214 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

mauro2222 wrote...

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

And you know this.....how exactly?


Tell you wat - Teh Council/Liara/Hackett/Anderson wants whatever you find just to be powerfull.
If you don't need proof, neither do I.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nightwriter wrote...

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?

This is silly question.

One cannot disregard context. No matter what your'e talking about. Context is ALWAYS important.

[mauro2222]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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

And you know this.....how exactly?


Tell you wat - Teh Council/Liara/Hackett/Anderson wants whatever you find just to be powerfull.
If you don't need proof, neither do I.

Why is that? If I disagree with Cerberus it means that I support every other faction?

If you aren't with us you are against us?

[John Renegade]

mauro2222 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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

And you know this.....how exactly?


Tell you wat - Teh Council/Liara/Hackett/Anderson wants whatever you find just to be powerfull.
If you don't need proof, neither do I.

Why is that? If I disagree with Cerberus it means that I support every other faction?

If you aren't with us you are against us?

What does that have to do with anything?

Lotion, taking his hypothetical stance on the Council etc..., demonstrated the way you put forward your own stance - and that was taking something as fact without any proof.

[Nashiktal]

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.

I blame bioware's uneven treatment of cerberus in general for the confused reaction's toward cerberus in general. I am in no place to criticize bioware's method of planning out their story, but it feels like they completely changed how cerberus was meant to be from ME1 to ME2 at the expense of their backstory.

They went from a known alliance black ops organization that went rogue fairly recently, and has committed multiple atrocities in the name of creating a human super soldier...

To the suddenly morally grey organization that was apparently removed (and quietly retconned) out of the alliance and committed acts of human advancement long before the events of ME1, and is more balanced overall. The "new" backstory also makes them appear more competent than they are (even if most of their later works usually "fail" or at least cause reckless easily avoidable damage)

As a result it kinda makes them feel like team rocket of the Mass Effect universe. They appear incompetant, because they have done multiple incompetant things, yet that clashes with their "new" more competant backstory, which yet again clashes with their "current" incompetant actions.

The writing for cerberus is just all over the place.

[John Renegade]

Nashiktal wrote...
I blame bioware's uneven treatment of cerberus in general for the confused reaction's toward cerberus in general. I am in no place to criticize bioware's method of planning out their story, but it feels like they completely changed how cerberus was meant to be from ME1 to ME2 at the expense of their backstory.

They went from a known alliance black ops organization that went rogue fairly recently, and has committed multiple atrocities in the name of creating a human super soldier...

To the suddenly morally grey organization that was apparently removed (and quietly retconned) out of the alliance and committed acts of human advancement long before the events of ME1, and is more balanced overall. The "new" backstory also makes them appear more competent than they are (even if most of their later works usually "fail" or at least cause reckless easily avoidable damage)

As a result it kinda makes them feel like team rocket of the Mass Effect universe. They appear incompetant, because they have done multiple incompetant things, yet that clashes with their "new" more competant backstory, which yet again clashes with their "current" incompetant actions.

The writing for cerberus is just all over the place.

The thing I hate the most, and the biggest issue many fans have with Bioware's portrayal of Cerberus is, that Cerberus is a group with which players can (or at least once could) affiliate on an ideological level. Whether this was intentional or not I don't know, but it was possible (unlike affiliating with batarians). Of course writers acting very surprised over the fact, that someone likes TIM's ideas is probably a big hint towards the not-intentional.

Anyway, as you know, there are certain policies on this forum, like not discussing real world religion, politics etc... Why is that so? It isn't because having a good and civil discussion on those topics would be wrong, but because there is a big probability of offensive arguments breaking out.

And that's the point: The general policy of Bioware seems to (understandably) be, that different opinions and life views shouldn't be offended. Yet, it seems to me as a huge hypocrisy, when Bioware invents a group such as Cerberus, Alliance, the Council, plus various individual characters.... each with their own moral philosophy and world views, and than they proceed to systematically throw dirt at that one particular group (Cerberus) or individuals (Udina, Charles Saracino), while upholding many of the other groups/individuals.

