158 réponses à ce sujet

[sonsofanarchy10]

This is interesting, kill off TIM and put someone else like Miranda in charge of Cerberus and use their resources in the fight or destroy them? I liked Cerberus and I would pick to save Cerberus; to Hell with TIM.

Modifié par sonsofanarchy10, 08 février 2012 - 11:40 .

[Blacklash93]

Seboist wrote...
*snip*

Sadly that's probably the only way you can justify people who find these games still enjoyable in your head.

[ediskrad327]

sonsofanarchy10 wrote...

This is interesting, kill off TIM and put someone else like Miranda in charge of Cerberus and use their resources in the fight or destroy them? I liked Cerberus and I would pick to save Cerberus; to Hell with TIM.

seconded

[Adragalus]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
Oh here we go agian.

There vill be no diskussion! Bioware is our Führer!

Ein volk, ein forum, ein opinion!

Heil! 卍

Oh god, my lungs. :')

And so true as well.

Explain to me how Backlash expressing dislike at the start of YET ANOTHER vitrolic and rage-fueled Paragon vs Renegade argument is different from one of you self-righteous prats complaining about complaints or ****ing about "Paragon bias?"

[ediskrad327]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Miranda and Jacob don't have the right mindset to run Cerberus. We need somebody who is practical and ruthless. Miranda is all talk and no bite. Jacob... he is way too soft.

Oleg Petrovsky?

[Adragalus]

ediskrad327 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Miranda and Jacob don't have the right mindset to run Cerberus. We need somebody who is practical and ruthless. Miranda is all talk and no bite. Jacob... he is way too soft.

Oleg Petrovsky?

This.

[DiebytheSword]

I think Cerberus will continue on without TIM, but be a shadow of its former self. As Saph points out, TIM is as important and one of a kind as Shepard is claimed to be. He makes things happen, whether we like those things or not. I'm not sure he could be replaced as easily as the organizations infrastructure.

Additionally, there is no garauntee that a new figurehead would be able to absorb all of TIMs former revenue streams or contacts.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 08 février 2012 - 11:50 .

[Adragalus]

Saphra Deden wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Miranda and Jacob don't have the right mindset to run Cerberus. We need somebody who is practical and ruthless. Miranda is all talk and no bite. Jacob... he is way too soft.

Oleg Petrovsky?

Dunno, haven't read the comics. However nobody who was against saving the Collector base is fit to lead the organization.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Oleg_Petrovsky

Modifié par Adragalus, 08 février 2012 - 11:52 .

[ediskrad327]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Frankly, I don't see why we need a new "Illusive Man" or even any kind of central command for Cerberus. Just a high level group that works with the financial investors and delegates money to each cell leader would be enough. That way there is no way for an enemy to stab Cerberus in the "heart" and "kill it".

It would be less vulnerable that way.

that could work

[sonsofanarchy10]

Miranda can get things up and going for Cerberus revenue and employees wise; with a little help from our new Shadow Broker Liara, and I hope this is the case because I would love that to be part on the end fight with Cerberus by my side.

Modifié par sonsofanarchy10, 08 février 2012 - 11:56 .

[DiebytheSword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Frankly, I don't see why we need a new "Illusive Man" or even any kind of central command for Cerberus. Just a high level group that works with the financial investors and delegates money to each cell leader would be enough. That way there is no way for an enemy to stab Cerberus in the "heart" and "kill it".

It would be less vulnerable that way.

I agree that this is how it should have been set up to start with, but it is not that now.  And the transition from being centrally powered to being truly decentralized might make it rough to rebound from post ME3.

[Medhia Nox]

They need to be re-absorbed back into the Alliance - it gives the Alliance a murkier disposition, and it makes Cerberus seem less like Shredder and The Foot.

