214 réponses à ce sujet

[Tthane]

Put spoiler in the Fing title of this thread

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
But seriously, it's a very large plot hole at this point without an explaination of what happened between ME2 and 3.  Nothing explains anything at this point regarding Cerberus and Shepard being enemies for pro-Cerberus or Base-keeping Shepards.

The only consistent angle is the Paragon ending (surprise surprise) where Shepard is told at the offset that Cerberus would be after him in ME3.  No other ending ties as smoothly into the next game as the Paragon ending.  So at this point, it's simply more Paragon favoritism... what else can be said?

Given some other spoilers and how some dicision tend to turn out with exactly teh same result as a ME2 Paragon choice even for renegades....

Nothing makes much sense anymore..

And TIM is the new Saren. Complete with the same ending.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 décembre 2011 - 01:14 .

[AlexXIV]

Guys what about not using spoiler information in discussions? I don't care how little and vague they are, if everyone spoils a piece I will get the whole picture before march.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 décembre 2011 - 01:37 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Saphra Deden - did it kill you just a little bit inside to agree with me? (I noticed you were forced to put "kinda" - so did Kaiser in another thread - I seem to be winning hearts across the spectrum)

@Mr. Gogeta34: I agree with you about "Pro-Cerberus" Shepards... but not about base keeping Shepards. I'm not going to entertain why - there's a whole other thread on that topic and I don't want this to devolve into a discussion.

Can we please stop with the Paragon favoritism though - it's as if those people who played Paragons asked for special treatment. You (and many other malcontents) are being butthurt about the wrong thing. You attack Paragons for playing the way they want to in an effort to express how frustrated you are that the way you wanted to play seems to have been mauled.

Note: You guys are basing this all off of a leaked script - almost purely speculation. Which surprises me - since "metagaming" is a catch phrase for some of you used to attack others.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:11 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Who the hell blames paragons for playing paragons? On what kind of drugs are you Noxy?
Personally, I am a 80%-90% paragon.

We blame Bioware for poor writing, bad choices and decisions.

And leaked scripts have in 99% cases turend out to be true. Not that it matters anyway, since "metagming" can't be appleid to this thread.
We're not discussin in-game decisions from a in-game POV here.

[Labrev]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I agree with you about "Pro-Cerberus" Shepards... but not about base keeping Shepards. I'm not going to entertain why - there's a whole other thread on that topic and I don't want this to devolve into a discussion.

There's really no such thing as a Pro-Cerberus Shepard in ME2. I once tried to play as one, only to find that it's really not possible. Renegade Shepard's allegience to them is wishy-washy at best. Saying "Cerberus is good" comes out like "I don't like them either, but we're on the same side this time." And at the post-mission debrief w/ TIM, Shepard reiterates his mistrust of him personally and tells him to use the base tech the right way (whether or not the player him/herself was sharp enough to foster the same mistrust towards him is a different story).

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that BW didn't ever want you to think that your partnership with Cerberus was anything more than being short-term/ME2 only (more reason I reject the "fan pandering" argument behind the switch).


And let's be honest, if the end-game decision were kept consistent to all other morality, destroying the base would be the renegade decision. We learned on Mordin's LM that it is not immoral to use data from experiments that were carried out unethically. If anything, it's worse not to use such data because it could save lives, and the victims that died making it will have essentially died for nothing (as Garrus points out at the base as well). On the flip side, the renegade decision on that mission was not to keep the data - reasoning that the krogan are too dangerous and not to be trusted (too dangerous, not to be trusted... sound familiar?).

In the end, it pretty much fits the endgame base scenario to a "t" ... only the morality has been flipped completely. And Shepard, clearly not having learned anything from Mordin, invokes ethics as he destroys it.

[AlexXIV]

The problem is that I have to give the base to Cerberus. If Hackett had called in instead of TIM then I would have given him the base.

[Medhia Nox]

@Hah Yes Reapers: Interesting - I feel that Mordin is an interesting character specifically because his logic has left him with a sour taste in his mouth. He seems like a character who rationalizes all his actions - only to realize that "reason" has produced results he is wondering if he can really live with.

I battle Mordin's philosophy - he seems to concede quite a bit, and I'll never agree with him. The Salarians first failure (ethically and as biologists) was uplifting the Krogan - it just kept escalating from there.

As for Cerberus - many people seem to think that they WERE friends with Cerberus and they DID support Cerberus' goals. So - while neither you nor I felt that way - the message was conveyed to some people. I would suggest that their writing is far too murky - it leaves way too much room to be interpreted - it should be crisp and precise.

====

@Lotion - to answer your first question, I've never even had so much a puff of a cigarette. I even take medicine with reservation (though I am not the type to say that medicine = evil). So - with that question answered.

Whether you intend it or not - any post I've read of yours has been almost solely directed at Paragon decisions. The base is only one example - I understand why you want to keep the base - but anyone who chooses to destroy it is any number of names.

I never see you say something like: "Great, couldn't care less that the Paragons get to blow it up... why don't I get something for keeping it?"

