968 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

Why should Shepard care who this war criminal really is? Aria supports Shepard in the war against the Reapers, the cerberus troops on Omega are obviously too busy to maintain their blockade and starve those 6,3 million civilians to death.

If Shepard thinks we need Aria's shiny new war assets (and Shepard doesn't know how many ships/troops we need to defeat the reapers, therefore it would make sense to help her), he/she agrees to help her.

If Shepard doesn't trust Aria (doesn't want her to regain control of the station, etc.), he/she wouldn't accept her mission in the first place.

I can't think of one logical reason why Shepard would suddenly decide to betray Aria/Nyreen.

[CroGamer002]

OK, where did people got the idea of him starving residents of Omega?

Where is a source on that?


Also, who says Shepard needs to trust Aria?
He/she is just gathering whatever allies it's possible to get.

Hell, Shepard can side with geth without even meeting Legion, still have Tali around and don't even talk do that mission where Shepard enters geth consensus.

[wright1978]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Well, Shepard could discover on Omega who Oleg really is.

After that, he/she could then find opportunity to go against Aria and wipe her out and her troops, since she would never surrender.

Better to have an ex-Cerberus as an asset then some criminal lord.

Exactly.

[Barquiel]

It is mentioned in several articles.

The thing is...Aria might be a criminal, but at least she's on our side. Petrovsky is a criminal, and he's on the wrong side. He could have always used his ships and troops to fight the reapers/help Jacob's cerberus defectors, etc...but he didn't.

[ForThessia]

Barquiel wrote...

Why should Shepard care who this war criminal really is? Aria supports Shepard in the war against the Reapers, the cerberus troops on Omega are obviously too busy to maintain their blockade and starve those 6,3 million civilians to death.

If Shepard thinks we need Aria's shiny new war assets (and Shepard doesn't know how many ships/troops we need to defeat the reapers, therefore it would make sense to help her), he/she agrees to help her.

If Shepard doesn't trust Aria (doesn't want her to regain control of the station, etc.), he/she wouldn't accept her mission in the first place.

I can't think of one logical reason why Shepard would suddenly decide to betray Aria/Nyreen.

Exactly this.

[CroGamer002]

^Ugh...

Shepard needs support and Aria offers it.


Shepard may not trust Aria, but he/she knows that she has no reason to go against Shepard and she can be a valuable asset in Reaper War.

So, he/she just sucks it up and goes with her to take Omega off Cerberus.


Plus, it would weaken Cerberus.
So, that's there too for Shepard to go with her.

[jtav]

If BW had any sense, they'd have Shep going there to get his paws on whatever Cerberus has at Avernus Station. Shep and Aria are allies of convenience. The moment a better option presents itself, out she goes.

[Xilizhra]

jtav wrote...

If BW had any sense, they'd have Shep going there to get his paws on whatever Cerberus has at Avernus Station. Shep and Aria are allies of convenience. The moment a better option presents itself, out she goes.

Given your desire to preserve life up to and including the Reapers, I'm curious as to why you so badly want to dispose of Aria.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Barquiel wrote...

If Shepard doesn't trust Aria (doesn't want her to regain control of the station, etc.), he/she wouldn't accept her mission in the first place.

I can't think of one logical reason why Shepard would suddenly decide to betray Aria/Nyreen.

OR... Shepard wants/needs the war assets, but changes the the mission objectives for acquiring it after finding out about other options.

That's how the genophage decision worked. Shepard was stuck backing the cure, until the option to sabotage it comes up.

Or Rannoch, where siding where the geth doesn't seem plausible until the last moment.

Or, dare I say it, how the end game decision worked as well.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 12 novembre 2012 - 05:17 .

[jtav]

Because I (jtav, not Shep) don't like Aria very much, but the narrative thinks she's awesome. Which increases my desire for her to exit the story by whatever means necessary. Petty defiance is all I have left. If Aria can die, she's going to.

[paul165]

ForThessia wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Why should Shepard care who this war criminal really is? Aria supports Shepard in the war against the Reapers, the cerberus troops on Omega are obviously too busy to maintain their blockade and starve those 6,3 million civilians to death.

If Shepard thinks we need Aria's shiny new war assets (and Shepard doesn't know how many ships/troops we need to defeat the reapers, therefore it would make sense to help her), he/she agrees to help her.

If Shepard doesn't trust Aria (doesn't want her to regain control of the station, etc.), he/she wouldn't accept her mission in the first place.

I can't think of one logical reason why Shepard would suddenly decide to betray Aria/Nyreen.

Exactly this.

Because you want the shiny (ex) Cerberus fleet and all the technology and information it represents? Because wanting Omega's resources does not equate to wanting Aria?

