6494 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

How is it not relevant? I can think of several cases where its not only relevant, but of paramount importance.

Tuchanka: 'Any other alien would have been blasted out of sky'. Shepard, due to his connection to Wrex (whether or not Wrex is alive or not) is the ONLY thing that allowed him to land. If it was some generic soldier, that soldier would have died right then and there. Not only that, but Maelon would have cured the genophage for Clan Weryloc, and their plans didn't sound very conducive for uniting the galaxy against the Reapers.

Heretic Geth: Legion would not have been searching for a generic soldier; only Shepard, due to his accomplishments. Therefore, Legion would have been unable to prevent the Heretics from unleashing their virus, thus turning all Geth into servants of the Reapers. Once again, only Shepard could have prevented this.

Quarians: Tali would not have joined Cerberus for any reason, other than Shepard. Therefore, there would be no link to the Quarians, who have the biggest fleet in the galaxy.

I can't help to say that is all optional content, and that it isn't in the main plot, and that by no way the plot of Mass Effect 2 would have been affected, which is where this discussion is all about.

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That's not a cerberus logo...It's a [b]Cord-Hislop Aerospace logo....

The codex proves you false.

I just linked you to the codex that stated....
..
Cord-Hislop is actually used by Cerberus as a front to fund their activities. Paul Grayson was assigned to Cord-Hislop's sales department when he adopted Gillian Grayson, and eventually climbed to the executive ranks as a cover for his work with Cerberus.
....
How can you contest a fact?

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

Neither the recruitment (except for Mordin) or the loyalytu mission are not part of the main narative.

Those things you mentiond aren't also the Reason why TIM wanted him, he wanted to use him as pawn in his plan agains the collectors, after that he had hi use.

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...

I just linked you to the codex that stated....
..
Cord-Hislop is actually used by Cerberus as a front to fund their activities. Paul Grayson was assigned to Cord-Hislop's sales department when he adopted Gillian Grayson, and eventually climbed to the executive ranks as a cover for his work with Cerberus.
....
How can you contest a fact?

The codex article for Cerberus




Immediately following the First Contact War, an anonymous extranet manifesto warned that an alien attempt at human genocide was inevitable. The manifesto called for an army - a Cerberus to guard against invasion through the Charon relay.Derided as "survivalist rhetoric written by an illusive man", the manifesto and its anonymous author soon fell off the media radar. But in 2165, terrorists stole antimatter from the SSV Geneva, the sole figure arrested named his sponsor "Cerberus". Throughout the 2160s and 2170s, alleged Cerberus agents assassinated politicians, sabotaged starships bearing eezo, and conducted nightmarish experiments on aliens and humans. Denounced as human-supremacist, Cerberus calls itself human-survivalist.Counterterror experts speculate Cerberus may have changed leadership with it recent shift to stockpiling ships, agents, and weapons. Whether "he", "she", or "they", the Illusive Man hides his finances behind shell companies. Few doubt he will kill anyone attempting to expose him.
 

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

Neither the recruitment (except for Mordin) or the loyalytu mission are not part of the main narative.

Those things you mentiond aren't also the Reason why TIM wanted him, he wanted to use him as pawn in his plan agains the collectors, after that he had hi use.

And there we go,logical reason to bring Shepard back from the dead /discussion

if you can call it that.

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

Neither the recruitment (except for Mordin) or the loyalytu mission are not part of the main narative.

Those things you mentiond aren't also the Reason why TIM wanted him, he wanted to use him as pawn in his plan agains the collectors, after that he had hi use.

The reason you do the loyalty mission is so the squad mates can be loyal and have a better success rate on the final mission.
So being that your only doing the loyalty missions so you have a better person on the final mission make that loyalty mission part of the story.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Everyone else : 1+1=2 Source? My fingers.
Fixers0:1+1=Fish Source? Ass-pull.

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

Neither the recruitment (except for Mordin) or the loyalytu mission are not part of the main narative.

Those things you mentiond aren't also the Reason why TIM wanted him, he wanted to use him as pawn in his plan agains the collectors, after that he had hi use.

Okay, they aren't part of a main narrative.

What you should do then is do a playthrough where you pretend you aren't Shepard. Don't get reinstated as a Spectre, don't go to Tuchanka, don't recruit Tali or Garrus, and sell Legion to Cerberus. Import that character into ME3, and during ME3, ignore the Rachni and the Quarians. Then you can see what it would be like if Shepard was replaced with a generic soldier. Can you still beat the Reapers?

And how do you know TIM's exact reasoning for bringing Shepard back?

[111987]

Montezuma IV wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

Neither the recruitment (except for Mordin) or the loyalytu mission are not part of the main narative.

Those things you mentiond aren't also the Reason why TIM wanted him, he wanted to use him as pawn in his plan agains the collectors, after that he had hi use.

The reason you do the loyalty mission is so the squad mates can be loyal and have a better success rate on the final mission.
So being that your only doing the loyalty missions so you have a better person on the final mission make that loyalty mission part of the story.

Fixers0 actually makes a good point. They are hardly, if at all, a part of the story.

