1381 réponses à ce sujet

[msantos]

Patius Mehaffius wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

This might not be the case so forgive me for saying, but it does seem like you think your view of what Cerberus is counts more that what Bioware's view of Cerberus is.

Bioware is fallible just like anyone else.

Yes, Bioware obviously doesn't have a grasp on their own creations while, you, in your infalliable wisdom, do have a grasp on their story.

THIS !!!!   /\\  /\\ /\\

Its quite OK to not agree with all of the story and plot decisions. Because the ME series offers everyone a chance to build a bit of their own Shepard, some people will lilkely react more emotionally to a shift that does not aligh with their thinking.  In the end, no matter how successful the ME series are, you just can't please everyone.


But, what is also quite interesting is that when some do not agree with Bioware's story and plot decisions, they promptly define these as "bad writing"  ?????  ... perhaps these folks would like to show Bioware and the rest of us how it is truly done?


Cheers

[GodWood]

msantos wrote...
  ... perhaps these folks would like to show Bioware and the rest of us how it is truly done?

They often do.

[Quole]

If you actually agreed with anything Cerberus has done, other than investigate human colonies and fight collectors, then you are kind of stupid.

[Seboist]

Patius Mehaffius wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

This might not be the case so forgive me for saying, but it does seem like you think your view of what Cerberus is counts more that what Bioware's view of Cerberus is.

Bioware is fallible just like anyone else.

Yes, Bioware obviously doesn't have a grasp on their own creations while, you, in your infalliable wisdom, do have a grasp on their story.


Even if they jump the shark with ME3's plot, the writers still have the greatest grip. Mostly because writers always have more stuff about a story in their head than is actually on paper. We can know what TIM does and says. They know what he's thinking.

Liara the socially inept bookworm hermit being turned into ruthless information broker and Cerberus ending up with a large standing army and space fleet despite what ME2 and Retribution established show Bioware has a poor at best grasp of their creations

Modifié par Seboist, 20 novembre 2011 - 05:29 .

[jtrook]

sponge56 wrote...

There is no real plausibile explanation as to how some people on these forums can constantly defend Cerberus.

1)  Cerberus is an inherently RACIST/SPECIEST organisation.  They aim to make humanity the dominant power in the galaxy, subjugating the other races.  I don't understand how so many people on these forums can defend such as organisation.  The Mass Effects series makes it obvious that all races are fundamentally 'human' in regards to their emotions and core beliefs.  The only things which separate the races are some cultural and political differences.  The mantra of 'humanity has to be protected' has disturbing resonances to real life White Supremicist organisations, but I hopefully doubt that those defending Ceberus would defend this outlook.

2) Humanity doesn't really need to ascend.  A war with the other alien species is highly unlikely or even impossible due to the size of Humanity's fleet.  While not as large as the Turians, it poses a significant enough threat so that war would be very costly for both sides.  Also, Humanity is constantly given more and more powers and freedom by the Council in a very quick space of time, so why do we need such an organisation?

3) Many pro-cerberus supporters go on about how Cerberus represents and acts for humanity.  It does nothing of the sort.  Cerberus acts on the behalf of the Illusive Man, an individual figure who calls all the shots in his organisation.  The Alliance is run by elected officials who are voted into their respective positions, who elected the Illusive Man?  His funders trust he will act with humanity's best interests, but I doubt they know or have a say on a ything that he actually does.

While I agree with most of what you say, Cereberus still (in ME2) was the only orginzation doing anything about the attacks. While they have done HORRIBLE things, they, for the most part, had good intentions. Kinda like the south park episode, "Did the wrong thing for the right reasons". Ninja out!

[D.Kain]

Anyone can defend anyone, because everyone has different views on things. A racist person can defend a racist organization for example. Why debate on it?

[Sajuro]

Seboist wrote...

Patius Mehaffius wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

This might not be the case so forgive me for saying, but it does seem like you think your view of what Cerberus is counts more that what Bioware's view of Cerberus is.

Bioware is fallible just like anyone else.

Yes, Bioware obviously doesn't have a grasp on their own creations while, you, in your infalliable wisdom, do have a grasp on their story.


Even if they jump the shark with ME3's plot, the writers still have the greatest grip. Mostly because writers always have more stuff about a story in their head than is actually on paper. We can know what TIM does and says. They know what he's thinking.

