1381 réponses à ce sujet

[msantos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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

You have no basis.

Let me help by more adequately rephrasing your attempt at dismissing and disqualifying an alternate interpretation with such an exiting summary.

In your view, I and others who see differently have "no basis".  
Obviously we vehemently (but respectfully) disagree and regard your interpretation equally as baseless .  


Cheers

[Goneaviking]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

My thinking is more along the lines that there's sufficient evidence produced within the games to have serious reservations about the underlying morality of the organisation, and the inherent secrecy of the group makes it hard to judge objectively what their long term agenda is.

What I've seen in game (and I haven't read the comics or novels) seems to take aspects of groups that I'm generally inclined to distrust, or even abhor.

That said, there are decisions being made by the organisation's leadership that I find difficult to fit within my limited view of the group. That 'the Illusive Man' refused to allow Miranda to insert some kind of control mechanism into Shepherd's body doesn't sit comfortably with the belief that he's a megalomaniac for example, and the decision to put the group logo on both the uniform's of the ship's crew and it's outer hull itself seem inexplicable to me given the apparent secrecy of the organisation.

Although the actions of the group that I'm aware of, outside of the Lazarus and Normandy projects and their efforts against the Reapers, are sufficiently abrasive that I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, there are enough mixed signals being sent that I'm going to refrain from final judgement until I've actually played ME3 and seen the endgame.

[Dean_the_Young]

msantos wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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

You have no basis.

Let me help by more adequately rephrasing your attempt at dismissing and disqualifying an alternate interpretation with such an exiting summary.

In your view, I and others who see differently have "no basis".  
Obviously we vehemently (but respectfully) disagree and regard your interpretation equally as baseless .  


Cheers

No, you pretty much disclaimed all basis for evaluation of quality. I can just say it in fewer words than you.

[Dean_the_Young]

Goneaviking wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

My thinking is more along the lines that there's sufficient evidence produced within the games to have serious reservations about the underlying morality of the organisation, and the inherent secrecy of the group makes it hard to judge objectively what their long term agenda is.

The thing that many people like myself point out is that of the sanctioned projects being executed, very few of them differentiate themselves in any significant manner from what other species actively, and sometimes openly, pursue and perform. Nearly every avenue of protest against Cerberus is surpassed in scale by the Council system.

The Council carte blanche legalizes unethical sciences and economics at 'wink wink nod nod not technically Citadel space' worlds like Noveria and Illium. Their problem with the Rachni and Thorian experiments wasn't that they occured, but that they (the Council) weren't informed. Slavery and the drug trade are de facto legalized through the Illium markets.

Assassinations? This isn't some unheard thing. Even the Hanar do it, and their representative is lionized for it.

Bioweapons designed for and used against particular species, and their retributive use against civilian populations who have never been alive during the war? The Salarians wear the genophage as a matter of pride. Conduct in warfare against enemy populations and subsequent annexation and assimilation? Turian standard policy. Pursuit of economic and technological dominance? The Asari, especially if you know a certain ME3 spoiler.

Institutional specism in the galactic order in the name of its own interests? We have people on these boards who defend the properness of it, with an effective caste system of opportunities and privilages determined by birth... except, of course, when it's Humans.

But the cherry on top is that pretty much everything Cerberus has ever done would be minor if it were done by those truest guardians of the multi-racial galaxy, the Spectres. It would be legal, and not outside the norm for racists, assassins, cruealty and corruption that people hate Cerberus for.


I don't feel anyone can honestly doubt Cerberus on the basis of moral comparisons to the alternatives.

[Goneaviking]

Well yeah; my dislike for Cerberus is based on it's actions to within game, the sentiments associated with the group by in-game sources and the unconscious associations I make with their activities and politics.

Comparative to other groups? I just don't believe that the bad behaviour of others is a valid excuse for bad behaviour perpetrated by myself and those who take it upon themselves to represent me.

Yes, the Council has it's hands right down inside that moral toilet what with that whole genophage thing, and the Spectres strike me as the biggest threat to the rule of law in council space. It's hard to feel sympathy for the (old school) Rachni given that they attacked out of nowhere and were apparently intent on the extermination of all other species, and the Batarian's isolated themselves with millenia of aggression well before they withdrew from the Citadel and started a proxy war against humanity.

But the mere fact that other races are as bad, and in some cases worse, doesn't serve as a panacea to cure Cerebus and it's sympathisers within the Alliance of guilt for their actions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Goneaviking wrote...