The story is to defeat the Collectors. You do this by preparing to face them by recruiting a team and making them as strong as possible. Loyalty misisons ARE a part of the story.

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I just linked you to the codex that stated....
..
Cord-Hislop is actually used by Cerberus as a front to fund their activities. Paul Grayson was assigned to Cord-Hislop's sales department when he adopted Gillian Grayson, and eventually climbed to the executive ranks as a cover for his work with Cerberus.
....
How can you contest a fact?

The codex article for Cerberus




Immediately following the First Contact War, an anonymous extranet manifesto warned that an alien attempt at human genocide was inevitable. The manifesto called for an army - a Cerberus to guard against invasion through the Charon relay.Derided as "survivalist rhetoric written by an illusive man", the manifesto and its anonymous author soon fell off the media radar. But in 2165, terrorists stole antimatter from the SSV Geneva, the sole figure arrested named his sponsor "Cerberus". Throughout the 2160s and 2170s, alleged Cerberus agents assassinated politicians, sabotaged starships bearing eezo, and conducted nightmarish experiments on aliens and humans. Denounced as human-supremacist, Cerberus calls itself human-survivalist.Counterterror experts speculate Cerberus may have changed leadership with it recent shift to stockpiling ships, agents, and weapons. Whether "he", "she", or "they", the Illusive Man hides his finances behind shell companies. Few doubt he will kill anyone attempting to expose him.
 

Does that say that logo is publicly known as a Cerberus logo? NO. Externally, that logo belongs to Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
Interanlly in that company, that logo balongs to Cerberus. The consept of a front is that no one knows what your really doing basd on out side aperances. It's a false fase. To any person that logo means Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
To a cerberus agent and one who know what cerberus is doing, it's a cerberus logo.

[dreman9999]

Montezuma IV wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes it's all technically optional content, but if you're seriously saying none of those things i mentioned won't have an impact on ME3, then i don't know what else to say. And the loyalty missions ARE a part of the plot in ME2. You can't possibly say they aren't...

Neither the recruitment (except for Mordin) or the loyalytu mission are not part of the main narative.

Those things you mentiond aren't also the Reason why TIM wanted him, he wanted to use him as pawn in his plan agains the collectors, after that he had hi use.

The reason you do the loyalty mission is so the squad mates can be loyal and have a better success rate on the final mission.
So being that your only doing the loyalty missions so you have a better person on the final mission make that loyalty mission part of the story.

Fixers0 actually makes a good point. They are hardly, if at all, a part of the story.

The story is about getting ready to attack the collector base.
One of the way to get ready for that is to gain the loyalty of your squad. To dothat you have to do loyalty missions.
So if have to get ready for the final mission, which is the perpose of the story, by doing loyalty mission then that means that the loyalty missions are part of the story.

[111987]

Montezuma IV wrote...

111987 wrote...


The story is to defeat the Collectors. You do this by preparing to face them by recruiting a team and making them as strong as possible. Loyalty misisons ARE a part of the story.

Whether they contribute to the main narrative is in question, where I'm concerned. I'm not saying they aren't a part of it at all. But just imagine...reading and book-version of ME2....would you not...as the reader, wonder the point of seemingly useless space in the game.

Fair enough, maybe they aren't directly linked to the main narrative on ME2. That they are peripherally linked is undeniable though.

However, since the developers have confirmed that choices on loyalty missions will be VERY significant (such as the ones I outlined previously), they do directly contribute to the main narrative of the series.

[Sebbe1337o]

Haters gonna hate. He's just mad because so many likes Mass Effect and he just didn't.

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...

Does that say that logo is publicly known as a Cerberus logo? NO. Externally, that logo belongs to Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
Interanlly in that company, that logo balongs to Cerberus. The consept of a front is that no one knows what your really doing basd on out side aperances. It's a false fase. To any person that logo means Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
To a cerberus agent and one who know what cerberus is doing, it's a cerberus logo.

Source?

The codex shows that the logo is related to cerberus, it doesn't mention anything about Cord-Hislop. 

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...

Fair enough, maybe they aren't directly linked to the main narrative on ME2. That they are peripherally linked is undeniable though.

However, since the developers have confirmed that choices on loyalty missions will be VERY significant (such as the ones I outlined previously), they do directly contribute to the main narrative of the series.

The best way to fix this of course is to weave character exposition into the main narative, or make them sub plots that follow the main plot, but don't create 12 different stories that each go in their own direction you.

[Sgt Stryker]

111987 wrote...

Okay, they aren't part of a main narrative.

What you should do then is do a playthrough where you pretend you aren't Shepard. Don't get reinstated as a Spectre, don't go to Tuchanka, don't recruit Tali or Garrus, and sell Legion to Cerberus. Import that character into ME3, and during ME3, ignore the Rachni and the Quarians. Then you can see what it would be like if Shepard was replaced with a generic soldier. Can you still beat the Reapers?

And how do you know TIM's exact reasoning for bringing Shepard back?

Unless you mod the game, you would not be able to move on to Horizon. Garrus is one of the four that you must recruit before you get word that the Collectors hit Horizon.

Fixers0 wrote...