I agree with Ieldra that I hope they manage a more nuanced portrayal of Cerberus and allows you to recruit Oleg. If this allows/forces you to kill Aria so much the better.

Sadly I fear the "big choice" is going to be pick your flavour of criminal scumbag and Cerberus will continue its descent into the cartoon villainy so exemplified by Kai Leng.

[Xilizhra]

jtav wrote...

Because I (jtav, not Shep) don't like Aria very much, but the narrative thinks she's awesome. Which increases my desire for her to exit the story by whatever means necessary. Petty defiance is all I have left. If Aria can die, she's going to.

Would you rather save Petrovsky or kill Aria?

[paul165]

Xilizhra wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because I (jtav, not Shep) don't like Aria very much, but the narrative thinks she's awesome. Which increases my desire for her to exit the story by whatever means necessary. Petty defiance is all I have left. If Aria can die, she's going to.

Would you rather save Petrovsky or kill Aria?

Now that's just evil personally I'd pick saving Petrovsky after all I can always headcanon that Aria gets killed post game don't know about jtav though.

[Barquiel]

paul165 wrote...

ForThessia wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Why should Shepard care who this war criminal really is? Aria supports Shepard in the war against the Reapers, the cerberus troops on Omega are obviously too busy to maintain their blockade and starve those 6,3 million civilians to death.

If Shepard thinks we need Aria's shiny new war assets (and Shepard doesn't know how many ships/troops we need to defeat the reapers, therefore it would make sense to help her), he/she agrees to help her.

If Shepard doesn't trust Aria (doesn't want her to regain control of the station, etc.), he/she wouldn't accept her mission in the first place.

I can't think of one logical reason why Shepard would suddenly decide to betray Aria/Nyreen.

Exactly this.

Because you want the shiny (ex) Cerberus fleet and all the technology and information it represents? Because wanting Omega's resources does not equate to wanting Aria?

And why should you suddenly get this "shiny (ex) Cerberus fleet". Petrovsky obviously doesn't care about the reaper war...why should he suddenly start caring about it now? Because Shepard betrays Aria for no reason after we've killed most of his soldiers? I am not against more options, but it simply doesn't make much sense to me. I'll definitely kill him (or let Aria do it)...optional or not.

Modifié par Barquiel, 12 novembre 2012 - 05:33 .

[jtav]

Xilizhra wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because I (jtav, not Shep) don't like Aria very much, but the narrative thinks she's awesome. Which increases my desire for her to exit the story by whatever means necessary. Petty defiance is all I have left. If Aria can die, she's going to.

Would you rather save Petrovsky or kill Aria?

Save him of course. For once the narrative lets me like who I please.

[Xilizhra]

jtav wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because I (jtav, not Shep) don't like Aria very much, but the narrative thinks she's awesome. Which increases my desire for her to exit the story by whatever means necessary. Petty defiance is all I have left. If Aria can die, she's going to.

Would you rather save Petrovsky or kill Aria?

Save him of course. For once the narrative lets me like who I please.

And why do you want to take the risk of anything of Cerberus surviving?

[jtav]

That's a feature, not a bug.

[paul165]

Barquiel wrote...

paul165 wrote...

ForThessia wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Why should Shepard care who this war criminal really is? Aria supports Shepard in the war against the Reapers, the cerberus troops on Omega are obviously too busy to maintain their blockade and starve those 6,3 million civilians to death.

If Shepard thinks we need Aria's shiny new war assets (and Shepard doesn't know how many ships/troops we need to defeat the reapers, therefore it would make sense to help her), he/she agrees to help her.

If Shepard doesn't trust Aria (doesn't want her to regain control of the station, etc.), he/she wouldn't accept her mission in the first place.

I can't think of one logical reason why Shepard would suddenly decide to betray Aria/Nyreen.

Exactly this.

Because you want the shiny (ex) Cerberus fleet and all the technology and information it represents? Because wanting Omega's resources does not equate to wanting Aria?

And why should you suddenly get this "shiny (ex) Cerberus fleet". Petrovsky obviously doesn't care about the reaper war...why should he suddenly start caring about it now? Because Shepard betrays Aria for no reason after we've killed most of his soldiers? I am not against more options, but it simply doesn't make much sense to me. I'll definitely kill him (or let Aria do it)...optional or not.

It depends how much Oleg is really aware of how much is happening in the wider galaxy how much it makes sense. If he is aware of how bad it is and how much TIM has gone insane then sure it makes no sense but that's getting back into being massively OOC again. His previous portrayal is as a mostly decent man doing the best he can for humanity - he's a Miranda not a Kai Leng which logically implies recruitment or at least neutrality as an option worth going for.

Plus the opportunity to capture one of the Cerberus ships and obtain all its tech is worth a lot even if the best you can manage is have EDI data mine it before it gets destroyed.