Well yeah; my dislike for Cerberus is based on it's actions to within game, the sentiments associated with the group by in-game sources and the unconscious associations I make with their activities and politics.

Comparative to other groups? I just don't believe that the bad behaviour of others is a valid excuse for bad behaviour perpetrated by myself and those who take it upon themselves to represent me.


But the mere fact that other races are as bad, and in some cases
worse, doesn't serve as a panacea to cure Cerebus and it's sympathisers
within the Alliance of guilt for their actions.

It's not a pardon for, but rather that it's not an invalidator in and of itself unless it's also applied to others as well. If one goes by the morality of 'I won't tolerate anyone who conducts political murder...' then they should also hold that against the Council: among Tela Vasir's first introduction in Cerberus Daily News, for example, was that the Council sent her to knock out the ME-equivalent of wikileaks. Some were killed, some were arrested. What was their crime? Embarassing the Council by leaking true (and less optimistic) economic statistics.


I fully applaud people who don't tolerate Cerberus because they demand everyone rise above the galactic status quo. But people who blast Cerberus while clinging to the Council status-quo are embracing a double-standard of major proportions... all the more so because one group has effects of galactic scale, and until ME2/3 the other did not.

[Lotion Soronarr]

sponge56 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...


Bioware is fallible just like anyone else.

However, it is Bioware's creation.  Although you may not like what they do with Cerberus because it does not go with your pre-conceptions of what Cerberus is and should do, you should at least accept the fact that they have had this story planned out and Cerberus was always going to be like this

Tehy didn't have the story planned out.

If they did, it wouldn't be this poory put together.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sajuro wrote...
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.

Since when does Cerberus wants to kill off and opress other species???

[Lotion Soronarr]

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?

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

Weather it's their IP or not is irrelevant.
A badly written book is a badly written book, regardles who holds the IP.
Biowares writing has been in decline (or so it seems).

As to what defines bad writing - it's not that hard to grasp. Look it up.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Goneaviking wrote...

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.

Being agressive does not mean you want to kill off everyone. So you're full of it.

Dominate does not equal subjugate/extermiante

Cerberus actions do speak louder than words - they don't go off killing aliens. Didn't they implat their own pope because the current one was agressive towards Salarians? That eased the tention and avoide a potential conflict.
Cerberus doesn't want to go to war agaisnt everyone, they want to be the strongest so no one would even think of goign to war agaisnt humanity.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I reply in order as I catch up. ..since I usually don't visit BSN over the weekend.

Problem?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

sponge56 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...


Bioware is fallible just like anyone else.

However, it is Bioware's creation.  Although you may not like what they do with Cerberus because it does not go with your pre-conceptions of what Cerberus is and should do, you should at least accept the fact that they have had this story planned out and Cerberus was always going to be like this

Tehy didn't have the story planned out.

If they did, it wouldn't be this poory put together.

Why is it poorly put together that an organisation following a man who had already been influenced by Reapers become indoctrinated? 

[Someone With Mass]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it poorly put together that an organisation following a man who had already been influenced by Reapers become indoctrinated? 

I'd like to know that too.

I mean, God forbids that the Reapers are using one of their most effective weapons to gain control over the organics' assets, right?

[sponge56]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Tehy didn't have the story planned out.

If they did, it wouldn't be this poory put together.

Bioware have stated many times that they have had the basic story outlined from the beginning.  Indeed, one of the alternative plots for ME1 had Cerberus as a main enemy along with Saren, that tell you anything at all??

[Lotion Soronarr]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it poorly put together that an organisation following a man who had already been influenced by Reapers become indoctrinated? 

Well, assuming that is the ONLY problem with the story (and it really, REALLY isn't), the whole way it's told and presented basicly sucks.
ME2's main plot is poorly written. The snippets of ME3 plot hint towards a similar fate.

Bioware have stated many times that they have had the basic story
outlined from the beginning.  Indeed, one of the alternative plots for
ME1 had Cerberus as a main enemy along with Saren, that tell you
anything at all??

@Sponge - that's what they say...That's what they practicly ALWAYS say.
Yet lord knows there's plenty of trilogies that have been "planned fromthe start" that weren't.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, assuming that is the ONLY problem with the story (and it really, REALLY isn't), the whole way it's told and presented basicly sucks.
ME2's main plot is poorly written. The snippets of ME3 plot hint towards a similar fate.