Substitute the groups/individuals with the morals they represent and it almost appears, as if Bioware tries to troll one particular part of their fanbase, or even worse - they are flat out telling them, which morality is the "good one" and which is the "bad one". And I ****ing hate that particular kind of brainwashing. (If it happens to be true, of course.)

Modifié par John Renegade, 17 décembre 2011 - 10:51 .

[mauro2222]

John Renegade wrote...

What does that have to do with anything?

Lotion, taking his hypothetical stance on the Council etc..., demonstrated the way you put forward your own stance - and that was taking something as fact without any proof.

What does that have to do?... Well, everytime that people try to "justify" Cerberus actions they use others as covers, so...

"Against the reapers and beyond" That is all the proof you need. He's living a paranoia. You cannot go and steal all the technology you want and use it because you have it. Mordin explains this very good.

[John Renegade]

mauro2222 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

What does that have to do with anything?

Lotion, taking his hypothetical stance on the Council etc..., demonstrated the way you put forward your own stance - and that was taking something as fact without any proof.

What does that have to do?... Well, everytime that people try to "justify" Cerberus actions they use others as covers, so...

"Against the reapers and beyond" That is all the proof you need. He's living a paranoia. You cannot go and steal all the technology you want and use it because you have it. Mordin explains this very good.

Well, I was fixing the misunderstanding you had with what Lotion said, nothing more.

That said, technology is a way of manipulating matter to do, what you want it to do, through various means. You use technology, when it's useful to use it. Nothing more or less.

Against the Reapers and beyond. That he thought about potential gains in the future didn't affect his decision to want that technology, because he already wanted to use it against the Reapers. And Reapers don't seem like a paranoia to me.

[mauro2222]

John Renegade wrote...

Against the Reapers and beyond. That he thought about potential gains in the future didn't affect his decision to want that technology, because he already wanted to use it against the Reapers. And Reapers don't seem like a paranoia to me.

Yeah, but the problem with him, is that sometimes it's difficult to believe that he sees the Reapers as the major threat instead of all non-human.

[John Renegade]

mauro2222 wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Against the Reapers and beyond. That he thought about potential gains in the future didn't affect his decision to want that technology, because he already wanted to use it against the Reapers. And Reapers don't seem like a paranoia to me.

Yeah, but the problem with him, is that sometimes it's difficult to believe that he sees the Reapers as the major threat instead of all non-human.

Well, he is a rational individual. Which species pose the greatest risk? Which has statistically the longest period of the biggest of galactic-wide genocides on their list?

Also, he wants humanity's survival. To what use would be getting rid of the Reapers, when humanity would be killed shortly afterwards by a much smaller threat? He has the option to prepare for that alternative as well, why not take it?

Modifié par John Renegade, 17 décembre 2011 - 11:21 .

[Seboist]

Exia001 wrote...

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 "

"Choices" that exist in complete vacuums and amount to nothing more than an e-mail or throw away dialogue are by definition "irrelevant".

That you can tell the Quarian admirals to go to war and then turn around and rewrite the Heretics without anybody noticing anything fishy going on shows what a joke the "choices" are.

[Someone With Mass]

Seboist wrote...

That you can tell the Quarian admirals to go to war and then turn around and rewrite the Heretics without anybody noticing anything fishy going on shows what a joke the "choices" are.

If you're honestly expecting them to follow an outsider's small words (a human outsider, at that) at the end of the trial, you're just fooling yourself.

[Seboist]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That you can tell the Quarian admirals to go to war and then turn around and rewrite the Heretics without anybody noticing anything fishy going on shows what a joke the "choices" are.

If you're honestly expecting them to follow an outsider's small words (a human outsider, at that) at the end of the trial, you're just fooling yourself.

[Seboist]

I should also say that it's also possible to tell them  to go to war and then tell Koris to keep fighting for peace or make said recommendation with Legion watching the stands without issue.

