968 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Railroading?  Cerberus has been bad since ME1.

Why do people keep pulling this "But they weren't so bad in ME2!" stuff, they weren't grey, they were manipulating you.

They were gray and Shepard could agree with their methods and goals.
Bioware just decided to use a lame excuse to justify asinine writing and complete disregard for character consistency.

[RiouHotaru]

I don't get it. Petrovsky might be a more reasonable guy, but that doesn't change the fact he works with Cerberus. He's well aware of the terrible things Cerberus does and is compliant with him. And unlike Miranda, we don't get to spend an entire game changing his mind on just how much of a bad-guy TIM really is.

Siding with Petrovsky sounds like the folks back in ME2 who wanted to legitimately join Cerberus despite crap like Project Overlord.

[Icinix]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Mass Effect 3 clearly needs more anti-Cerberus railroading, it wasn't enough.

Railroading?  Cerberus has been bad since ME1.

Why do people keep pulling this "But they weren't so bad in ME2!" stuff, they weren't grey, they were manipulating you.

I think because during ME2 it showed great potential as being something more than just another group of bad guys.


Don't get me wrong, TIM is evil - no question, but the organisiation that is Cerberus could (arguably should) have been this great morally grey group - they had lots of staff that believed they were pro-active and trying to acheive the right thing.

I don't know, I just feel like Cerberus was cheapened in ME3 to be just another generic bad guy group.

[RiouHotaru]

MisterJB wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Railroading?  Cerberus has been bad since ME1.

Why do people keep pulling this "But they weren't so bad in ME2!" stuff, they weren't grey, they were manipulating you.

They were gray and Shepard could agree with their methods and goals.
Bioware just decided to use a lame excuse to justify asinine writing and complete disregard for character consistency.

Uhhh, Cerberus is known for manipulation, acts of sabotage, terrorism, and performing ruthless and inhumane experiments upon both humans and aliens all in the name of advancing humanity into a dominant position of galactic power.

They were never gray.  They were always villains.  That people believed they were anti-villains is to me is a sign of good writing because it shows how clever they could be in presenting a false face to convince Shepard to cooperate.  TIM purposefully arranging the situation so they would appear Gray is COMPLETELY consistent with his character.

[MisterJB]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I don't get it. Petrovsky might be a more reasonable guy, but that doesn't change the fact he works with Cerberus. He's well aware of the terrible things Cerberus does and is compliant with him. And unlike Miranda, we don't get to spend an entire game changing his mind on just how much of a bad-guy TIM really is.

Siding with Petrovsky sounds like the folks back in ME2 who wanted to legitimately join Cerberus despite crap like Project Overlord.

Torturing one person to avoid a war? We're getting off cheap.
Cerberus has as worthy goal. Sometimes their methods are justifiable, sometimes they are not. That doesn't mean decent people can't support it.

[JamieCOTC]

wright1978 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Ieldra's concerns are warranted, but they go pretty deep as the problem lies in BW's cinematic vision vs. player's choice. Unfortunately, railroading and auto-dialogue are here to stay. That said, BW knows they screwed up w/ Kai Leng, so I do believe they will deliver a fairly complex Petrovsky. Maybe not as complex as in the comic, but close. Pure speculation, but I imagine Shepard will be given the choice to either kill Petrovsky or talk him down (capture or whatever) and off he'll go to be a war asset.

I doubt it unfortunately. Reading the released info heavily implies there to be no choice but to side with Aria who wants revenge for the fact Petrovsky beat her.

(Spoiler Warning)

.
.
.
.


According to this article, Shepard's relationship w/ Aria can be positive or negative at the end of the mission depening on what choice the player takes. So, apparently, you can defy Aria. 

[RiouHotaru]

Icinix wrote...

I think because during ME2 it showed great potential as being something more than just another group of bad guys.

Don't get me wrong, TIM is evil - no question, but the organisiation that is Cerberus could (arguably should) have been this great morally grey group - they had lots of staff that believed they were pro-active and trying to acheive the right thing.

I don't know, I just feel like Cerberus was cheapened in ME3 to be just another generic bad guy group.

I think the morally gray bit was an excellent bit of writing that showed how persuasive the right face could be.  I mean, as far back as ME2 we had people like Zulu and Kaiser Shepard and Saphira who believed Cerberus and everything they did were completely justified.

That the mask is pulled back and shows them as bad-guys might feel cheap, but to me it shows that "Oh hey, it's easy to put on a nice face when you want people to agree with you"

[wright1978]

Icinix wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Mass Effect 3 clearly needs more anti-Cerberus railroading, it wasn't enough.

Railroading?  Cerberus has been bad since ME1.

Why do people keep pulling this "But they weren't so bad in ME2!" stuff, they weren't grey, they were manipulating you.

I think because during ME2 it showed great potential as being something more than just another group of bad guys.


Don't get me wrong, TIM is evil - no question, but the organisiation that is Cerberus could (arguably should) have been this great morally grey group - they had lots of staff that believed they were pro-active and trying to acheive the right thing.

