358 réponses à ce sujet

[luzburg]

the geth, husks, mercs, cerberus they all die of bulltets
i expect them to just be agents to the reapers like saren and the geth.
I expect also the batarians to have the same role (some are husks) since the reapers have runed trough the batarian systems before reaching earth

[Mister Mida]

Phaedon wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...
-snip-

At which point were you pissed off by the Reapers, like really pissed off?

Really pissed off? Never, but I'm still more pissed off about the Reapers than about Cerberus. At which point? When I listened to Vigil, when EDI told me the Collectors are Prothean abominiations repurposed to be the Reapers' lackeys. When I saw the captured STG members, Cerberus members on the Derelict Reaper and Kenson and her team being reduced to nothing more than mindless puppets.

[Phaedon]

Mister Mida wrote...
Really pissed off? Never, but I'm still more pissed off about the Reapers than about Cerberus. At which point? When I listened to Vigil, when EDI told me the Collectors are Prothean abominiations repurposed to be the Reapers' lackeys. When I saw the captured STG members, Cerberus members on the Derelict Reaper and Kenson and her team being reduced to nothing more than mindless puppets.

I felt absolutely nothing during both of these revelations. As in, towards the Reapers, I didn't feel more or less hate.

I did get pissed when I found Kahoku, Pragia and read Retribution, however.

[Savber100]

Saphra Deden wrote...

What do we need a human enemy for? We don't need human enemies is disaster films and the Reapers might as well be a natural disaster. They're an unstoppable force of nature (in a sense) here to wreck our ****. Sovereign was a great villain, and Sovereign was Reaper. We have Harbringer too.

Why do we need TIM to be a villain?

I think most players just want an excuse, any excuse, to kill him off as a badguy.

Sovereign was a fearsome foe but it (and the Reapers) are just too black and white. They're not complex as their goal is simply to destroy organic life. It's as siimple as that with no gray or middle ground.

To me, that's a terrible villain and ME needs an enemy that goes beyond such dull spectrums. If they can make TIM a man that goes beyond a simple "I'M AN EVIL MACHINE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD" and make him more sympathetic, I'm all for making adding a human enemy.

However, Bioware just ends up giving us a Meredith-styled villain, I'll throw my controller across the room.

Last Example: Think of Battlestar Galactica... Did you feel a more array of emotions when the main characaters faced the human cylons or the robotic Centurions?

Modifié par Savber100, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:41 .

[Someone With Mass]

I've read about/seen so many secret groups that latches on to/splits off from government organizations in fiction so often that I think it's one very overused cliche. Same thing with the sole leader/mastermind behind the group. It just feels tiresome.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:39 .

[Terror_K]

I have to pose the question then: is it good writing to have the players/reader/viewer/whatever despise and hate a secondary antagonist more than the ones that should be the primary antagonists?

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[CroGamer002]

^Mass Effect 1 with Saren.

Modifié par Mesina2, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:40 .

[Seboist]

Terror_K wrote...

I have to pose the question then: is it good writing to have the players/reader/viewer/whatever despise and hate a secondary antagonist more than the ones that should be the primary antagonists?

Players also hate tertiary enemies like the Batarians more than they do the Reapers.

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...

I have to pose the question then: is it good writing to have the players/reader/viewer/whatever despise and hate a secondary antagonist more than the ones that should be the primary antagonists?

And I have to pose this question then: Was the writing of ME1 good?

[Savber100]

Terror_K wrote...

I have to pose the question then: is it good writing to have the players/reader/viewer/whatever despise and hate a secondary antagonist more than the ones that should be the primary antagonists?

Loghain from Dragon Age.

I hated him for what he did to the point of forgetting the mindless darkspawn horde. This hatred then turned into sympathy. To me, that's the best form of writing. Taking a hated character and turning him around just like that...

Also Jaime Lannister, Janos Slynt, and Alliser Throne from Game of Thrones.. (assuming that you've read those books).

Saruman from LOTR

Not sure if Andrew Ryan from Bioshock counts as well...

Modifié par Savber100, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:48 .

[Someone With Mass]

The Reapers, on the other hand, while being the typical Lovecraftian enemy, is trying to harvest all advanced life in the galaxy and gather all the technology for their own gain for reasons yet unknown. We don't know their origin either, or exactly how long they've been performing these cleansing cycles.

I think Cerberus was much better when I knew as little about them as I did with the Reapers. They weren't as predictable as they are now.

Not saying that Harbinger didn't mess things up as well, though.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:46 .

[Massadonious1]

I think the fact that there is so much discussion about Cerberus/TIM and their overall merits, etc. is what makes/made them good antagonists.

Reapers are just....reapers. They like to smash things and make intelligent species extinct. Unless there is some ridiculous "Reapers are reaping us to prepare for a bigger evil" then there really isn't much complexity there.

I know ME1 wouldn't of been that interesting if Saren wasn't there to lend a more personal interpretation, and for the same reason why some people think that ME2's story was weaker overall.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:46 .

[Terror_K]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Mass Effect 1 with Saren.

The thing is, the purpose of Saren as an antagonist shifted throughout the story. He went from being a threat you hated related to the Geth as well as for his general disdain for humanity, then became almost a face and conduit to hate The Reapers through, and then finally an antagonist to both pity and hate when you realised the puppet he truly was. He initially was the primary antagonist up until you discover more about The Reapers, and even when it switches to them he's an antagonist linked to them and through them. TIM and Cerberus aren't directly linked to The Reapers as antagonists... until now. And how we now too much about them it doesn't quite have the same impact.

[Dave of Canada]

Savber100 wrote...

Sovereign was a fearsome foe but it (and the Reapers) are just too black and white. They're not complex as their goal is simply to destroy organic life. It's as siimple as that with no gray or middle ground.

