320 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Let's take the Illusive Man as an example.  It sounds like Bioware wanted a morally grey character Shepard would team up with in ME2 for this Suicide Mission.  It sounds like proto-TIM was not necessarilly going to be Cerberus.  I dunno, maybe it would have been the Shadow Broker.  Or the batarians, or the geth, or a completely new faction.  But in the end, it was Cerberus.

I thought this happened in pretty much the opposite way. The way I saw it was that they were looking for elements from ME1 that were interesting for the sequel, and Cerberus stood out. But then, how do you use Cerberus? Then you get to wanting a morally grey character, etc.

A lot of morally grey characters turn out to be re-purposed villains.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:38 .

[Blacklash93]

Seboist wrote...

It was obvious BW was just making **** up as they go along and didn't know what they were doing otherwise Cerberus,the Shadow Broker and the Collectors would have received more development in ME1 or LOTSB would have been part of ME2's main story instead of a bunch of irrelevant daddy issues.

We probably wouldn't have things like Cerberus or the Shadow Broker storyline if they decided everything from the start.

[Homey C-Dawg]

Hopefully they don't make it up as they go along in the same way that George Lucas "makes things up as he goes along". The last thing ME3 needs is Ewoks. Imagine an army of volus fighting husks with sticks and rocks.

Actually that sounds kinda funny now that I think about it.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

The problem here is Cerberus already had a history.  They were a rogue Alliance black-ops organization hell-bent on human advancement at any cost.  Problem was, to make TIM at all palatable, they had to turn them into "kinder, gentler Cerberus" the semicompetant mad scientists who treat safety protocols as loose guidelines, wear brightly colored uniforms, and like to put their logo on all their stuff.

This is the danger of not planning ahead.  Depending on the plot point, a skilled writer can fill in the blanks so smoothly you'd never know there was a gap.  Mass Effect 2 was...not so smooth.  I can only hope ME3 smooths things over some.

Actually, that's what I really liked about Cerberus. It's not uncommon in stories for previous knowledge to be invalidated, due to lack of information at the time it is given. With Cerberus, we had only ever been given one side to the story, provided by the Alliance military. And the other side was ultimately filled in. As was the case with the Genophage Research, Quarian-Geth conflict, and the Reapers' existence as partial organics. I don't consider these plot points to be any worse than Vader's "I am your father" contradicting Obi-Wan's previous assertion that Vader had murdered Luke's father.

Ultimately, any writer in changing a story's dynamic runs the risk of someone saying "it's a retcon" or saying "wow, that was really well done".

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:53 .

[Capeo]

One only needs to read the script for ME3 to realize they had no clue at all, until writing ME3, how the Reapers could be defeated. That should have been the first thing they figured out so there would be some kind of precedent in the first two games that would at least make some sense.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
Actually, that's what I really liked about Cerberus. It's not uncommon in stories for previous knowledge to be invalidated, due to lack of information at the time it is given. With Cerberus, we had only ever been given one side to the story, provided by the Alliance military. And the other side was ultimately filled in. As was the case with the Genophage Research, Quarian-Geth conflict, and the Reapers' existence as partial organics. I don't consider these plot points to be any worse than Vader's "I am your father" contradicting Obi-Wan's previous assertion that Vader had murdered Luke's father.

Ultimately, any writer in changing a story's dynamic runs the risk of someone saying "it's a retcon" or saying "wow, that was really well done".

It's not uncommon for stories to expand on previous knowledge and give them context.  It's a bit less common for (good) stories to do a complete abvout face without a boatload of development to go with it.

In the case of Cerberus, we didn't get that.  We have a secretive organization, with gold and white uniforms and promiinent logos.  We got atrocities like Akuze and Admiral Kahoku  laid out alongside Cerberus members like Kelly Chambers, Rupert, Kenneth and Gabby. We have EDI talking about The Illusive Man keeping personal tabs on all projects, yet reports of projects like Overlord and Teltin "going rogue"  

Where's the context?  How do the different sides fit in?  How do you resolve the paradox?

That's the danger of filling in gaps as you go along.  In the end, what fits?

And Cerberus is only one aspect.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

It's not uncommon for stories to expand on previous knowledge and give them context.  It's a bit less common for  stories to do a complete abvout face without a boatload of development to go with it.

The two are one in the same, as I see it. Previous knowledge is development. The "boatload of development" simply amounted to establishing Cerberus as a morally questionable organization, which was retained in Mass Effect 2. TIM was by no means a good guy, but the developers did manage to give Cerberus a face, as opposed to the vague/weak attempt at establishing them as a take over the world type organization in ME1, which was (thankfully) expanded. Cerberus is far from  a morally good organization, but the goal of ME2 was simply to provide enough doubt to portray them as being completely evil, while still leaving room for the player to scoff.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:21 .

[Xivai]

Everyone who is complaining should shut the **** up and try write a short story. Even just 20 pages long, go right now start it. Just right about anything. See how you create. It wont take too long as long as you don't edit as you go. Pretend you have a deadline, you have to get a story out by the end of the day. 20 pages isn't all that hard.