It's always a request to punish Paragons and applaud Renegades (not solely your responses - but others). I think it would be a lot less confrontational on these boards if - like Bioware - people wrote in a less convoluted manner (this would include myself).

[Medhia Nox]

I think TIM should have run the Alliance's covert ops division (or whatever). I believe it's stated that Cerberus 'was' part of the Alliance - shoulda stayed that way.

Even with my suggestion of having Paragon "and" Renegade Alliance paths... the Paragon one could have led to the destruction of Cerberus (in ME 2... ME 3 is no place for petty games) and a more egalitarian Alliance... while the Renegade path led to an empowered Cerberus (and Alliance) and a more totalitarian Alliance.

For me, I think it would have been: ME 1: Introduce Shepard/Conflict - ME 2: In Depth Look at Humanity/Decide Humanities Stance - ME 3: Fight and Defeat the Reapers.

Anyway - it can't be re-written - so there's hardly any point.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 décembre 2011 - 05:43 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Mr. Gogeta34: I agree with you about "Pro-Cerberus" Shepards... but not about base keeping Shepards. I'm not going to entertain why - there's a whole other thread on that topic and I don't want this to devolve into a discussion.

Can we please stop with the Paragon favoritism though - it's as if those people who played Paragons asked for special treatment. You (and many other malcontents) are being butthurt about the wrong thing. You attack Paragons for playing the way they want to in an effort to express how frustrated you are that the way you wanted to play seems to have been mauled.

Note: You guys are basing this all off of a leaked script - almost purely speculation. Which surprises me - since "metagaming" is a catch phrase for some of you used to attack others.

It is what it is... which is Paragon Favoritism by Bioware.  The story is, and has always been, revolving around Paragon decisions.  It has nothing to do with what the player decides... that's not the beef here.  The beef is exclusively on the fact that Bioware favors Paragon decisions and no other choice grants more consistency, content, lives saved, positive praise, or positive results.  Renegade and neutral choices just don't match up in those regards.  That's why I say "Paragon Favoritism" and that's why I'll keep saying it... because as of this moment, it's the 100% truth.

There has not been a single Renegade or neutral choice that has generated superior results to the Paragon alternative.  The story also makes considerably less sense (at this point) with a non-Paragon path.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 16 décembre 2011 - 12:20 .

[TMA LIVE]

I more of just hope Cerberus isn't just clear bad guys like I'm hearing. It would defeat the whole purpose of deciding if you can trust them or not when it comes to the final fight.

When I played ME2's ending, I felt worried over the final choice. On one hand, I agreed with everything TIM said. That the base could have technology or knowledge we might gain if we study it, which could give us an advantage over fighting the Reapers. But on the other hand, it's Cerberus or whoever that's going to get that advantage and knowledge, and use it for future purposes beyond the Reapers. Like making their own Reapers, or indoctrination, or husk Shock Troops. Sure I blew it up because I knew what Cerberus would do with it, but I always figured there would be cost to it. Like possibly losing Earth.

But if Cerberus becomes bad guys anyways, and gain exactly what the base gives them regardless of blowing it up, it makes that choice kind of pointless. The only real advantage is not making Cerberus stronger by blowing it up. Because you can probably gain whatever new stuff they cooked up from their new Omega 4 Relay base. And whatever advantages they could have given you are robbed from you till you take them back. It becomes another "illusion of choice". Where the same thing happens regardless.

It also destroys any debate over "Is the Illusive Man right?". Because if he's just an evil **** like character as I'm hearing he's being described as now, then that debate over "Am I making the right choice?" is thrown out the window.

Whereas if he remained grey as I hope he'll remain (and not be under Reaper control), then you can still debate over "Was it the right choice?". Because it would be a matter of opinion.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:00 .

[Ravensword]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

You know me and other Cerberus fans are sick of seeing threads like this and the other one pop now what is with you pro alliance fan boys not happy with your crying you did during 2 that got ME 3 to be this way so now you still want to discuss this . Oh I know BSN is clearly a alliance fan zone thats fine.

Seriously. You keep popping into discussions, posting pictures and making snide remarks.
That's all I've seen you do for weeks.

Troll.

[Arkitekt]

I agree with Gogeta. Things could have been more epic and awesome if there wasn't this favoritism, if renegades had their shiny moments where it made sense.

Think it all boils down to our own western morality that we have, from jesus to ghandi, and all this stuff about taking the high ground, etc and all the taboo that one would create by admitting that being a bad guy you can also have your own good results. They pictured Shepard as this great guy, and favored this image, and renegade stuff is just an afterthought coz someone in the developing hierarchy said something about "choice" n stuff.