Liara the socially inept bookworm hermit being turned into ruthless information broker and Cerberus ending up with a large standing army and space fleet despite what ME2 and Retribution established show Bioware has a poor at best grasp of their creations

After Shepard was killed, she went against the most powerful information broker in the galaxy to get him back, lost someone else she felt an obligation to during the course of that, setting up for her to become an information broker in hopes of finding information on the Shadow Broker's whereabouts. As for becoming ruthless, if you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Cerberus with a massive army, that's supposed to be a mystery for ME3, wait fot it to come out to start fanwanking.

[Sajuro]

jtrook wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

There is no real plausibile explanation as to how some people on these forums can constantly defend Cerberus.

1)  Cerberus is an inherently RACIST/SPECIEST organisation.  They aim to make humanity the dominant power in the galaxy, subjugating the other races.  I don't understand how so many people on these forums can defend such as organisation.  The Mass Effects series makes it obvious that all races are fundamentally 'human' in regards to their emotions and core beliefs.  The only things which separate the races are some cultural and political differences.  The mantra of 'humanity has to be protected' has disturbing resonances to real life White Supremicist organisations, but I hopefully doubt that those defending Ceberus would defend this outlook.

2) Humanity doesn't really need to ascend.  A war with the other alien species is highly unlikely or even impossible due to the size of Humanity's fleet.  While not as large as the Turians, it poses a significant enough threat so that war would be very costly for both sides.  Also, Humanity is constantly given more and more powers and freedom by the Council in a very quick space of time, so why do we need such an organisation?

3) Many pro-cerberus supporters go on about how Cerberus represents and acts for humanity.  It does nothing of the sort.  Cerberus acts on the behalf of the Illusive Man, an individual figure who calls all the shots in his organisation.  The Alliance is run by elected officials who are voted into their respective positions, who elected the Illusive Man?  His funders trust he will act with humanity's best interests, but I doubt they know or have a say on a ything that he actually does.

While I agree with most of what you say, Cereberus still (in ME2) was the only orginzation doing anything about the attacks. While they have done HORRIBLE things, they, for the most part, had good intentions. Kinda like the south park episode, "Did the wrong thing for the right reasons". Ninja out!

I would think of Cerberus as the Cartmen of the universe, doing the right things for the wrong reasons: He wanted to take Kenny off of life support which would let Kenny command heaven's army against satan, but he wanted to do it because Kenny willed him his PSP.
Cerberus wants to defeat the Reapers, but they do it so Humanity can oppress and kill the other species afterwords.

[dreman9999]

Seboist wrote...

Patius Mehaffius wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

This might not be the case so forgive me for saying, but it does seem like you think your view of what Cerberus is counts more that what Bioware's view of Cerberus is.

Bioware is fallible just like anyone else.

Yes, Bioware obviously doesn't have a grasp on their own creations while, you, in your infalliable wisdom, do have a grasp on their story.


Even if they jump the shark with ME3's plot, the writers still have the greatest grip. Mostly because writers always have more stuff about a story in their head than is actually on paper. We can know what TIM does and says. They know what he's thinking.

Liara the socially inept bookworm hermit being turned into ruthless information broker and Cerberus ending up with a large standing army and space fleet despite what ME2 and Retribution established show Bioware has a poor at best grasp of their creations

Your kinding right.  They show clear reasons why this happens and even have under tones of this in ME1. This more of an example of the player not understanding the plot direction and not liking it.

[HiroVoid]

Sajuro wrote...

jtrook wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

There is no real plausibile explanation as to how some people on these forums can constantly defend Cerberus.

1)  Cerberus is an inherently RACIST/SPECIEST organisation.  They aim to make humanity the dominant power in the galaxy, subjugating the other races.  I don't understand how so many people on these forums can defend such as organisation.  The Mass Effects series makes it obvious that all races are fundamentally 'human' in regards to their emotions and core beliefs.  The only things which separate the races are some cultural and political differences.  The mantra of 'humanity has to be protected' has disturbing resonances to real life White Supremicist organisations, but I hopefully doubt that those defending Ceberus would defend this outlook.

2) Humanity doesn't really need to ascend.  A war with the other alien species is highly unlikely or even impossible due to the size of Humanity's fleet.  While not as large as the Turians, it poses a significant enough threat so that war would be very costly for both sides.  Also, Humanity is constantly given more and more powers and freedom by the Council in a very quick space of time, so why do we need such an organisation?