Let's see you form the bestest and perfectest story ever in only a single draft. All in one go, with no editing at all. And 100% knowing whats going to happen.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nizzemancer wrote...

What's wrong with that? When I wrote Fanfiction I did my best work by making it up as I went along then refining it to remove plotholes and such. I only had the start and the goal figured out from the start.

As long as your start and goal were more than "hero is an orphan from this town" and "heroe defeats big bad"...

[drgSebi]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Prince Keldar wrote...

Isn't that how most things are. You create a generic plotline and then as you continue to work it out other ideas come in and things change.

I am not sure if you are posting this as a way of saying "hey look what I found" or "THOSE BASTARDS!!" So are you bashing them or not??

he's making it up as the topic goes along:lol:

HAHAH! GOOD ONE!

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's not uncommon for stories to expand on previous knowledge and give them context.  It's a bit less common for  stories to do a complete abvout face without a boatload of development to go with it.

The two are one in the same, as I see it. Previous knowledge is development. The "boatload of development" simply amounted to establishing Cerberus as a morally questionable organization, which was retained in Mass Effect 2. TIM was by no means a good guy, but the developers did manage to give Cerberus a face, as opposed to the vague/weak attempt at establishing them as a take over the world type organization in ME1, which was (thankfully) expanded. Cerberus is far from  a morally good organization, but the goal of ME2 was simply to provide enough doubt to portray them as being completely evil, while still leaving room for the player to scoff.  

Ah, but you see, ME1 Cerberus was a "take over the world"  organization.  Even if ti didn't have a face.  You get to see firsthand the atrocities committed in the name of human advancement.  

IMO development into a "morally gray" area would have consisted of more "yes we did these things, but it was necessary" explanation than the far more common "Oops" explanation.  Overlord kinda had that, what with the fear of a repeat of the geth invasion.  But the others? 

 How is ME1 Cerberus resolved into ME2's?  I'll leave ME3 off the table for now, though I find threads asking "why is Cerberus the bad guy now?" kinda funny after replaying ME1 yet again.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Ah, but you see, ME1 Cerberus was a "take over the world"  organization.  Even if ti didn't have a face.  You get to see firsthand the atrocities committed in the name of human advancement.  

But that needs to be taken into context of the earlier point; based on ME1's limited information, we perceived Cerberus as being a take over the world type organization, much like how Mass Effect 1 presents the Genophage as a form of galactic genocide. Plot twists function much the same way. In Episode IV (and most of V), Darth Vader murdered Luke's father. And then that changed. I'm suggesting that Cerberus in their previous capacity was far less interesting than they are now.

IMO development into a "morally gray" area would have consisted of more "yes we did these things, but it was necessary" explanation than the far more common "Oops" explanation.  Overlord kinda had that, what with the fear of a repeat of the geth invasion.  But the others? 

See, that was why I liked the ME2 approach. Rather than even admit to it, TIM essentially gives the politician answer : "They all went rogue". And there's just enough information to point us in both directions (Overlord vs. Jack's loyalty mission). Did those various projects really go rogue? Sure, TIM says so, but much like before, we need to be careful with any source of information.

 How is ME1 Cerberus resolved into ME2's?  I'll leave ME3 off the table for now, though I find threads asking "why is Cerberus the bad guy now?" kinda funny after replaying ME1 yet again.

It certainly is, and admittedly that's one area where I'm worried. I liked ME2 Cerberus with the back and forth existence as Shepard's allies, but far from good guys. My ultimate perception of Cerberus in ME3 will be largely dependent on whether Bioware performs character assassination on TIM. I'm hoping that his motivation for aiding the Reapers is somewhat more complicated than "indoctrinated".

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 janvier 2012 - 11:05 .

[MAZ77]

Il Divo wrote...

It certainly is, and admittedly that's one area where I'm worried. I liked ME2 Cerberus with the back and forth existence as Shepard's allies, but far from good guys. My ultimate perception of Cerberus in ME3 will be largely dependent on whether Bioware performs character assassination on TIM. I'm hoping that his motivation for aiding the Reapers is somewhat more complicated than "indoctrinated".

TIM will pull yet another U-turn and become comic-book-evil again. I am not going to spoil more than that, but the spoiler files left a very bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the handling of TIM. No, I don't want TIM as a nice guy, I want him as a "grey" guy.

[Il Divo]

MAZ77 wrote...

TIM will pull yet another U-turn and become comic-book-evil again. I am not going to spoil more than that, but the spoiler files left a very bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the handling of TIM. No, I don't want TIM as a nice guy, I want him as a "grey" guy.

So it's character assassination then. Wonderful.

[Darth Death]

Capeo wrote...

One only needs to read the script for ME3 to realize they had no clue at all, until writing ME3, how the Reapers could be defeated. That should have been the first thing they figured out so there would be some kind of precedent in the first two games that would at least make some sense.

