748 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Killing innocents is always immoral,

Good thing Cerberus didn't kill anyone then.

Yes, they did.  Slipping the Collectors information about a colony is tantamount to klling the colony as TIM had no way to know whether or not they would be able to save anyone at all.  Information has killed more people than guns.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:10 .

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

TIM has always played a dangerous game. He's just playing out of his league this time.

Hey, it's your opinion. I'm glad you like the direction they took with ME3. Good for you, you are going to have a fun experience.

Obviously nothing will change your mind.

Blacklash93 wrote...

It doesn't invalidate the Paragon playstyle, just as portraying him as a fatally flawed man doesn't invalidate Renegades.

Right... and where is this coming from anyway? I don't see what this has to do with anything.

On second thought, don't bother answering that question.

I will answer that question. It's coming from how renegades seem to idolize TIM to where they base the validity of the renegade playstyle around him. If TIM isn't right, then renegade isn't. There is favoritism in the leak, but I see a lot of people saying where they took TIM's character is part of that.

I actually have a right to my opinion? That's a bit of a change from outright insulting the writers because you don't agree with them.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:13 .

[AlexXIV]

saturos2 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
No, I'm pretty sure the writers just suck.

After all, they had TIM get indoctrinated.

Sorry but isn't indoctrination one of the risks you take researching Reaper tech? How is that bad writing? Because TIM is that awesome that it couldn't have happened to him?

No, it just takes away from his eistablished character and forces him to be evil of the sake of making cerberus evil in ME3.

Well yes, I agree. I thought you talked about the possibilty of it happening indoctrination was a bad idea from the beginning tbh with Saren. But at least he had enough of his own will to be a tragic figure. It is the same with bloodmagic in DA and what happened to the both main antagonists at the the end. Instead of an enemy with an own motivation and a morale dilemma etc. we get people who are 'possessed' by evil. Not very original indeed. But hey, it's Bioware. One reason I am thinking of not buying Bioware games in the future. Because frankly, they are not for my generation anymore.

[Jackal7713]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I accept TIM's agenda just fine but his way of achieving it in ME3 makes no sense, is counter-intuitive, and is the product of lazy and shallow writing. It is a disservice to his character and to the player.

What doesn't make sense? TIM no longer thinks Sheppard is useful to his goals.  Sheppard was always just a chess piece on the board, to be used and thrown away if necessary.

[NeroSparda]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

What doesn't make sense? TIM no longer thinks Sheppard is useful to his goals.

That's what doesn't make sense.

Remember: Shepard cost an army to produce. So TIM is effectively looking at one half of his own army and saying, "I don't need you."

That's just wasteful.

There is no reason TIM needs to follow the path that he does in ME3. All it does is create needless conflict. The truth is, the only reason it happens is because the developers wanted it that way for whatever reason.

Story is surrendering to game play. That means the writing is going to suffer.

TIM could have achieved his goals in ME3 much more easily and perhaps more dramatically by staying friendly right up until the end.

At that point the player could still be left a choice as well instead of being railroaded.

... For once I agree.

[saturos2]

AlexXIV wrote...

saturos2 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
No, I'm pretty sure the writers just suck.

After all, they had TIM get indoctrinated.

Sorry but isn't indoctrination one of the risks you take researching Reaper tech? How is that bad writing? Because TIM is that awesome that it couldn't have happened to him?

No, it just takes away from his eistablished character and forces him to be evil of the sake of making cerberus evil in ME3.

Well yes, I agree. I thought you talked about the possibilty of it happening indoctrination was a bad idea from the beginning tbh with Saren. But at least he had enough of his own will to be a tragic figure. It is the same with bloodmagic in DA and what happened to the both main antagonists at the the end. Instead of an enemy with an own motivation and a morale dilemma etc. we get people who are 'possessed' by evil. Not very original indeed. But hey, it's Bioware. One reason I am thinking of not buying Bioware games in the future. Because frankly, they are not for my generation anymore.

eh, ME3 will be my last BW game. BW really messed up when they forced us to work with cerberus. they could have done alot better with the plot of ME2. I mean, what was the point of potraying cerberus as grey, when ME3 makes them black? They should have just let us pick to work with either the Alliance or cerberus based on the ending of ME2, and save the bad guy cerberus of another game entirely or they should just leave cerberus as they were portayed in ME2 as a grey moral organization who will do anything for the"greater good" of humanity.

