat to the whole galaxy, but if humanity cannot face it's own demons then why are we fighting for survival in the first place.

[Nashiktal]

Twizz089 wrote...

Alot of people are saying that there is too much Cerberus in the games, but who would the enemy be if not Cerberus? Like a poster above me mentioned you cant have squad based combat against gaint reapers

Why not the indoctrinated citizens of the galaxy you are trying to save? 

Why not more collectors? I swear it would be extremely silly if the collectors only had one ship.

Why not Batarians? The reapers do start in Batarian space.

Plenty of options. Fighting cerberus is dandy, but 40% of the enemies? A galactic war that involves the entire known galaxy and almost half of the enemies you fight is an organization that has had its resources drained, and its cells demolished?

Wasted potential.

[Aimi]

Yeah, Cerberus is popping up an awful lot. I suppose that's understandable because Cerberus is an organization with a lot of money that's actively doing a lot of things to do with the Reapers, who are kind of the main antagonist. I'm just happy they aren't overusing that trite "eval corporations going out of control!!!!111" thing that kept popping up in ME1 and KotOR. I mean, I make fun of Austrians and the like all the time, but there was more in ME1's plot about Binary Helix and ExoGeni (and the original incarnation of Cerberus, which kinda fits in there a bit) violating ethics and sanity than there was about Reapers and geth. This way, it's just that one group that pops up everywhere - not optimal, but it makes sense.

[GunMoth]

Saphra Deden wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

I would much rather they kept up with the Cerberus story line since it has almost everything to do with the plot at this point.

I have a revolutionary idea: other groups, races, and individuals can contribute to the plot too!

You misinterpreted my post. 
There is no way they could tie up the final installment of this series without Cerberus. Yes, it sucks that they seem to be a central focus and not interesting / enigmatic figures like the Shadow Broker (who had the potential to be the ultimate villian. Seriously. Look at Rupert Murdoch.) However, there's not much that could be done unless they plan on stretching out the plot. 

[Seboist]

Nashiktal wrote...

Twizz089 wrote...

Alot of people are saying that there is too much Cerberus in the games, but who would the enemy be if not Cerberus? Like a poster above me mentioned you cant have squad based combat against gaint reapers

Why not the indoctrinated citizens of the galaxy you are trying to save? 

Why not more collectors? I swear it would be extremely silly if the collectors only had one ship.

Why not Batarians? The reapers do start in Batarian space.

Plenty of options. Fighting cerberus is dandy, but 40% of the enemies? A galactic war that involves the entire known galaxy and almost half of the enemies you fight is an organization that has had its resources drained, and its cells demolished?

Wasted potential.

Before the announcement of fighting Cerberus I was expecting the Batarians to be ME3's Reaper proxy (like ME1's Geth or 2's Collectors) due to whole implication of Arrival. The Batarians would have either been indoctrinated or willingly allied with the Reapers for revenge against Shepard/The Alliance.

Of course now we know Cerberus are the writers' "plot clay" that can be molded into whatever's convenient at the time.

[Aimi]

GunMoth wrote...

Yes, it sucks that they seem to be a central focus and not interesting / enigmatic figures like the Shadow Broker (who had the potential to be the ultimate villian. Seriously. Look at Rupert Murdoch.)

Hey, at least we get the consolation prize of having the News of the World fiasco appear on the fourth season of The Thick of It.  There's no way they ignore it. 

[GunMoth]

daqs wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Yes, it sucks that they seem to be a central focus and not interesting / enigmatic figures like the Shadow Broker (who had the potential to be the ultimate villian. Seriously. Look at Rupert Murdoch.)

Hey, at least we get the consolation prize of having the News of the World fiasco appear on the fourth season of The Thick of It.  There's no way they ignore it. 

I know, right?! 

My boyfriend was reading me all of the news updates earlier this evening and I just kept thinking about how terrifying a lot of this stuff is. (Especially with one of the people who exposed him turning up dead) Then I had a mental image of Rupert with the face of a Yahg and I LOL'd. 

[Quole]

I agree completely.

[Seboist]

The devs clearly played too much "Wolfenstein". That's the only logical explanation of the abundance of logos to the point of absurdity.

[Dave of Canada]

Terror_K wrote...

In ME1 it made sense, where they seemed to have a few hidden bases and research facilities scattered about the traverse, keeping it all rather subtle and with small numbers, but ME2 started to really stretch things and really wonder how this group could supposedly have to much resources, be so omniscient and still remain almost completely unknown to everybody, especially with them slapping their logo and bright yellow and white decals on everything they owned.