Yeah, this is always how I felt too. Always made me wonder what was stopping shep from doing this in ME2... Oh wait, the collector threat. *sigh*

[DiebytheSword]

Continuity is critical, but you are always going to make it up a bit as you go along. The problem is minding the continuity when you tweak what you have.

[Ice Cold J]

jreezy wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

Depends. If they made it up right after they finished 2, I'm fine.

If they were making it up, say, a MONTH ago...

If they did that the game wouldn't be coming out when it is now would it?

Seems to me it was originally slated to be released last December, so...

[Ice Cold J]

Seboist wrote...

It was obvious BW was just making **** up as they go along and didn't know what they were doing otherwise Cerberus,the Shadow Broker and the Collectors would have received more development in ME1 or LOTSB would have been part of ME2's main story instead of a bunch of irrelevant daddy issues.

Huh?

[Seboist]

Ice Cold J wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It was obvious BW was just making **** up as they go along and didn't know what they were doing otherwise Cerberus,the Shadow Broker and the Collectors would have received more development in ME1 or LOTSB would have been part of ME2's main story instead of a bunch of irrelevant daddy issues.

Huh?

The "loyalty missions". Apparently trying to find some guy's lost father(Jacob) is more important than taking down the Shadow Broker who's collaborating with a Reaper proxy.

[Seboist]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's not uncommon for stories to expand on previous knowledge and give them context.  It's a bit less common for  stories to do a complete abvout face without a boatload of development to go with it.

The two are one in the same, as I see it. Previous knowledge is development. The "boatload of development" simply amounted to establishing Cerberus as a morally questionable organization, which was retained in Mass Effect 2. TIM was by no means a good guy, but the developers did manage to give Cerberus a face, as opposed to the vague/weak attempt at establishing them as a take over the world type organization in ME1, which was (thankfully) expanded. Cerberus is far from  a morally good organization, but the goal of ME2 was simply to provide enough doubt to portray them as being completely evil, while still leaving room for the player to scoff.  

Ah, but you see, ME1 Cerberus was a "take over the world"  organization.  Even if ti didn't have a face.  You get to see firsthand the atrocities committed in the name of human advancement.  

IMO development into a "morally gray" area would have consisted of more "yes we did these things, but it was necessary" explanation than the far more common "Oops" explanation.  Overlord kinda had that, what with the fear of a repeat of the geth invasion.  But the others? 

 How is ME1 Cerberus resolved into ME2's?  I'll leave ME3 off the table for now, though I find threads asking "why is Cerberus the bad guy now?" kinda funny after replaying ME1 yet again.

It was never stated what ME1 Cerberus' intention was. They were an Alliance black op that went rogue and did unethical projects in pursuit of a "super soldier".... that was it.

All mentions of "Cerberus" could have been replaced by "Exogeni" or "Binary Helix" and the story(such as it was) would have remained the same.

[KotorEffect3]

Seboist wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It was obvious BW was just making **** up as they go along and didn't know what they were doing otherwise Cerberus,the Shadow Broker and the Collectors would have received more development in ME1 or LOTSB would have been part of ME2's main story instead of a bunch of irrelevant daddy issues.

Huh?

The "loyalty missions". Apparently trying to find some guy's lost father(Jacob) is more important than taking down the Shadow Broker who's collaborating with a Reaper proxy.

But you take down the SB anyway so what's the problem?  And not all of the LMs were irrelevant to overall arc of the trilogy.

[Seboist]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It was obvious BW was just making **** up as they go along and didn't know what they were doing otherwise Cerberus,the Shadow Broker and the Collectors would have received more development in ME1 or LOTSB would have been part of ME2's main story instead of a bunch of irrelevant daddy issues.

Huh?

The "loyalty missions". Apparently trying to find some guy's lost father(Jacob) is more important than taking down the Shadow Broker who's collaborating with a Reaper proxy.

But you take down the SB anyway so what's the problem?  And not all of the LMs were irrelevant to overall arc of the trilogy.

The "problem" is that I have fork over extra cash for something that would have been better if it was properly integrated from the get-go.

And from seeing the spoilers "irrelevent" aptly describes all loyalty missions.

[Archer Two Four]

A lot of video games work this way. They tend to start off with the concept for gameplay, then the story and stuff forms around the gameplay mechanics. It's not unusual

[KotorEffect3]

Seboist wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It was obvious BW was just making **** up as they go along and didn't know what they were doing otherwise Cerberus,the Shadow Broker and the Collectors would have received more development in ME1 or LOTSB would have been part of ME2's main story instead of a bunch of irrelevant daddy issues.

Huh?

The "loyalty missions". Apparently trying to find some guy's lost father(Jacob) is more important than taking down the Shadow Broker who's collaborating with a Reaper proxy.

But you take down the SB anyway so what's the problem?  And not all of the LMs were irrelevant to overall arc of the trilogy.

The "problem" is that I have fork over extra cash for something that would have been better if it was properly integrated from the get-go.

And from seeing the spoilers "irrelevent" aptly describes all loyalty missions.

Incorrect and you had better not be posting any damn spoilers here.  I know how you haters operate.