[AlexXIV]

I would make renegade choices where it makes sense. But even the way they are presented just always seem to say 'choose the **** way or the nice guy way'. Sorry but I see no reason to be an ass if I can achieve the same goal being nice. It is not really about 'western morality' even. Unless we assume in other cultures people are ****s for teh lulz.,

[H00plehead]

Actually, I think the real problem is that Bioware likes selling games with "choice and consequence" more than they like making games with "choice and consequence" and thus just chose the most popular player decisions as a base for the direction of the story. More players play paragons and so that's where the story goes. Design by metrics. Western mores only factor in indirectly if it could be said they do at all.

[Arkitekt]

Of course it is about western morality, that's exactly the point. Writers couldn't make themselves write Renegades that were really making hard machiavelic choices that were not "bad" only for the lulz, but actually revealed a deeper "renegade" mentality, and make it work.

Instead we got this stuff that only chooses "tones of conversation". The only great choice we had in this manner was the CB. And even that choice has apparently little effect, which is really disappointing.

Oh well. I guess we'll have to wait some ten years more until someone actually figures out a way of writing the kind of game of hard choices some of us crave for. (I understand it is quite difficult to do).

[H00plehead]

What do you mean the "writers couldn't?" Bioware can't, perhaps, seemingly due to some company culture that inhibits their narratives from ever being more than a cartoonish morality play, but that's on them. They can write whatever they want.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ravensword wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

You know me and other Cerberus fans are sick of seeing threads like this and the other one pop now what is with you pro alliance fan boys not happy with your crying you did during 2 that got ME 3 to be this way so now you still want to discuss this . Oh I know BSN is clearly a alliance fan zone thats fine.

Seriously. You keep popping into discussions, posting pictures and making snide remarks.
That's all I've seen you do for weeks.

Troll.

[Arkitekt]

H00plehead wrote...

What do you mean the "writers couldn't?" Bioware can't, perhaps, seemingly due to some company culture that inhibits their narratives from ever being more than a cartoonish morality play, but that's on them. They can write whatever they want.

So your point is that they can't write whatever they want coz stuff, however they can write whatever they want.

Riiiiiiiight.

[Nightwriter]

TMA LIVE wrote...

I more of just hope Cerberus isn't just clear bad guys like I'm hearing. It would defeat the whole purpose of deciding if you can trust them or not when it comes to the final fight.

When I played ME2's ending, I felt worried over the final choice. On one hand, I agreed with everything TIM said. That the base could have technology or knowledge we might gain if we study it, which could give us an advantage over fighting the Reapers. But on the other hand, it's Cerberus or whoever that's going to get that advantage and knowledge, and use it for future purposes beyond the Reapers. Like making their own Reapers, or indoctrination, or husk Shock Troops. Sure I blew it up because I knew what Cerberus would do with it, but I always figured there would be cost to it. Like possibly losing Earth.

But if Cerberus becomes bad guys anyways, and gain exactly what the base gives them regardless of blowing it up, it makes that choice kind of pointless. The only real advantage is not making Cerberus stronger by blowing it up. Because you can probably gain whatever new stuff they cooked up from their new Omega 4 Relay base. And whatever advantages they could have given you are robbed from you till you take them back. It becomes another "illusion of choice". Where the same thing happens regardless.

It also destroys any debate over "Is the Illusive Man right?". Because if he's just an evil **** like character as I'm hearing he's being described as now, then that debate over "Am I making the right choice?" is thrown out the window.

Whereas if he remained grey as I hope he'll remain (and not be under Reaper control), then you can still debate over "Was it the right choice?". Because it would be a matter of opinion.

Recently I've wondered whether it might help me more to think of the games as three separate but broadly related pieces of work, rather than three trilogy installments. It might keep me from thinking things like, "But won't that make the previous game/choice/event pointless?"

[H00plehead]

Arkitekt wrote...

So your point is that they can't write whatever they want coz stuff, however they can write whatever they want.

Riiiiiiiight.

I was commenting on the peculiarity of Bioware, despite having multiple writing teams filled with different people across different games, never being able to write above a certain level. It must be the result of their selection process or some internal directive about what constitutes a Bioware game because they're all the same. This is, though, an impediment of their own creation. They can write stories with more complex plots and nuanced themes, or any themes, that don't just wholesale grift from their past games or other works of pop fiction.

You, however, were seemingly saying that Bioware can't write more compelling stories because of some contingent of thought police that will punish them for writing something other than a simplistic morality play.

[hmt227]

cerberus will end up being the good guys

[Arkitekt]

H00plehead wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

So your point is that they can't write whatever they want coz stuff, however they can write whatever they want.

Riiiiiiiight.

I was commenting on the peculiarity of Bioware, despite having multiple writing teams filled with different people across different games, never being able to write above a certain level. It must be the result of their selection process or some internal directive about what constitutes a Bioware game because they're all the same. This is, though, an impediment of their own creation. They can write stories with more complex plots and nuanced themes, or any themes, that don't just wholesale grift from their past games or other works of pop fiction.

You, however, were seemingly saying that Bioware can't write more compelling stories because of some contingent of thought police that will punish them for writing something other than a simplistic morality play.

Yes I am, and it's frakkin obvious this is so. Of course, this "thought police" is inside Bioware writers' minds.