3) Many pro-cerberus supporters go on about how Cerberus represents and acts for humanity.  It does nothing of the sort.  Cerberus acts on the behalf of the Illusive Man, an individual figure who calls all the shots in his organisation.  The Alliance is run by elected officials who are voted into their respective positions, who elected the Illusive Man?  His funders trust he will act with humanity's best interests, but I doubt they know or have a say on a ything that he actually does.

While I agree with most of what you say, Cereberus still (in ME2) was the only orginzation doing anything about the attacks. While they have done HORRIBLE things, they, for the most part, had good intentions. Kinda like the south park episode, "Did the wrong thing for the right reasons". Ninja out!

I would think of Cerberus as the Cartmen of the universe, doing the right things for the wrong reasons: He wanted to take Kenny off of life support which would let Kenny command heaven's army against satan, but he wanted to do it because Kenny willed him his PSP.
Cerberus wants to defeat the Reapers, but they do it so Humanity can oppress and kill the other species afterwords.

When has Cerberus ever said they want to kill and oppress the other species?

[HiroVoid]

Quole wrote...

If you actually agreed with anything Cerberus has done, other than investigate human colonies and fight collectors, then you are kind of stupid.

What about funneling supplies and monetary aids to the colonial survivors on Horizon?

[General User]

Cerberus has discredited/neutralized dangerous alien extremists.

They took out geth strongholds during the Eden Prime War.

And they stopped a batarian group from releasing a bioweapon on the Citadel.

Modifié par General User, 20 novembre 2011 - 12:16 .

[John Renegade]

Just to answer the OP:

Cerberus can be defended, simply because it's being defended right now.

[Darman]

Cerberus is seeing things the way they need to be seen, Cerberus handles things how they need to be handled and Cerberus actually works together with other species, even if they still got prejudices against them. So they aren't that kind of racist group like for example the CCClan. They just want a dominant position for the humans in the galaxy, they don't wanna erase other aliens - and when I listen to the council and thier... ignorance and thier feeling of superiority, I can undestand TIM and his point of view.

Im definitly a Cerberus Pro, and will do what's possible to save what's left of indoctrinated Cerberus in ME3.

[msantos]

GodWood wrote...

msantos wrote...
  ... perhaps these folks would like to show Bioware and the rest of us how it is truly done?

They often do.

Yes? Would you have an example of this to share with us?

Anyone can claim anything, but in the end we are what we do and our deeds speak for who and what we are.  
The hard work and talent of many at Bioware translates into enjoyment for the numerous fans of the series and for the most part, whatever BioWare does - despite the occasional less than perfect twists and resolutions - has earned the attention and gratitude of many.

On the same token, I can't yet see anyone calling out BioWare on "bad writing" on their OWN IP, demonstrate with an alternative/competing IP and talent that shows us how it is done.   Heck, what kind of background and talent do these critics have that could lend them any creditbility to the claims of "bad writing"? 
All I see is the claim being made because quite clearly they do not agree with BioWare plot decisions, and yet they stubbornly ignore the fact that such disagreement does not apply to other fans who often exercise different views and principles. 

Cheers

[Someone With Mass]

msantos wrote...
Yes? Would you have an example of this to share with us?

Anyone can claim anything, but in the end we are what we do and our deeds speak for who and what we are.  
The hard work and talent of many at Bioware translates into enjoyment for the numerous fans of the series and for the most part, whatever BioWare does - despite the occasional less than perfect twists and resolutions - has earned the attention and gratitude of many.

On the same token, I can't yet see anyone calling out BioWare on "bad writing" on their OWN IP, demonstrate with an alternative/competing IP and talent that shows us how it is done.   Heck, what kind of background and talent do these critics have that could lend them any creditbility to the claims of "bad writing"? 
All I see is the claim being made because quite clearly they do not agree with BioWare plot decisions, and yet they stubbornly ignore the fact that such disagreement does not apply to other fans who often exercise different views and principles. 

Cheers

Well put.

[Goneaviking]

HiroVoid wrote...

When has Cerberus ever said they want to kill and oppress the other species?

You expect a group with those kind of inclinations to put them on their company letterhead? 

Actions speak louder than words and documents recovered from the Shadowbroker's base reveal Cerberus' activities to have been consistently aggressive toward other races and inordinately brutal toward their own. To the point of murdering and replacing important human politicians and religious leaders.

