139 réponses à ce sujet

[Karlone123]

It is somewhat funny how the Illusive Man explains how controlling the Reapers will end the warfrom time to time  but Shepard brushes him off then Starchild explains it and Shepards like "seems legit" in one meeting.

[Skyhawk02]

A-Slice-of-Pink wrote...

chengthao wrote...

i wish BW gave the option to go "rogue" and join Cerberus or stay loyal and join the Alliance

that way you can really play renegade and paragon

yes that would have been lovely but would have required bioware to essentially make two games, as already said can you imagine any of you're current squadmembers or or Admiral Hackett and Anderson agreeing to you rejoining cerberus? Many levels would have to be changed or scrapped altogether (cerberus base, Priority:citadel, sur kesh, mars etc). although its a nice idea it would simply not have been feasible in the time and the budget Bioware had.

Somehow the company that makes the witcher 2 managed to do basically that, and I'm pretty sure they have less resources than bioware does.

[HellbirdIV]

Karlone123 wrote...

It is somewhat funny how the Illusive Man explains how controlling the Reapers will end the war from time to time  but Shepard brushes him off then Starchild explains it and Shepards like "seems legit" in one meeting.

In Shepard's defense, at that point she's lost a lot of blood and is probably not able to comprehend words longer than "cake".

[-Skorpious-]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

A-Slice-of-Pink wrote...

chengthao wrote...

i wish BW gave the option to go "rogue" and join Cerberus or stay loyal and join the Alliance

that way you can really play renegade and paragon

yes that would have been lovely but would have required bioware to essentially make two games, as already said can you imagine any of you're current squadmembers or or Admiral Hackett and Anderson agreeing to you rejoining cerberus? Many levels would have to be changed or scrapped altogether (cerberus base, Priority:citadel, sur kesh, mars etc). although its a nice idea it would simply not have been feasible in the time and the budget Bioware had.

Somehow the company that makes the witcher 2 managed to do basically that, and I'm pretty sure they have less resources than bioware does.

They did indeed, but the cost was a shorter storyline. Sure, you could play the game twice to see both Act II campaigns, but I would prefer a longer, less branching storyline with more core content over a shorter game with more variety.

I do appreciate RPG's that give players actual consequences to their actions, but only if those options expand the game rather than constrict them. 

[The-Sapient]

-Skorpious- wrote...

They did indeed, but the cost was a shorter storyline. Sure, you could play the game twice to see both Act II campaigns, but I would prefer a longer, less branching storyline with more core content over a shorter game with more variety.

I do appreciate RPG's that give players actual consequences to their actions, but only if those options expand the game rather than constrict them. 

I think the issue here is that the writers should have created a story in which made sense within the limitations of the programming budget and timeline.  Instead, we we are required to disagree with, and fight against, a philosophy for much of the game, only to have the option to accept something very similar on a whim at the end.  If our character is to have such a deep distrust of reaper control as a core componant of the story, there should be a compelling path to a change of perspective before our character reverses him/herself.  

[Sebby]

Karlone123 wrote...

It is somewhat funny how the Illusive Man explains how controlling the Reapers will end the warfrom time to time  but Shepard brushes him off then Starchild explains it and Shepards like "seems legit" in one meeting.

Yeah, "control" makes no sense given the context of telling TIM to F off and raving about wanting to destroy the reapers the entire game only to make a complete reversal at the end. It would be akin to letting the Reapers through the citadel at the end of ME1 after killing Saren after having spent all that time trying to prevent it.

[The-Sapient]

Seboist wrote...

Yeah, "control" makes no sense given the context of telling TIM to F off and raving about wanting to destroy the reapers the entire game only to make a complete reversal at the end. It would be akin to letting the Reapers through the citadel at the end of ME1 after killing Saren after having spent all that time trying to prevent it.

I don't think it is quite THAT bad.  Shepard talks about destroying the Reapers, but the main point is to stop them from killing everyone, not to destroy them for destructions sake.  It is more that Shepard never seems to think that controlling the Reapers is a viable way of stopping them until right at the end, where it is accepted without question.

[Sir MOI]

How can people say that TIM's plan wasn't valid when WE ALL FIND OUT HE WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT IN THE END!
It would have worked even better if Shepard helped him.

[ShadowBrumby]

Javik stated that there was a faction in his cycle that had the same goals and ideas as Cerberus' Illusive Man and that means that they also tried to improve their soldiers with Reaper technology. Who wants to bet that this faction eventually became the Collectors?

[DeathScepter]

Well generic mooks. Rabid Anti Cerberus fans. Poor Writing.



Multiplayer has a better story.

[Oldbones2]

napushenko wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

Katamariguy wrote...

I mean, he sounded like he had some good ideas. Not ethical ideas, but good ones. I didn't immediately shout "Indoctrinated!" when he proposed to control the reapers. But no, instead I have to deny him, and instantly assume he's indoctrinated, even though it sounds like a perfectly valid idea.

To add insult to injury, Shepard has the option to control the reapers, right after insisting to TIM that the reapers cannot be controlled! <_<

Because Cerberus is bad, the Reapers are good and the your choices don't matter.