Because that isn't the Cerberus logo, it's the Cord-Hislop Aerospace logo.

[GunMoth]

Saphra Deden wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

There is no way they could tie up the final installment of this series without Cerberus.

They already did a post ME2/pre ME3 Cerberus story. It was called Retribution. Cerberus was handled mostly pretty well up to this point (plastering their logo everywhere in ME2 was stupid).

In ME1 we heard about the organization but it wasn't clear who they were or what they were after.

Ascension revealed their mantra and cast them again in fairly villainous light, while still providing us with at least one sympathetic Cerberus agent (Paul Grayson).

Then Galaxy actually portrays Cerberus as the benefactors of the main character and they save the Citadel.

That's good, that's grayness.

ME2 then portrays them as morally questionable figures, but ultimately makes it clear they are on our side and opposed to the Reapers. They're our benefactors and are a great help. Gray.

Retribution portrays them as a little of both which is excellent. The plot is directly tied to the conclusion of ME2 and it shows them working to defeat our common enemy... but doing it in a morally questionalbe way. Grayness.

However now ME3 reveals that they will not just be antagonists, but will be active servants/allies of our common enemy. What the hell? This completely contradicts Cerberus' established mantra and past actions throughout the entire series.

Now we have invasion where they are either ****ing up another experiment or actively terrorizing Omega. I'll withhold complete judgement because the comic isn't out yet and marketing isn't too reliable, but in light of ME3 I'm worried.

I think making them outright enemies in ME3 was a bad idea. That should have been left up to the player. They should have had a small role in the game (due to Retribution weakening them) and it would have been up to Shepard (or because of his/her choices) whether or not Cerberus was again an ally or an enemy to finish off.

DISCLAIMER: I'm super tired - there WILL be botched sentences and grammatical errors. 

First of all, Retribution was more or less an introduction of Cerberus. Bioware obviously had larger plans with that particular organization. The reason why they focused on a human organization is because its easier for someone playing a game in a science fiction setting to be around a protagonist (or an ally) that comes from a familiar background. Its why the main character in Star Wars was a human. Its why Shepard is a human. Its why in Star Trek they are humans. The alien species are often times implemented into the narrative carefully to contrast human characters. 

In ME2, we needed a "big brother" ally like the alliance to help the player navigate through the alien galaxy. Unfortunately, the Alliance has alienated you and refuses to help you. This is where Cerberus steps in. Even though you (and I) would have enjoyed being told what to do by aliens, it would be extremely risky for a couple reasons. One of which is that a lot of renegade options tend to be xenophobic. The other is that the developers are pumping a LOT of money into this game and they have to insure that the player isn't going to be to alienated by the supporting characters / allies. 

Secondly, I have explained this in previous posts, so my apologies if you've seen me discuss this elsewhere, but the ethical format of this game is as follows:
1) It is an interpretation of the Mills vs. Kant ethics debate. Law vs. Making the most amount of people as possible happy despite the law. 
2) The Alliance represents the laws and the morals we are bound by.
3) The Terminus systems / Cerberus represents "saving humanity at all costs".

And finally, we don't know exactly what's going on within Cerberus other than pre-release news and speculation. For all we know, The Illusive Man may not be indoctrinated. Maybe he is. We simply do not know. 

Pretty much - the setting for ME3 is chaotic. And I am willing to bet my pants that ME3 is focused around choosing between Kant (the alliance), Mills (cerberus), or Neutrality (Shepard). 

Its a pretty common format that most games follow. (Hell, even the Witcher 2 follows this. Law vs. Unorganized or unlawful societies.) Then you have other common plot devices like amnesia or "rise to hero" type situations. The reason a lot of this kind of **** happens is because huge projects like this cost a lot of money to make, and its better safe than sorry when you're risking millions of dollars. 

Once again, its not IDEAL, but "a pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist." --Ashley Williams. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 19 juillet 2011 - 04:21 .

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Because that isn't the Cerberus logo, it's the Cord-Hislop Aerospace logo.

Don't kid yourself, Dave. It is the Cerberus logo, no question about it. People see that logo, both in-universe and out-of-universe, and they say "Cerberus!" In fact in ME2 I don't know if Cord-Hislop is mentioned even once. I guess it might be mentioned when EDI's blocks are removed, but the logo you see is never said to be their's.

It's the Cerberus emblem.

Yeah and besides if it was really the Cord-Hislop logo then Cerberus would be bringing a lot of heat from the authorities onto the company.

