358 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

Xarathox wrote...

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.

It's obvious they never had it planned out what they were going to do with Cerberus.

ME1: Cerberus is an Alliance black ops gone rogue led by some "General". They're a minor completely optional enemy that has no impact on the story.

ME2: Cerberus is now apparently some pro-human group that was created by some billionaire on his own in his spare time. There's no indicator that the group was EVER part of the Alliance in this game.

ME3: Now Cerberus completely disregards it's past and becomes Reaper allies.

[GunMoth]

Xarathox wrote...

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.

This I agree with completely.

The only thing that even made me think twice was that Cerberus was focusing more on making armies of mindless thorian creepers and rachni soldier babies. Why not use all that money to take over the government from the inside out?

But THAT is giving Mass Effect too much credit. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 19 juillet 2011 - 04:58 .

[GunMoth]

" doubt that. Mass Effect isn't as intelligent as you'd like it to me. I'm convinced of that now. I supported Cerberus for the same reason I supported Udina: I was hoping the writers would surprise me. I was hoping that the obviously unlikable bad people wouldn't turn out to be bad people. However they're all being set-up to be enemies.

The plaster of the Cerberus logo is evidence of this. We can't have real depth or complexity because we need to appeal to the lowest common demoninator.

In any case, I still don't see what any of this has to do with my post that you were quoting. Not a bad post, some good thoughts, though I think you're wrong." - your response to my last bit.

[Massadonious1]

Well, all we really know is that they are going to be enemies, the whole indoctrination thing is kind of up in the air, and even then, I really don't think they're going to be willing Reaper allies. Indoctrination doesn't discriminate in that way.

[Zran]

Number 1 of these explains why Cerberus is such a central feature in ME3... It's the Eyes!

http://www.newsarama...3-110707-1.html

[Nashiktal]

fredward55 wrote...

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

Sorry, try again.

Not all husks are indoctrinated people, and not all indoctrinated people turn into husks.

[InvincibleHero]

Seboist wrote...

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.

I see no reason why the batarians cannot be inco-opperation with Cerberus to destroy shepard or conversely be indoctrinated stooges under the direction of Cerberus.

I think it would have been better in ME2 if you had the option to go rogue after Horizon.

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Remember when Cerberus was an Alliance black ops group that went rogue? That has never been mentioned again and has in fact been quietly retconned.

TIM recorded his Cerberus manifesto from Arcturus Station at the end of Evolution, did he not?

As far as Cerberus in ME3 goes, I'm not going to believe TIM is indoctrinated or really working with the reapers unless there is some direct, unambiguous proof, which I suspect will come from actually playing ME3.

Having the whole gray narrative of Cerberus suddenly be upended and making them cliche bad guys in ME3 would be far too stupid. Obviously something is going on if the situation in ME3 is supposed to be a "mystery." Indoctrination is not mysterious anymore, and would be the extremely obvious answer for everyone, so I can't believe BioWare would call it a mystery if that was the case.

I also don't think they'd make Evolution if they intended for TIM to just be a cliche bad guy in ME3.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 19 juillet 2011 - 05:19 .

[who would know]

Xarathox wrote...

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.

I played ME after ME2. Boy was this obvious. For Cerberus' presence in ME2, I was looking forward to an origins story of sorts. What I got was some vague and obscure little side missions.

[DukeOfNukes]

GunMoth wrote...

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.)

wait wait wait...are we talking about C Wright Mills and Immanuel Kant? Crap...let me go get my copies of The Critique of Pure Reason and the Sociological Imagination off the shelf

I agree with the OP. Based on ME1, Cerberus didn't seem like a big enemy. They undoubtedly had a future in the series...but they kind of blew up out of nowhere and took on a level of importance that was unprecidented. The question almost becomes...whos idea was it to make them so big? Was it switching from Drew Karpyshyn to Mac Walters that made the focus shift? Or was it always in the planning stages. I found Revelation and Ascension to be extremely interesting, but Retribution didnt have the same labor of love feel to it. Redemption...well, I'm not going to get into that. Terribly written and entirely uninteresting.

I don't think Cerberus should have taken on such a large role. Reviving Shepard was an interesting twist...but forcing you to stick with them, and even at times defend them, was outright annoying. I'd pick a dialog that says something like "I didn't have a choice", and the words Shepard would say were "At least Cerberus is doing something, Alliance Dog!" How does that fit my decision?

An interesting choice would be having Cerberus be all but destroyed, and then while you're running around for allies, let you make the choice of if you want to recruit them or not. Have you approach the Illusive Man and ask for his help as he's trying to rebuild...but continuing to have such a large focus on them, instead of being a "splinter group", having them be a large faction, seems like a poor choice.

[Ultai]

Seboist wrote...

Xarathox wrote...

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.

It's obvious they never had it planned out what they were going to do with Cerberus.

ME1: Cerberus is an Alliance black ops gone rogue led by some "General". They're a minor completely optional enemy that has no impact on the story.

ME2: Cerberus is now apparently some pro-human group that was created by some billionaire on his own in his spare time. There's no indicator that the group was EVER part of the Alliance in this game.

ME3: Now Cerberus completely disregards it's past and becomes Reaper allies.