Under other circumstances killing Aria would be an objective in itself as it is her death is a level of collateral damage I am more than willing to accept if doing so provides access to more resources for the greater conflict - or even resources that I consider more reliable than Aria's ragtag collection of pirates, slavers and thugs.

[Xilizhra]

jtav wrote...

That's a feature, not a bug.

Cerberus' greatest contribution to human history was almost completely wiping it out, not to mention its litany of earlier atrocities. What's worth preserving?

[paul165]

jtav wrote...

That's a feature, not a bug.

**snicker**

[jtav]

Miranda, Brynn, Jacob, Petrovsky. You get the idea. Even if it was a cynical manipulation, the ideals of the manifesto are worth something. I want human dominance, if by dominance we mean something similar to the US post-Cold War. Or at least the Council removed from power.

[paul165]

Xilizhra wrote...

jtav wrote...

That's a feature, not a bug.

Cerberus' greatest contribution to human history was almost completely wiping it out, not to mention its litany of earlier atrocities. What's worth preserving?

Some of the ideas but more concretely:

The bits that built EDI, the SR2 and Project Lazurus (apologies for the spelling) have a quite strong argument for existence.

The bits that ran Sanctuary and Teltin do not.

Plus you know it's worth remembering what ME3 revealed about the STG or the Asari before we decide Cerberus (at least the pre Evil Empire version) is so far beyond the pale by the standards of the universe.

[Xilizhra]

jtav wrote...

Miranda, Brynn, Jacob, Petrovsky. You get the idea. Even if it was a cynical manipulation, the ideals of the manifesto are worth something. I want human dominance, if by dominance we mean something similar to the US post-Cold War. Or at least the Council removed from power.

None of the former three are Cerberus. And I would crush your vision of human dominance without question if it was within my power to do so... which, in my galaxy's future, it will be.

The bits that built EDI, the SR2 and Project Lazurus (apologies for the spelling) have a quite strong argument for existence.

By and large, those who survived have jumped ship.

Plus you know it's worth remembering what ME3 revealed about the STG or
the Asari before we decide Cerberus (at least the pre Evil Empire
version) is so far beyond the pale by the standards of the universe.

The STG? Maybe. But the beacon thing was only known by a tiny matriarchal clique and can't possibly be blamed on asari society as a whole. And I don't like the STG either, nor did I make any decisions to support it. That doesn't mean I'll let even the faintest trace of Cerberus survive.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 novembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[paul165]

Xilizhra wrote...

jtav wrote...

Miranda, Brynn, Jacob, Petrovsky. You get the idea. Even if it was a cynical manipulation, the ideals of the manifesto are worth something. I want human dominance, if by dominance we mean something similar to the US post-Cold War. Or at least the Council removed from power.

None of the former three are Cerberus. And I would crush your vision of human dominance without question if it was within my power to do so... which, in my galaxy's future, it will be.

The bits that built EDI, the SR2 and Project Lazurus (apologies for the spelling) have a quite strong argument for existence.

By and large, those who survived have jumped ship.

"By and large, those who survived have jumped ship."

Well yes exactly that's what I want Oleg to do as well and what the OP started with that we could have a nuanced portrayal and that on being confronted with TIM's insanity he would reject it in favour of an alliance rather than being a card carrying villain ie Kai Lang.

"None of the former three are Cerberus. And I would crush your vision of
human dominance without question if it was within my power to do so...
which, in my galaxy's future, it will be."

So you would replace jtav's ideal of humanity effectively replacing the Asari with what? God Emperor Shepard enforcing their will with a Reaper legion hardly seems much of an improvement to me.

Don't get me wrong I pick control as well but I would argue that for it to work Shepard would have to be a remote deity rather than having direct involvement. Maybe one day I'll actually get round to writing my post control ending because Bioware's Reapers everywhere sunshine and ponies just doesn't work for me.

Anyway /OT

Post ME3 the bits of Cerberus that were worth keeping are mostly the bits that survived Chronos station so almost by defination a post ME3 Cerberus would be closer to its ME2 portrayal than the cartoon villainy of ME3. And given what I think will happen in the greater galaxy post war humanity's need for what Cerberus should have been will be greater than ever.

In contrast in a post war Galaxy a revitalised Aria in uncontested control of Omega is is no-one's best interest (except her's of course).

[Barquiel]

Miranda or Brynn are scientists who didn't do anything amoral (Well, at least as far as we know). That's something completely different than a high ranking military officer who's involved in war crimes. For example, the US used Na.zi scientists during the cold war. But nobody thought it would be a great idea to reinstate former SS generals.

And human dominance is really the last thing the galaxy needs...

Modifié par Barquiel, 12 novembre 2012 - 06:40 .