The codex shows that the logo is related to cerberus, it doesn't mention anything about Cord-Hislop.

That's because the game itself did not mention Cord-Hislop Corporation. One of the books did. This is not a contradiction or a retcon, since the Codex never says "The above figure is a depiction of the Cerberus logo", or something along those lines. In this case, the book fills in those gaps in the lore that the game does not cover (and does not need to cover).

Lastly, you'll probably disagree with me on this, and you're welcome to have that opinion, but the books are just as canonical as the games. They each contribute their own part to the continuity as a whole.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 31 août 2011 - 07:52 .

[dreman9999]

Montezuma IV wrote...

111987 wrote...


The story is to defeat the Collectors. You do this by preparing to face them by recruiting a team and making them as strong as possible. Loyalty misisons ARE a part of the story.

Whether they contribute to the main narrative is in question, where I'm concerned. I'm not saying they aren't a part of it at all. But just imagine...reading and book-version of ME2....would you not...as the reader, wonder the point of seemingly useless space in the game.

But it's not a book, it's a game. Allen Moore stated that his story Watchmen would never work as a movie because it was writen for a comic book. Diffent medium have different ways to tell story the other mediums can't. Books have interal monolgues and indepth look into a characters head. Movies need to have movemant and action on scean,plays need great acting, tv show need to last for a while, and video games need interaction and can be streched out as long as it want's to.
Don't ask if ME2was a book would it make sense because it was naver written to be a book.

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Fair enough, maybe they aren't directly linked to the main narrative on ME2. That they are peripherally linked is undeniable though.

However, since the developers have confirmed that choices on loyalty missions will be VERY significant (such as the ones I outlined previously), they do directly contribute to the main narrative of the series.

The best way to fix this of course is to weave character exposition into the main narative, or make them sub plots that follow the main plot, but don't create 12 different stories that each go in their own direction you.

It is a sub-plot...you do these subplots because you're trying to give yourself the greatest chance of victory in the main plot.

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Does that say that logo is publicly known as a Cerberus logo? NO. Externally, that logo belongs to Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
Interanlly in that company, that logo balongs to Cerberus. The consept of a front is that no one knows what your really doing basd on out side aperances. It's a false fase. To any person that logo means Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
To a cerberus agent and one who know what cerberus is doing, it's a cerberus logo.

Source?

The codex shows that the logo is related to cerberus, it doesn't mention anything about Cord-Hislop. 

I already posted a source stating Cord-Hislop Aerospace is a cerberus front.  All I'm saying is that that logo has 2 meanings, one for the common public and one for the people who know.

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Does that say that logo is publicly known as a Cerberus logo? NO. Externally, that logo belongs to Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
Interanlly in that company, that logo balongs to Cerberus. The consept of a front is that no one knows what your really doing basd on out side aperances. It's a false fase. To any person that logo means Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
To a cerberus agent and one who know what cerberus is doing, it's a cerberus logo.

Source?

The codex shows that the logo is related to cerberus, it doesn't mention anything about Cord-Hislop. 

I already posted a source stating Cord-Hislop Aerospace is a cerberus front.  All I'm saying is that that logo has 2 meanings, one for the common public and one for the people who know.

But you've got no proof, and that's it.

[dreman9999]

Montezuma IV wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...

111987 wrote...


The story is to defeat the Collectors. You do this by preparing to face them by recruiting a team and making them as strong as possible. Loyalty misisons ARE a part of the story.

Whether they contribute to the main narrative is in question, where I'm concerned. I'm not saying they aren't a part of it at all. But just imagine...reading and book-version of ME2....would you not...as the reader, wonder the point of seemingly useless space in the game.

But it's not a book, it's a game. Allen Moore stated that his story Watchmen would never work as a movie because it was writen for a comic book. Diffent medium have different ways to tell story the other mediums can't. Books have interal monolgues and indepth look into a characters head. Movies need to have movemant and action on scean,plays need great acting, tv show need to last for a while, and video games need interaction and can be streched out as long as it want's to.
Don't ask if ME2was a book would it make sense because it was naver written to be a book.

Stories are stories. Maybe my concern lies with the fact that the loyalty missions were a lazy way of adding content, but even if that were the case....they would still be unnecessary. And where a MAIN narrative is concerned, if it's unneccessary to "tell the tale"...it's not a part of the narrative.

Maybe you forget the main reason why ME is so great is the universe not the story and the loyalty missions add a way to add to the universe in general.

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Does that say that logo is publicly known as a Cerberus logo? NO. Externally, that logo belongs to Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
Interanlly in that company, that logo balongs to Cerberus. The consept of a front is that no one knows what your really doing basd on out side aperances. It's a false fase. To any person that logo means Cord-Hislop Aerospace.
To a cerberus agent and one who know what cerberus is doing, it's a cerberus logo.

Source?

The codex shows that the logo is related to cerberus, it doesn't mention anything about Cord-Hislop. 

I already posted a source stating Cord-Hislop Aerospace is a cerberus front.  All I'm saying is that that logo has 2 meanings, one for the common public and one for the people who know.

But you've got no proof, and that's it.

The proof is the link and the fact the company is a cerberus front.