I keep trying to think more into it, but the only explanation that comes up in my head is Mac Walters.  He does enjoy writing those comic book plots.

[Arijharn]

GunMoth wrote...
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.

Lol, based on what? One game? Of course it's not going to go into detail for outcomes from ME1 decisions into ME2, it's the second act. The biggest issue coming into ME2 was the Council decision, yet even still they were 'limiting' it for the purposes of the story in 2 (aka; Shephard had no one to turn to other than Cerberus).

Modifié par Arijharn, 19 juillet 2011 - 05:37 .

[CroGamer002]

Well some people still don't get that Cerberus is evil and complete failure so Bioware is trying to explain it again they are.

[Nashiktal]

I miss Drew.

Mac isn't a bad writer per se, but Drew helped to mold the origional magic, I can't help but mourn what could have been.

Of course I don't know the plot of ME3.

[Arijharn]

GunMoth wrote...
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.) 

That would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that there was already a neutral choice in the scene. I'm assuming (and you know what they say about assume) that they'll track this choice as well since it would seem counterintuitive for them not to considering the whole concept of the games I guess is about choice and the consequences from that choice.

My point about weighted outcomes is that yes I agree with you that they'll be there (because how else could they give an ending?), but resulting 3 outcomes seems completely unlikely considering the various moral or ethical considerations that can apparently go into each scene. Also note that while rare, intimidation choices didn't necessarily mean renegade outcomes, and vice versa (at least in ME1).

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). 

Right; but 'renegade' and 'paragon' in and of themselves are meaningless outcomes. It's only when they are factored into in game choices (saving or destroying the Genophage cure for example) can worth be extracted from it. 

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 

I wasn't, I just didn't think it would be likely that they could be 3 outcomes of 'alliance','cerberus' & Shephard

[SandTrout]

The only problem I have with how BW has portrayed Cerberus is that most of our exposure to it made them out to be comically inept. While This is probably not the case, as there have been several largely successful Cerberus projects, and in ME2 we primarily get told about the experiments that require 'sanitation'. However, even the successful Cerberus projects do not get much attention in the writing, leading to the general impression of incompetent mad scientists.

My initial impression of Cerberus making up 40% of combat in ME3 is not positive, however. As I have stated in other posts, It does not make sense to me for TIM to willingly side with the Reapers, and Indoctrination of the entire organization, or even a majority of it, seems like a cop-out.

Even when dealing with indoctrination, it would make more sense that we would be fighting local defense forces most of the time, not specifically Cerberus Troops.

[Luigitornado]

Don't mind it. I'm sure Bioware will indulge us with other stuff once the trilogy is over.

[DonDaMon]

i made a thread like this, it was going well
than the mods locked it due to overwhelming support of my anti "cerberus effect 3" ideals.

[Arijharn]

SandTrout wrote...

The only problem I have with how BW has portrayed Cerberus is that most of our exposure to it made them out to be comically inept. While This is probably not the case, as there have been several largely successful Cerberus projects, and in ME2 we primarily get told about the experiments that require 'sanitation'. However, even the successful Cerberus projects do not get much attention in the writing, leading to the general impression of incompetent mad scientists.

My initial impression of Cerberus making up 40% of combat in ME3 is not positive, however. As I have stated in other posts, It does not make sense to me for TIM to willingly side with the Reapers, and Indoctrination of the entire organization, or even a majority of it, seems like a cop-out.

Even when dealing with indoctrination, it would make more sense that we would be fighting local defense forces most of the time, not specifically Cerberus Troops.

You should read the TIM, TIM, TIM thread and see if any of the theories there seem plausible to you.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...
Now it sounds like ME3 is going to be stretching my suspension of belief even more, and despite reports from ME2 of Shepard and the SR2 almost draining their resources and a bunch of turian strike forces in Retribution almost crippling their cells they're suddenly going to be one of the most prevalent enemies with hundreds of forces almost everywhere, advanced mechs and technology, etc. How could a small splinter cell that broke from the Alliance and went rogue only a few years ago get so damn big given all the circumstances? Especially given recent events that should be draining their resources and influence, and yet all it seems to have done is somehow made them stronger.

If BioWare is expanding on anything about Cerberus (which I wish they wouldn't), it should be this, because Cerberus is going overboard with their capabilities. Fast.

[Dem_B]

Finished Mass Effect 1, I did not know what will happen in Mass Effect 2. But when I started to play Mass Effect 2, I thought, "Why should I deal with these problems? I have not been waiting for this of Mass Effect 2"
For me, Mass Effect 1 shows humanity as part of the galactic community, how humanity to strive to become a more important part of it. But now it seems to me that humanity want to become not just part of the galactic culture, humanity strive to become the ruler of the galaxy.
Cerberus embodies the idea of an all-powerful company that controls all spheres of society, this idea has become popular in these times. Cerberus wants to become the first Galactic Empire, Illusive Man is Imperor, and Shepard is darth Vader.
The most important plot is not how to stop the Reapers, everybody understands that we will win them, the most important what benefits we will get.
Reapers are not a threat but a means for rising the Illusive Man to the top of domination.
But this is not a story in which I would like to participate. I have not been waiting for this of Mass Effect.