If they're willing to go so far to ensure their control over their own kind, it's hard to imagine this humancentric group behaving in a more benevolent fashion toward other species.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, unless you've a passing familiarity with the Cold War.

Oppressing other groups yourself is so passe. It's much easier (and more effective) to install someone you support, and then let them deal with their populace as they please. If they oppress their own people... sure. If they don't, even better. Occupying people is hard, after all.

But small-scale crimes towards a goal doesn't imply the desire for wide-spread crimes at the end result.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 novembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[Dean_the_Young]

msantos wrote...

GodWood wrote...

msantos wrote...
  ... perhaps these folks would like to show Bioware and the rest of us how it is truly done?

They often do.

Yes? Would you have an example of this to share with us?

Which field would you like? 

Would you like the ME1 backstory? The poor structure and highly uneven execution of the ME1 story choices as they carried over to ME2? The lack of relevance most of the character missions had to any aspect of the underlying plot of ME2, the Collectors? The lack of Terminus setting development compared to what ME1 implied? The rather underwhelming execution of the Batarians, despite plenty of options to make them significant? The hackneyed attempts at stirring emotional responses with the unnecessary subtlety of a sledgehammer, such as with Morinth, or the pointless-cruelty of Cerberus projects that exist for no purpose other than to horrify us (David being stabbed and hung up in the air, rather than laying on a table)? 

Anyone can claim anything, but in the end we are what we do and our deeds speak for who and what we are.  
The hard work and talent of many at Bioware translates into enjoyment for the numerous fans of the series and for the most part, whatever BioWare does - despite the occasional less than perfect twists and resolutions - has earned the attention and gratitude of many.

And so... what? They did they best they could do? Or they did the best that could be done?

The US military is a very large, exceptionally prestigious organization in its own right. It has done great things, and one of the most powerful parts of the organization is its institutionalized ability to learn from its own mistakes and failings. But ask anyone in the military, and they'll be quick to tell you how many stupid things it can do. A good reputation doesn't mean uniformly good execution.

Even DA2 had plenty of fans.

On the same token, I can't yet see anyone calling out BioWare on "bad writing" on their OWN IP, demonstrate with an alternative/competing IP and talent that shows us how it is done.   Heck, what kind of background and talent do these critics have that could lend them any creditbility to the claims of "bad writing"?

By this standard, the only people who can give any judgement are people with their own IP.

Either you have no basis to give any evaluation of Mass Effect if you aren't a multi-million corporation... or the ability to recognize and understand the strengths (and failings) of narratives and story telling comes from something other than possession.

Just to underline why that sort of argument is ridiculous, what sort of background and talent do you have to say Mass Effect is good writing?

All I see is the claim being made because quite clearly they do not agree with BioWare plot decisions, and yet they stubbornly ignore the fact that such disagreement does not apply to other fans who often exercise different views and principles.

Does not apply, or simply do not care?

Not everyone cares about quality, even if they can recognize a difference. Does that mean it doesn't apply? If it does not apply, does that mean it does not exist?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 novembre 2011 - 02:10 .

[Goneaviking]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Well, unless you've a passing familiarity with the Cold War.

Oppressing other groups yourself is so passe. It's much easier (and more effective) to install someone you support, and then let them deal with their populace as they please. If they oppress their own people... sure. If they don't, even better. Occupying people is hard, after all.

But small-scale crimes towards a goal doesn't imply the desire for wide-spread crimes at the end result.

I agree.

Though if those initial crimes are done in service to a vaguely defined ideology generally understood, even by their recruitment base, as being aligned with bigotry (if not necessarily being synonymous with it) then it shouldn't be immediately discounted as a potential outcome should they come to power.

Generally I wouldn't expect an organisation with those leanings to advertise them if they think it will hinder their objectives, or to shrink from making use of individuals or groups that they dislike when it serves their ends.

[sponge56]

Nethershadow wrote...


If you are looking to debate the validity of Cerberus's existance then maybe you should just label this thread as such instead of just putting down a bunch of your opinions and totting them as fact. All i see here is a thread seeking validation for a point of view that can't possibly be wrong.

Because doing so allows a position which other people can counter.  Agreed it sounds like im stating this as fact (which I think I am, seeming as the idea that every opinion is a right opinion is frankly wrong) but this allows people to possibly debate more strongly than if the title simply stated 'Can Cerberus be defended?'