[Nashiktal]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

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

Understanding
the context behind Cerberus' actions and existence better enable us to
judge the organization. Just looking at them on their own they can seem
quite monstrous and extreme, but when we compare them to the other
powers in the galaxy they don't stand out much at all.

Nashiktal wrote...

I blame bioware's uneven treatment of cerberus in general for the confused reaction's toward cerberus in general. I am in no place to criticize bioware's method of planning out their story, but it feels like they completely changed how cerberus was meant to be from ME1 to ME2 at the expense of their backstory.

You have as much right and reason to criticize Bioware as anybody. They should be criticized. I think that Bioware did a poor job planning out the trilogy. It is unfortunate because the chance to craft a well thought-out trilogy ahead of time was a golden opportunity. The import system would have benefited from this tremendously and helped elevate Mass Effect farther atop the competition.

Cerberus' portayal in ME2 is so different from their portayal in ME1 precisely because the entire premise of ME2 did not even exist in ME1. They had no idea how they would go forward. In the end they were told simply "Shepard works for the badguys". At that point the badguys could have been anybody. There is a thread around here about the Shadow Broker being the stand-in for Cerberus and I think that might have worked better. In fact, the Illusive Man and the Shadow Broker share a lot of similarities beyond just the names. I think that even in the Redemption comic the Shadow Broker uses an avatar reminiscent of the Illusive Man.

The Collectors as well could have used some sublte foreshadowing or at least a mention in the lore for ME1. I loved the throwback to Klendagon and the "Great Rift" in ME2 because it was exciting to finally learn about one of the mysteries from ME1. Imagine how different it would be if at the start of the game instead of being introduced to a character we never heard of who heads an organization we barely cared about, we instead were told we were going to meet the Shadow Broker?

Another problem with the Collectors is that they are so similar to the geth. The geth might as well have just stayed on as the main baddies of the series. They're a better enemy to fight anyway because both biotics and tech attacks are useful against them. Against organics like the Collectors many tech abilities are rendered a weak, especially A.I. hacking. So for that reason the geth are a better "primary" enemy for the player to fight.

Oh... but we're getting off track here.

Nashiktal wrote...

As a result it kinda makes them feel like team rocket of the Mass Effect universe. They appear incompetant, because they have done multiple incompetant things, yet that clashes with their "new" more competant backstory, which yet again clashes with their "current" incompetant actions.

The writing for cerberus is just all over the place.

Actually I thought Cerberus was more competent in ME1. Back then they only had one foul up and that was the rachni. Not that it was a small foul up by any means. Otherwise they handled themselves just fine except when Shepard kicked in the door.

All in all their portayal in ME1 was more realistic. They had no insignia and the description of their bases and space stations made it clear that Cerberus wanted to keep a low profile. The last thing they'd want is for anybody to recognize them at a glance. In fact if you found the Binthu and Nepheron bases by chance (assuming this was possible) without Kohoku pointing you at them you could wipe those bases out and never know they were Cerberus. You'd never link them to the space station with the rachni. That's how it should be.

ME2 tries to keep this by saying that one Cerberus cell can't recognize another, but this is violated everywhere else in the game. When we see other Cerberus people they are almost always wearing the same colors and insignias as Lazarus (only Dr. Archer and Tyrone Rawlings aren't) and everyone in the galaxy recognizes Cerberus at a glance, or almost everyone.

One wonders why the Blue Suns on Purgatory would even know that Cerberus was buying Jack. Why tell them? It'd make more sense for TIM to just give Shepard the money and say, "You should take these credits and purchase Jack from Purgatory." The last thing Cerberus should want is to announce itself to anyone unless they have no choice.

I agree with pretty much everything you said Saphra, however I should clarify that when I said they made cerberus more competent in ME2, I didn't mean their direct portrayal, I mean the new backstory they were given which indicated they had a long and sucsessful career in shady activities before ME2 itself. Codenames escape me, but there was the program to unlock doors that require I.D.'s, assassination of presidents, popes, etc.