[AlexXIV]

It's because of how indoctrination works. It seems like you cannot resist and that makes it an autowin weapon. It should be that people with high willpower can resist it. Because, simply, if nobody can resist it then why do the Reapers even lose? Because they are too stupid to use their strongest weapon properly. I mean if I had the choice to overcome an enemy by making him my mindslave or open battle then I know what I'd choose.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:21 .

[Ryzaki]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Killing innocents is always immoral,

Good thing Cerberus didn't kill anyone then.

I suppose Admiral Kohaku killed himself then eh? 

[AlexXIV]

Ryzaki wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Killing innocents is always immoral,

Good thing Cerberus didn't kill anyone then.

I suppose Admiral Kohaku killed himself then eh? 

Soldiers ain't innocents.

[Jackal7713]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

I will answer that question. It's coming from how renegades seem to idolize TIM to where they base the validity of the renegade playstyle around him.

Well I've never done that.

The treatment of TIM in ME3 is not why the Renegade playstyle is invalidated. It is a small part, but mostly a separate issue.

The writers do suck. Or whomever made them write it. Casey Hudson, I'm guessing.

It not bad writing at all. Its staying true to the Character. TIM uses whatever he can to complete his goals. If he has to toss Sheppard away to do it, then so be it. That is a true renegade persona. A king never worries about his pawns.

[Blacklash93]

TIM isn't intentionally causing conflict. He just does't need Shepard and tells him to stay out of his way.

That's not going to happen, of course. But what other choice does TIM have? Shepard would turn on him the moment he knew what he was up to.

[ArkkAngel007]

Didn't know TIM doing his own thing and sidelining Shep equaled declaring war on everyone.

Just because someone is an antagonist does not mean they are evil, and the same goes with the decisions made.

[ArkkAngel007]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I suppose Admiral Kohaku killed himself then eh? 

Not what we were talking about; we were discussing Horizon.

Actually, I thought we were talking about Cerberus supposedly being a cliched evil stereotype in ME3.  I figured the Horizon talk was all auxillary.

Btw I kid, though it really is getting a bit ridiculous.  

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:26 .

[Blacklash93]

AlexXIV wrote...
Soldiers ain't innocents.

They're innocent if they did nothing to willingly put themselves in harms way.

But you're probably just going to keep justifying the murder of a man, so go ahead.

[saturos2]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

But what other choice does TIM have? Shepard would turn on him the moment he knew what he was up to.

He works with the Shepard and his grand alliance right up until the end and after they've assembled and gained access to the device which controls the Reapers, after TIM has earned their trust, is when he springs his trap.

The player is then offered a choice: do things TIM way which grants you a dark pro-human ending, at a great cost (say you have to fight and kill your squadmates and the epilogue talks about the suffering of alien species that follows).

Or the player refuses and has hard fight against TIM's troops and a one-on-one against Kai Leng. The ending is pro-everybody.

That's what I'd have done.

best idea ive heard in awhile.

[AlexXIV]

Blacklash93 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Soldiers ain't innocents.

They're innocent if they did nothing to willingly put themselves in harms way.

But you're probably just going to keep justifying the murder of a man, so go ahead.

No I don't justify Cerberus killing Kohaku. But he was a soldier and investigating Cerberus. That means he knew the risks. Soldiers ain't innocents because their job is war. If you choose this proffession you know what you sign for and you can't claim anyone killing you is a murderer. Neither are soldiers who kill other soldiers murderers. It's what happens if people make decisions about their role in life. I don't say it is right to kill soldiers under all circumstances. But it is not killing innocents.

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...
The player is then offered a choice: do things TIM way which grants you a dark pro-human ending, at a great cost (say you have to fight and kill your squadmates and the epilogue talks about the suffering of alien species that follows).

Or the player refuses and has hard fight against TIM's troops and a one-on-one against Kai Leng. The ending is pro-everybody.

So selfishly and needlessly screw everyone but humanity over or save everyone? That doesn't sound anymore morally grey than what Bioware came up with.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's all please remember to keep the hostility to a dull roar, and the inappropriate language out of the discussion.

If you find yourself needing to insult the person you're arguing against, it's time to disengage and reset to your original non-hostile places before continuing. Thank you.