214 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

TIM being good or evil is irrelevant actually.

Stalin was "evil". Didn't stop the allies form working with him.

Reapers are a threat to ALL sentient life.
How can Shep demend that other forget their grudges and work together  - how can he makes speeches about unity and cooperation - and then leave out Cerberus (who is willing to work against the reapers) out of it?

The genophage has caused the deaths of million/billions of baby krogans. That's more evil than anything Cerberus did.
The Geth and Quarians have both attempted genocide. Thats more evil than anything Cerberus did.

I had it up to here with these "champion of morality" (Irnoic, given that my prefered RPG class is paladin) and their hypocrisy and double-standards.

Get it trough your thick skulls - you don't hold the moral high-ground. You never did. You never will.

[TMA LIVE]

jreezy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

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.

You make it sound like being morally gray and having reaper tech within you is mutually exclusive.

I'm saying there's a difference between giving a gun to a mad man under mind control of the enemy, and giving a gun to someone who wants to use it for the right reasons, but has to also make sacrifices if the ends justify the means. Or giving power to Mordin compared to giving power to Hilter.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 décembre 2011 - 10:26 .

[TMA LIVE]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

jreezy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

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.

You make it sound like being morally gray and having reaper tech within you is mutually exclusive.

I'm saying there's a difference between giving a gun to a mad man under mind control of the enemy, and giving a gun to someone who wants to use it for the right reasons, but has to also make sacrifices if the ends justify the means. Or giving power to Mordin compared to giving power to Hilter.

Oh look, a Hitler analogy. Godwin's law is proved right again.

Hey, people keep comparing them to the N A Z after reading the spoilers. I hope that isn't the real direction Bioware took.

[Dave of Canada]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Hey, people keep comparing them to the N A Z after reading the spoilers. I hope that isn't the real direction Bioware took.

No no, it's nothing like that.

It's Space ****s.

[Dave of Canada]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

You know, when the word gets starred out, it's a little hard to understand what you mean.

It's not the group you mentioned, it's the space version!

[BlueMagitek]

Do you know about the Emperor's Hands? They're like that, except combined with HYDRA.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

jreezy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

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.

You make it sound like being morally gray and having reaper tech within you is mutually exclusive.

I'm saying there's a difference between giving a gun to a mad man under mind control of the enemy, and giving a gun to someone who wants to use it for the right reasons, but has to also make sacrifices if the ends justify the means. Or giving power to Mordin compared to giving power to Hilter.

Oh look, a Hitler analogy. Godwin's law is proved right again.

To be fair, Bioware themselves already described Cerberus as Space ****s ME2's files, had their actions in ME3 mimic those of ****-Germany's and even unsubtly paralleled TIM to everyone's favorite führer.

At this point you can hardly still blame the fans for all the Godwinning...

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 17 décembre 2011 - 02:23 .

[sevach]

Bioware really went out of their way to tell everyone that Cerberus is nasty and shouldn't be trusted, i mean, they simply hammered the point home with no mercy whatsoever, everything they touch breaks and goes awry...

So it should come as no surprise that they are doing something shifty again right??? Absolutely.
However, siding with Reapers is something that goes against what they were trying to accomplish in ME2 and it does seem out of character.

I feel like the Cerberus choice should've represented something that is evil, but something that the players could ultimately still get onboard with if they so wanted.
Something like the full Renegade ending to ME1 (not the neutral one, that is actually a completely logical choice that the galaxy interpret as evil), at that moment you can choose an absolutely treacherous course of action to put yourself (as a representant of humanity) ahead of the game and in position of power.

Cerberus should've represented a master stroke (of treachery) like that, only even bigger because it's the ending of the series.
Not something stupid like teaming up with the Reapers(???) that the players can't possibly get onboard with...

[Lotion Soronarr]

You Sheppard will like who Bioware tells you he will like. He will do what Bioware decides.

[string3r]

Cerberus is bad and you should feel bad.

[Seboist]

Nightwriter wrote...

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?"

Gears of War is a far more cohesive trilogy than ME where each game is basically a semi-reboot. Gears did a better foreshadowing and buildup of the whole Lambent Locust plotline than ME did with the Shadow Broker, Collectors or Cerberus(both their ME2 and 3 versions).

Pretty comical that a series with a simpler plot and which has roided up gorillas as PCs wipes the floor with this pretentious BW one with irrelevant "choices".

[Exia001]

Seboist wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

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?"

Gears of War is a far more cohesive trilogy than ME where each game is basically a semi-reboot. Gears did a better foreshadowing and buildup of the whole Lambent Locust plotline than ME did with the Shadow Broker, Collectors or Cerberus(both their ME2 and 3 versions).

Pretty comical that a series with a simpler plot and which has roided up gorillas as PCs wipes the floor with this pretentious BW one with irrelevant "choices".

I still don't see why people consider MEs choices "irrelevant "

[mauro2222]

Bleh, I don't see what is to discuss... TIM wants whatever weapon he finds just to be powerful.

[Izhalezan]

Saphra Deden wrote...

sevach wrote...

Bioware really went out of their way to tell everyone that Cerberus is nasty and shouldn't be trusted, i mean, they simply hammered the point home with no mercy whatsoever, everything they touch breaks and goes awry...

Yeah, but it was all shallow. You can't just tell me "These guys are bad/untrustworthy" without demonstrating why that is so.

They burn down space orphanages and kick puppies.

[Nightwriter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

TIM being good or evil is irrelevant actually.

Stalin was "evil". Didn't stop the allies form working with him.

Reapers are a threat to ALL sentient life.
How can Shep demend that other forget their grudges and work together  - how can he makes speeches about unity and cooperation - and then leave out Cerberus (who is willing to work against the reapers) out of it?

The genophage has caused the deaths of million/billions of baby krogans. That's more evil than anything Cerberus did.
The Geth and Quarians have both attempted genocide. Thats more evil than anything Cerberus did.

I had it up to here with these "champion of morality" (Irnoic, given that my prefered RPG class is paladin) and their hypocrisy and double-standards.

Get it trough your thick skulls - you don't hold the moral high-ground. You never did. You never will.

"Is Cerberus good or evil?" and "Is Cerberus necessary?" have always been separate matters of debate, one being somewhat academic, the other being immediate and real, both sometimes overlapping. What's wrong with pondering the former?

And I do not understand this pattern of defending Cerberus by pointing out that the rest of the galaxy isn't eligible for sainthood. Of course it isn't. How does this mitigate Cerberus's crimes? To follow your Stalin example: how do you defend Stalin by pointing out that FDR passed an executive order that authorized the relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps? You act like criticizing Cerberus means the critic is totally naive to the fact that there is other corruption in the universe.

If you're wondering why the same level of moral outrage isn't leveled at the quarians, the geth, or the salarians/turians for their respective "crimes," then my response would be:

a) there is moral outrage for those events
those events happened a long time ago and the reality of them wasn't shoved in our faces
c) bad as they were, they were committed for the sake of self-preservation, self-defense, or galactic peace

Modifié par Nightwriter, 17 décembre 2011 - 05:45 .

[Daidarus]

1, 2, 3, 4, I declare Flame War.

[Nightwriter]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

You act like criticizing Cerberus means the critic is totally naive to the fact that there is other corruption in the universe.

I think the motivation to do this is to put Cerberus in the right context.

And how does this context affect the way in which you think Cerberus should be regarded?