In any case the lost potential is very sad, especially when you see what could have been. But the past is the past.

[DPSSOC]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

For those of you who found your place in the universe after joining Cerberus, how do you feel knowing that the group you once looked up to is now trying to kill you?

Discuss.

Well I feel slightly disappointed and thoroughly screwed.  If the only organization who's been taking the Reapers seriously long enough to actually have some kind of plan has turned on me the galaxy's doomed.

Honestly everyone turns on you.  The Council and Alliance turn on you at the end of ME1, the entirety of ME2, and probably at some point in ME3 for the hat trick.  Cerberus' betrayal is only exceptional in that they've actually been doing something to help up until now.

Exia001 wrote...
I still don't see why people consider MEs choices "irrelevant "

Because they don't effect anything, they can't. If the choices we made had real impact the game would be impossible to balance for different players. So because they need to keep the games balanced the decisions can't have any major impact (even in ME3), hence they are rendered irellevant.

So far there is one choice that I could see as having an actual impact on the game and that's Virmire. Now that's only if Bioware doesn't decide to make Ash into Kaidan or vice versa. If the two remain different classes, with different skill sets, who play and behave differently, that will be the one choice across all the games that was relevant. I do not hold out hope however. I'm thinking both VS options will be given the new Spectre class (as opposed to Soldier and Sentinel) with identical skill sets; they'll either forget about Kaidan's biotics and hope we do to or magically give them to Ash.

[TMA LIVE]

The second I saw the Collectors in ME2, I knew they were throwaway villains. Juts something to shoot at till the Reapers arrive. If Bioware really wanted to make something out of them, they wouldn't have gotten rid of them at the end of ME2.

[Seboist]

It honestly wouldn't be that hard to create actual visible C&C, like I've said before you could take a Geth vs Quarian mission where Shepard could choose sides with the starting location and the enemies s/he fights differing while it being pretty much the same map. BW doesn't even do THAT.

[BellaStrega]

Exia001 wrote...

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

Because renegade Shepard doesn't get enough parades and paragon Shepard's choices are valid within the framework of the story.

People aren't arguing for choice, they want a game where renegade choices are the right choices.

[AlexXIV]

BellaStrega wrote...

Exia001 wrote...

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

Because renegade Shepard doesn't get enough parades and paragon Shepard's choices are valid within the framework of the story.

People aren't arguing for choice, they want a game where renegade choices are the right choices.

Because there should not be right and wrong choices. There should be choices that to lead to different paths, but just making one choice the 'right' and the other the 'wrong' choice means that there is really only one choice, the right one. It's the difference of having the option to solve a problem in different ways, or have only one way to solve it and all other choices leading to failure. And if you connect that to the fact that the 'right' choices are always the 'holier than thou' paragon choices, it is not a big surprise people are at least a bit disappointed. Even paragons like me.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

mauro2222 wrote...

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

Yeah, because no other race, government, or military institution wants weapons for that purpose.  Everyone else wants to admire the artistic design of the weapons only... not a power play for them at all.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

BellaStrega wrote...

Exia001 wrote...

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

Because renegade Shepard doesn't get enough parades and paragon Shepard's choices are valid within the framework of the story.

People aren't arguing for choice, they want a game where renegade choices are the right choices.

Not even that... we want a game where the "right" choice can come from anywhere... not just one source.  Sometimes, in real life, the Jack Bauer approach brings the best results and saves the most lives.  Other times, it doesn't.

The problem with Mass Effect is that it's a rigged game... you already know that the blue button is going to give you the most ideal scenarios and repercussions.  There is no "sacrificing for the greater good."  That's a concept that's thrown around by Bioware that's been completely unnecessary.  Thusfar, making the "ideal" choice has never backfired or come at a greater cost than alternative "tough" choices... invalidating the notion of "tough choices" to begin with.... once you figure that out.