[Ahglock]

 Oh come on this is much cooler than indoctrinated citizens or batarians

[Arijharn]

I'd be very surprised if the choice turns out to be 'alliance,' 'cerberus' or Shephard tbh, because that seems pretty... nebulous I suppose considering how many choices we're faced with and the permutations involved with those choices.
For example:
You can be otherwise a paragon yet destroy the council, paragon yet save the council, renegade yet kill the council and renegade yet save the council, and that's not even including the 'renegade neutral' choice in that scenario (if they track it). Then you have the Geth Rewrite (paragon or renegade) or the Geth destruction (paragon or renegade), the permutations in regards to the Genophage and of course the Collector Base.

It might give a weighted conclusion, but 3 different results following from those decisions seems unlikely.

[Seboist]

Arijharn wrote...

I'd be very surprised if the choice turns out to be 'alliance,' 'cerberus' or Shephard tbh, because that seems pretty... nebulous I suppose considering how many choices we're faced with and the permutations involved with those choices.
For example:
You can be otherwise a paragon yet destroy the council, paragon yet save the council, renegade yet kill the council and renegade yet save the council, and that's not even including the 'renegade neutral' choice in that scenario (if they track it). Then you have the Geth Rewrite (paragon or renegade) or the Geth destruction (paragon or renegade), the permutations in regards to the Genophage and of course the Collector Base.

It might give a weighted conclusion, but 3 different results following from those decisions seems unlikely.

I wish we were able to given different spins to the past choices we've made, like the reason why I spared the Rachni Queen was to have her as an ally against the council races(same with rewritnig the Geth and keeping genophage data) but I suspect there'll only be one route per choice.

[GunMoth]

My bad about the order of the novels/comics. I have only read summaries and a couple important bits.

It has everything to do with your post.
You were complaining about Cerberus; a human organization with a lot of continuity flaws. Alien factions are more interesting to you. I am explaining why humans in a sci fi narrative are important. I am also explaining classical writing / narrative formats that have been implemented in film / philosophy / plays since Plato was around and kicking. Predictable character archetypes and settings are a product of fear. A format is a safe way for directors / developers to produce something that is going to attract a large fan base. You may not realize it - but the point I JUST made in that last sentence is why things seem way dumbed down / predictable / stagnant.

I never implied Mass Effect was intelligent. In fact I'm saying the opposite.
Also, if you disagree with my conclusion about the ethical Kant vs Mills example - I'm not sure what to say to you. The morality system is so dumbed down and obvious that its been thrown in your face since Mass Effect 1. If you can't see that then I'm done here.

[fredward55]

Terror_K wrote...

Twizz089 wrote...

Alot of people are saying that there is too much Cerberus in the games, but who would the enemy be if not Cerberus? Like a poster above me mentioned you cant have squad based combat against gaint reapers

Indoctrinated locals who aren't Cerberus.

Husk

[GunMoth]

Arijharn wrote...

I'd be very surprised if the choice turns out to be 'alliance,' 'cerberus' or Shephard tbh, because that seems pretty... nebulous I suppose considering how many choices we're faced with and the permutations involved with those choices.
For example:
You can be otherwise a paragon yet destroy the council, paragon yet save the council, renegade yet kill the council and renegade yet save the council, and that's not even including the 'renegade neutral' choice in that scenario (if they track it). Then you have the Geth Rewrite (paragon or renegade) or the Geth destruction (paragon or renegade), the permutations in regards to the Genophage and of course the Collector Base.

It might give a weighted conclusion, but 3 different results following from those decisions seems unlikely.

Your last paragraph proves my point. 

Being a paragon and killing the council or destroying the genophage is what would be considered neutrality.
Let me explain it this way:

You have 2 different moral choices. If you were to play a game with perfect paragon / renegade run through you would be following a moral format (Mills vs. Kant.) 

As we have seen in ME 2 (And ME1) your ending is determined by how many paragon / renegade points you have and your final decision in the installment (the background color changes behind your shepard depending on your points blah blahblah). 

I don't think there will ONLY be 3 endings in ME3. At least I hope not, but you cannot ignore the morality format that they have been using. :3 

[Xarathox]

If BW had the intention of using Cerberus as one of the primary focus' in ME2 and onwards from the beginning, I think they definitely could've built them up a lot more in ME1 than they did, which was entirely in passing for a couple of side missions.

Since they left them obscure in the first game, that tells me the writers are mostly flying by the seat of their pants for each sequel.