I see that you're still basing your own opinion as a fact. That's cute.

[Kaiser Shepard]

sponge56 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Tehy didn't have the story planned out.

If they did, it wouldn't be this poory put together.

Bioware have stated many times that they have had the basic story outlined from the beginning.  Indeed, one of the alternative plots for ME1 had Cerberus as a main enemy along with Saren, that tell you anything at all??

That tells me they didn't really have anything solid planned from the beginning, or even after ME1, aside from the trilogy ending with a huge decisive battle with the Reapers. ME2's nature shows as much: if the entire trilogy had been planned from the start, that game's story would've felt much more natural, instead of the filler story we were given.

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, assuming that is the ONLY problem with the story (and it really, REALLY isn't), the whole way it's told and presented basicly sucks.
ME2's main plot is poorly written. The snippets of ME3 plot hint towards a similar fate.

I see that you're still basing your own opinion as a fact. That's cute.

I see you're still dismissing everything that doesn't allign with your own opinion. That's sad.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 21 novembre 2011 - 01:26 .

[sponge56]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

That tells me they didn't really have anything solid planned from the beginning, or even after ME1, aside from the trilogy ending with a huge decisive battle with the Reapers. ME2's nature shows as much: if the entire trilogy had been planned from the start, that game's story would've felt much more natural, instead of the filler story we were given.

Well no, it means that Cerberus role in ME1 was lessened to side missions.  They were still enemies in ME1 remember- Cerberus role in ME1 was lessened but they were kept as a massive part in ME2.  I think it was Mac Walters who said that Cerberus pre-planned large role in ME1 would have helped explain their large focus in ME2, but becasue their role was lessened Cerberus being sprung on players in ME2 was more confusing.  And ME2 is filler, as most second parts in the trilogy are.  However I don't want to derail the thread with discussions about whether ME2 was a succesful part of the trilogy or not.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Second parts of trilogies are always filler?

No..
Only when not pre-planned or when badly written.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 novembre 2011 - 01:46 .

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
I see you're still dismissing everything that doesn't allign with your own opinion. That's sad.

I am? That's funny. And here I thought one would simply need a good reason to dismiss the crap people on this forum are saying.

It's hilarious how you believe you know how I think too.

Here's a free tip. Stop taking the opposite side in any conversation I'm part of. It just makes you look pathetic.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 21 novembre 2011 - 01:49 .

[sponge56]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Second parts of trilogies are always filler?

No..
Only when not pre-planned or when badly written.

Trilogy's second parts mainly focus on characterisation and getting closer to the goal.  LOTR, Sam and Frodo still have not reached Mordor, Saruman is dealt with (although this is a side story eg, sauron is still not defeated and is still getting more powerful) and extra characters are introduced which play major roles in the third book/film.  Star Wars, in the Empire Strikes Back the Empire is no where near getting defeated, Luke ends the film worse off than he started, everyone gets screwed over by the Empire- the only thing we learn of is that Darth Vader is Lukes father.  A similar thing happens in ME2.  A major organisation in the series (Cerberus) is explored, we are given new characters and the existing ones (minus the VS) are given more characterisation.  The Collectors are dealt with, but this is only the beginning and the reapers are still arriving, eg) the main bad guys are still bad and far from screwed over.  Also we learn something about the nature of our enemy (what makes up a reaper). 

Obviously not all trilogies work like this, His Dark Materials is a good example of a trilogy which doesn't follow these patterns.  But ME2 is typical in its outlook of a three part act.

edit- although, again, this thread isnt about whether me2 sucked or the nature of trilogies

Modifié par sponge56, 21 novembre 2011 - 02:13 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, assuming that is the ONLY problem with the story (and it really, REALLY isn't), the whole way it's told and presented basicly sucks.
ME2's main plot is poorly written. The snippets of ME3 plot hint towards a similar fate.

I see that you're still basing your own opinion as a fact. That's cute.

At least I have something to base my oppinions on.

But in the "software" and "hardware" sense....

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is it poorly put together that an organisation following a man who had already been influenced by Reapers become indoctrinated? 

Well, assuming that is the ONLY problem with the story (and it really, REALLY isn't), the whole way it's told and presented basicly sucks.
ME2's main plot is poorly written. The snippets of ME3 plot hint towards a similar fate.

So I suppose that because I actually liked the ME2 plot, it invalidates my entire point, since it doesn't align with your's?