[AlexXIV]

They have always been ruthless and taken alot of risks. The stakes were high so they probably thought it is worth risking more. I don't know why so many Cerberus monkeys complain about something that was always likely to happen. I understand if people complain about unused potential. Cerberus could have been used to get an edge and give us a morally grey path to stop the Reapers. But alas what happened is that they screwed up. Which was always and anytime a possibility. Because they researched tech that is beyond the knowledge of basically everyone in the galaxy and they had to do it with next to no time left before it's to late to do anything. Even if Cerberus were the nicest and most considerate people in the world they could have screwed up just the same way, because, frankly, it is always an option. So it happened.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 09 février 2012 - 12:11 .

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

They have always been ruthless and taken alot of risks. The stakes were high so they probably thought it is worth risking more. I don't know why so many Cerberus monkeys complain about something that was always likely to happen.

Some people don't like bad writing.

Well I once got told that I call something 'bad writing' just because I didn't like the way the story goes. And I guess I am not the only one who is disappointed at times if the story is not what I wanted it to be. Though I don't see how it is necessarily bad writing. I am aware you read the script which I didn't. But we can't discuss the script here so that's a point that will have to wait until after release when we all know the full story.

[Dave of Canada]

It cannot, as it's been tainted by poor writing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 février 2012 - 12:21 .

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I once got told that I call something 'bad writing' just because I didn't like the way the story goes.

Well if you fell for that then you are easily manipulated.

Bad writing is bad writing and it should be easy to prove if it is legitimate. It just takes an analysis of the narrative and themes, the structure of the story, ect...

I believe Cerberus being outright antagonists in ME3 is bad writing and bad game design. I've talked about it at length explaining why I feel that way and what a better alternative(s) would be.

Just because a certain 'grey area' group becomes antagonist doesn't qualify for bad writing. It depends how it happens. That's why I say I want to first know what exactly happened to Cerberus. I honestly didn't think they would be important at all for ME3 because they were just sort of a 'filler'. Bioware's story writing isn't really something that ever impressed me much tbh. In none of their games. I really hope it is better than what people who read the script think it will be though.

[Dave of Canada]

AlexXIV wrote...

Just because a certain 'grey area' group becomes antagonist doesn't qualify for bad writing. It depends how it happens.

Which is why I'd say it's poor writing.

Had Cerberus turned antagonist because they found out why Shepard's body was desired by Harbinger and didn't want the Reapers to gain it, you'd still have them be in a position where they'd hold their no-matter-the-cost code while you're fighting them. The average forumite celebrates killing everybody with the Cerberus logo, the minority accepts that Cerberus is still Cerberus and you're put on different sides due to circumstance.

Countless more situations like this could've existed, instead we're having The Illusive Man show up and tell Shepard "mwahahaha, I was evil all along! Prepare to die, Shepard!" and you have no choice but to go around and hear everybody throughout the game mention constantly that Cerberus is evil / corrupt / you were a moron for trusting them and every thing they do only serves to further establish that fact.

Then add indoctrination to the mix and you remove any "humanity" from the character, they've become a caricature.

I'd go more into details but we'd go into spoiler territory.

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Just because a certain 'grey area' group becomes antagonist doesn't qualify for bad writing. It depends how it happens.

Which is why I'd say it's poor writing.

Had Cerberus turned antagonist because they found out why Shepard's body was desired by Harbinger and didn't want the Reapers to gain it, you'd still have them be in a position where they'd hold their no-matter-the-cost code while you're fighting them. The average forumite celebrates killing everybody with the Cerberus logo, the minority accepts that Cerberus is still Cerberus and you're put on different sides due to circumstance.

Countless more situations like this could've existed, instead we're having The Illusive Man show up and tell Shepard "mwahahaha, I was evil all along! Prepare to die, Shepard!" and you have no choice but to go around and hear everybody throughout the game mention constantly that Cerberus is evil / corrupt / you were a moron for trusting them and every thing they do only serves to further establish that fact.

Then add indoctrination to the mix and you remove any "humanity" from the character, they've become a caricature.

I'd go more into details but we'd go into spoiler territory.

Well if this happens then it is indeed really, really bad writing. Not to mention that I hate if the game forces you to side with someone and then afterwards call you stupid for doing it. I never trusted Cerberus but even I think if you are forced to side with them then let them at least be half-bad ffs ...