Seriously.  Bioware is basically saying in ME3 that it doesn't matter what YOU thought of various factions, it only matters what they thought of them.

Sure its their IP to do with as they please.  But did they have to make Cerberus ambiguous in ME2 with you having an option to support them, if they were just going to throw it out the window later.  I mean, couldn't they have just autodialogued you in ME2 to be FORCED to work with them (control chip anyone?).


Woo frickin hoo.

So, what about people who didnt like working with Cerberus in ME 2 ? Did their "choice" mattered ? Where did you had option to support them ? Ofcourse i doesnt matter what did you think of various factions. Where did you ever had such influence on the story in previous parts ?
If nothing, the most power they gave you is in ME 3 where you can choose between geth & quarians to help you in war, or cure Genophage to bring in Krogans vs not cure them to get Salarians. You can get two of them combined but you needed to make some tough choices in both me 1 & me 2 so it could happen. 


Woo frickin hoo 

Maybe consider that TIM was allways ambiguous, even in ME 3 and he was never out of character, but Reapers invaded and there was no time to play coy anymore, he had  to make tough decisions and that decision involved sacrificing couple of thousand humans for betterment of humanity. Imagine if he could control the Reapers. Why is that an evil thing ? 

Uhh, no,  No one's choice mattered.  Bioware decided whether or not Shepard supported the Illusive Man.

Listen to the dialogue when you play ME2, you are given countless opportunities to support Cerberus throughout the game (including at the end with the Collector base).

Yet, all that dialogue and decisions from the second game are ignored and railroaded as Shepard was forced to work with them.


Your right of course, Bioware never gave us control.  They just tried to trick us into thinking we had the illusion that we had control, but we never really had it.


And that sucks because there are literally dozens of dev. statements saying our choices would matter.

[Shajar]

Because TIM was changed in ME3, his plot is changed and idea is gone. But too bad we cant agree with him like in ME2 anyway

[Amyra]

I replayed Thessia today, if you renegade TIM
Shepard says something like "omg your ideals were right, but now it's all gone" something like that.
Renegading TIM gives you amazing dialogue, btw.

Now, TIM is building reapers, out of people... of course Shepard is not going to agree with that :/
Shepard was with TIM when he was saving people, though his goal was getting the tech, but you know, they both got done, so it was ok.
But now, it's something else entirely.

They really butchered TIM's character, because he did wanted to stop the reapers at some point, and then it never gets explained how he got from that to this new thing.
I mean, yes, indoctrination, but how.... and why now.

[DaJe]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

It is somewhat funny how the Illusive Man explains how controlling the Reapers will end the war from time to time  but Shepard brushes him off then Starchild explains it and Shepards like "seems legit" in one meeting.

In Shepard's defense, at that point she's lost a lot of blood and is probably not able to comprehend words longer than "cake".

The ending finally makes sense. I can stop thinking about it now. Thank you. This is the best explanation to this cluster **** so far.

[Cadence of the Planes]

TK EL wrote...

The singular reason is that the eventual bs 11th hour problem that was presented to Shepard to solve that can possibly warrant the decision of controlling the reapers was never known to Illusive man hence, their motivations are completely different

[roflchoppaz]

Lame, lazyass writing.

No speculation necessary, Bioware. It is all quite clear.

[Katamariguy]

Sir MOI wrote...

How can people say that TIM's plan wasn't valid when WE ALL FIND OUT HE WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT IN THE END!
It would have worked even better if Shepard helped him.

Precisely, my friend. 

[Getorex]

Simple. Because he is a biggoted dick and biggots AND dicks are never right.

[DeathScepter]

he is not bigoted. He loves Asari women.

[MegaBadExample]

DeathScepter wrote...

he is not bigoted. He loves Asari women.

And their wine.

Anyway... His forces invaded a private facility on Mars, killing the Alliance marines stationed there. More importantly, he was trying to wipe some information for himself that could possibly win the war - that’s why I disagreed with him right off the bat. My Shep couldn't let him hide that information from everybody else.

By ordering Eva to "finish" Ash... yeah, well let's just say my Shepard would never have worked along with TIM EVER again.

I still think indoctrinating TIM was the crappiest idea ever, though. Such a waste.

[LinksOcarina]

The same reason you were forced to disagree with Saren in Mass Effect 1.

The plot said so.

[Archontor]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The same reason you were forced to disagree with Saren in Mass Effect 1.

The plot said so.

 

Are you honestly suggesting that we work WITH the genocidal space robo-Cthulhu?

How much is Bioware paying you?

[LinksOcarina]

Archontor wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

The same reason you were forced to disagree with Saren in Mass Effect 1.

The plot said so.

 

Are you honestly suggesting that we work WITH the genocidal space robo-Cthulhu?

How much is Bioware paying you?

Well, if we wanted to be a true role-playing game the option should have been there in Mass Effect 1.

I'm just saying that the plot was lined up as it was for why you would disagree with the Illusive man the same way you disagree with Saren. Hell, its note for note almost the same. There is no reason to agree because it doesn't fit the story, simple as that really.

So I have no idea why people are complaining or lamenting this, its foolish because the plot was made for you to disagree in the end.

So I say the same thing I said before, because the plot said so.