Isn't the gray / middle ground removed when said villain is indoctrinated?

I wouldn't have minded if Cerberus was hunting down Shepard because they were trying to stop him after finding out why the Reapers needed his body, or something similar, which would have created the gray moral ground where pro-Cerberus players can still respect Cerberus and anti-Cerberus players just shoot to kill.

[Mister Mida]

Phaedon wrote...

I felt absolutely nothing during both of these revelations. As in, towards the Reapers, I didn't feel more or less hate.

I did get pissed when I found Kahoku, Pragia and read Retribution, however.

I felt absolutely nothing when I found Kahoku. Everything I learned at Pragia didn't come as a shock to me as well. Same goes for Retribution.


For me, Cerberus lost their flair after ME2. Back in ME (1), when they were that thing on the side, they were fine by me. When I heard they were gonna be a main focus in ME2, my appreciation started to dwindle. But by the time of Retribution and Evolution, I've had enough of them.

[CroGamer002]

Savber100 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I have to pose the question then: is it good writing to have the players/reader/viewer/whatever despise and hate a secondary antagonist more than the ones that should be the primary antagonists?

Loghain from Dragon Age.

He too.

[CroGamer002]

Terror_K wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Mass Effect 1 with Saren.

The thing is, the purpose of Saren as an antagonist shifted throughout the story. He went from being a threat you hated related to the Geth as well as for his general disdain for humanity, then became almost a face and conduit to hate The Reapers through, and then finally an antagonist to both pity and hate when you realised the puppet he truly was. He initially was the primary antagonist up until you discover more about The Reapers, and even when it switches to them he's an antagonist linked to them and through them. TIM and Cerberus aren't directly linked to The Reapers as antagonists... until now. And how we now too much about them it doesn't quite have the same impact.

No, Reapers are main antagonists in ME1. Remember that vision on Eden Prime?

If anything, Saren was main antagonist until Tali shows up with evidence.

[Savber100]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Sovereign was a fearsome foe but it (and the Reapers) are just too black and white. They're not complex as their goal is simply to destroy organic life. It's as siimple as that with no gray or middle ground.

Isn't the gray / middle ground removed when said villain is indoctrinated?

I wouldn't have minded if Cerberus was hunting down Shepard because they were trying to stop him after finding out why the Reapers needed his body, or something similar, which would have created the gray moral ground where pro-Cerberus players can still respect Cerberus and anti-Cerberus players just shoot to kill.

Ah.. but here's the twist..

We have NO idea about the reasons for TIM's sudden change of heart. We have heard Shepard and the others claim it's indoctrination but Casey Hudson has revealed that it's deeper than that. It's a mystery that we have to unravel throughout the game and there's certain clue that points to Shepard's indoctrination. If anything, I seriously doubt Cerberus' role is simply to play stock villians in ME3. The ME team knows better than to create a game where villains are just b/w.

Modifié par Savber100, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:53 .

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...
The thing is, the purpose of Saren as an antagonist shifted throughout the story. He went from being a threat you hated related to the Geth as well as for his general disdain for humanity, then became almost a face and conduit to hate The Reapers through, and then finally an antagonist to both pity and hate when you realised the puppet he truly was. He initially was the primary antagonist up until you discover more about The Reapers, and even when it switches to them he's an antagonist linked to them and through them. 

What Reapers? What shifting role? You didn't meet about a Reaper until Virmire, and you spoke for a few seconds with it. Kinda hard to hate.

I am sure that people hate Saren for Virmire, not the Reapers.

TIM and Cerberus aren't directly linked to The Reapers as antagonists... until now. And how we now too much about them it doesn't quite have the same impact.

And we learn what about Saren in ME1? That he hates humanity because they killed his brother?

And the Reapers start as the primary antagonists, and then Cerberus comes with the role of the secondary antagonst, what's the problem with that?

People will hate Cerberus for being Cerberus, just like they hated Saren for being Saren. 

[Someone With Mass]

If Cerberus was morally grey, they would have conflicts within their organization about what they're doing.

Too bad that everyone's blindly following TIM without a second thought unless they're directly shown the consequences of their actions. Even then, some refuse to think for themselves.

And those who are in conflict are immediately rejected and branded as traitors/outcasts.

[Phaedon]

Mister Mida wrote...
I felt absolutely nothing when I found Kahoku. Everything I learned at Pragia didn't come as a shock to me as well. Same goes for Retribution.

And what did you feel, joy?

For me, Cerberus lost their flair after ME2. Back in ME (1), when they were that thing on the side, they were fine by me. When I heard they were gonna be a main focus in ME2, my appreciation started to dwindle. But by the time of Retribution and Evolution, I've had enough of them.

It's not as if you really learn more about Cerberus until Evolution, you just explore different aspects of them. What's your point? The same applies to Saren.

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

And we learn what about Saren in ME1? That he hates humanity because they killed his brother?

And the Reapers start as the primary antagonists, and then Cerberus comes with the role of the secondary antagonst, what's the problem with that?

People will hate Cerberus for being Cerberus, just like they hated Saren for being Saren. 

When did I say I had a problem with that?

I guess I need to reword my questions on this board, since people can't tell the difference between somebody asking if something is good writing and saying "I think this is bad writing personally!"

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:56 .

[Phaedon]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Isn't the gray / middle ground removed when said villain is indoctrinated? 

I wouldn't have minded if Cerberus was hunting down Shepard because they were trying to stop him after finding out why the Reapers needed his body, or something similar, which would have created the gray moral ground where pro-Cerberus players can still respect Cerberus and anti-Cerberus players just shoot to kill.

Gray? Cerberus? Huh?

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

If Cerberus was morally grey, they would have conflicts within their organization about what they're doing.

You don't need internal conflict to create morally grey, last time I checked.