[Dean_the_Young]

Goneaviking wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Well, unless you've a passing familiarity with the Cold War.

Oppressing other groups yourself is so passe. It's much easier (and more effective) to install someone you support, and then let them deal with their populace as they please. If they oppress their own people... sure. If they don't, even better. Occupying people is hard, after all.

But small-scale crimes towards a goal doesn't imply the desire for wide-spread crimes at the end result.

I agree.

Though if those initial crimes are done in service to a vaguely defined ideology generally understood, even by their recruitment base, as being aligned with bigotry (if not necessarily being synonymous with it) then it shouldn't be immediately discounted as a potential outcome should they come to power.

Why would you assassinate your own patsy? 

Yes, I understand what you intended to mean, just couldn't resist. Crimes of various sorts would continue. I mean, imagine: if Cerberus controlled the galaxy, the Illusive Man might make a system in which hand-picked agents had total legal and moral unccountability to maintain his power, never disciplining them unless political expediancy demanded it. And Cerberus would so play god with other species, studying bioweapons to be used against them or attempting to make proxy species to secure its influence and stability. And it would have a military that might not recognize the concept of 'civilians on the battlefield' when it engages in operations of overwhelming force, stopping only when the other species has been bombed back into the stone age and be assimilated as a part of the ruling structure.

Sorry, couldn't resist again.

Generally I wouldn't expect an organisation with those leanings to advertise them if they think it will hinder their objectives, or to shrink from making use of individuals or groups that they dislike when it serves their ends.

Sure, but there's 'when it serves our ends', and then there's the argument of 'when they get power, they're going to do this to EVERYONE!'

Which is what a lot of people do argue. If you aren't one of them, I apologize for any implication that you were.

[msantos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Just to underline why that sort of argument is ridiculous, what sort of background and talent do you have to say Mass Effect is good writing?

 

I and others who reject the claims of "bad writing" never stated, - ever - that it was inherently "good writing".  Such assumption is predicted on extremes that are neither reasonable nor accurate and nobody has given you a clear indication of such - explicit or even implied.

Without disclosing background and experiences in this kind of forum setting, I would prefer to join the broader opinion base in that BioWare will continue to get our nod and $$$ as we vote with our wallets for as long as they continue to meet our plot and quality expections. On the other hand, if BioWare were to exhibit significant loss in these and other areas then we have the prerogative and right to widthdraw our support through our power as consumers.

Dean_the_Young wrote... 
Does not apply, or simply do not care?

 

To some it definitely does not apply. And to others: it is conceivablte they just don't care. Neither is invisible nor negligible and without voice.

I agree with and even expect BioWare's general plot directions because quite frankly, they line up well with how I think and I interpret things in life.  Many folks in this and other forums can vouch for the same and we all have different talents and backgrounds.  Depending on how our own personal moral compasses are tuned, some will often see Cerberus as a mostly villaineous faction as that is how Bioware had them tagged from the very beginning.  

This is not to say Cerberus cannot do a few good things now and then - as it is the case for any past or contemporary predominatly "evil" organization or group -   but regardless of one's stance on the subject, I and others alike fully expect Cerberus to model some of the "worst" qualities human kind has to offer.  Which is undoubtledly, one of the main reasons why Cerberus even exists in the ME series to begin with.  

Conversely, other folks will likely view things differently and their disappointments while understandable, are still not an immediate entitlement for deeming something as "bad writing" simply because one's plot expections were not met.   In the end, the sensible way to voice one's power on the subject is to either vote with our own wallet, or simply show the industry how it is really done. 

Cheers

Modifié par msantos, 20 novembre 2011 - 03:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

msantos wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Just to underline why that sort of argument is ridiculous, what sort of background and talent do you have to say Mass Effect is good writing?

 

I and others who reject the claims of "bad writing" never stated, - ever - that it was inherently "good writing".  Such assumption is predicted on extremes that are neither reasonable nor accurate and nobody has given you a clear indication of such - explicit or even implied.

Without disclosing background and experiences in this kind of forum setting, I would prefer to join the broader opinion base in that BioWare will continue to get our nod and $$$ as we vote with our wallets for as long as they continue to meet our plot and quality expections. On the other hand, if BioWare were to exhibit significant loss in these and other areas then we have the prerogative and right to widthdraw our support through our power as consumers.

I can sum that up for you in four words rather than two paragraphs and much filler:

You have no basis.