I don't know, I just feel like Cerberus was cheapened in ME3 to be just another generic bad guy group.

ME2 showed that Cerberus has good people as well as Zealots. ME3 tries its best to ignore this facet despite the fact that TIM has gone off his rocker. In the comics they presented Petrovsky as a reasonable individual and yet it seems we are going to be railroaded into following a vicious zealot(Aria) at his expense.  

[Barquiel]

CrazyRah wrote...

I very much agree with Ieldra. I'll not buy the DLC until things like these are known. It will be so OOC for my Shepard to kill Petrovsky just because Aria want it. I'm getting rather tired of getting railroaded into things that's just not anything even remotly likely my Shepard would do

I doubt we kill him just because Aria wants it. It is more likely that we help her because millions of people starve to death, caused by Petrovsky's blockade.

[MisterJB]

JamieCOTC wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Ieldra's concerns are warranted, but they go pretty deep as the problem lies in BW's cinematic vision vs. player's choice. Unfortunately, railroading and auto-dialogue are here to stay. That said, BW knows they screwed up w/ Kai Leng, so I do believe they will deliver a fairly complex Petrovsky. Maybe not as complex as in the comic, but close. Pure speculation, but I imagine Shepard will be given the choice to either kill Petrovsky or talk him down (capture or whatever) and off he'll go to be a war asset.

I doubt it unfortunately. Reading the released info heavily implies there to be no choice but to side with Aria who wants revenge for the fact Petrovsky beat her.

(Spoiler Warning)

.
.
.
.


According to this article, Shepard's relationship w/ Aria can be positive or negative at the end of the mission depening on what choice the player takes. So, apparently, you can defy Aria. 

Probrably because you can side with Nyreen who is just another thug rather than Petrovsky.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This shows General Oleg Petrovsky in the QEC room of the Normandy, so you may be able to persuade him to defect from Ceberus and become an ally.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 07 novembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[wright1978]

JamieCOTC wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Ieldra's concerns are warranted, but they go pretty deep as the problem lies in BW's cinematic vision vs. player's choice. Unfortunately, railroading and auto-dialogue are here to stay. That said, BW knows they screwed up w/ Kai Leng, so I do believe they will deliver a fairly complex Petrovsky. Maybe not as complex as in the comic, but close. Pure speculation, but I imagine Shepard will be given the choice to either kill Petrovsky or talk him down (capture or whatever) and off he'll go to be a war asset.

I doubt it unfortunately. Reading the released info heavily implies there to be no choice but to side with Aria who wants revenge for the fact Petrovsky beat her.

(Spoiler Warning)

.
.
.
.


According to this article, Shepard's relationship w/ Aria can be positive or negative at the end of the mission depening on what choice the player takes. So, apparently, you can defy Aria. 

Sorry how i'm reading it is that either you can support Aria(paragon) or you can viciously support Aria(Renegade)
If that's the case it is laughable

[MisterJB]

Barquiel wrote...

CrazyRah wrote...

I very much agree with Ieldra. I'll not buy the DLC until things like these are known. It will be so OOC for my Shepard to kill Petrovsky just because Aria want it. I'm getting rather tired of getting railroaded into things that's just not anything even remotly likely my Shepard would do

I doubt we kill him just because Aria wants it. It is more likely that we help her because millions of people starve to death, caused by Petrovsky's blockade.

Which is completely inconsistent with his character in "Invasion" thus failing victim to the same character assassination that targeted anyone and anything represented in ME2.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

I don't know what to expect. With ME3 Bioware has clearly shown they don't care about player choice and are steadily moving into standard, bland TPS territory. ME3 Cerberus has shown they have no intention of creating interesting villains, but would rather just give us something to mindlessly shoot.

[CrutchCricket]

Hmm. The purpose of the DLC is to "retake" Omega from Cerberus. Petrovski is working with Cerberus. Without knowing anything about the guy or the specifics of the DLC I can safely predict it doesn't end well for him.

I can sympathize with concerns about character derailment though I don't see why this comes as any surprise given what Bioware's already pulled.

[MisterJB]

ME2 Cerberus:
"My blood is the same colour as yours and what I do, I do to protect Earth, same as you. You don't like how I do it, that's your prerogative. But there are things going on our there that you know nothing about. Threats to the human race that no one ever hears about. Because we stop them. There's dangers all around us and whether you like us or not, Cerberus may be all that stands between you and the abyss."

ME3 Cerberus: "I'll get you next time Shepard, next time."

[Zardoc]

MisterJB wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Railroading?  Cerberus has been bad since ME1.

Why do people keep pulling this "But they weren't so bad in ME2!" stuff, they weren't grey, they were manipulating you.

They were gray and Shepard could agree with their methods and goals.
Bioware just decided to use a lame excuse to justify asinine writing and complete disregard for character consistency.

Actually, they were bad in ME1, then they were sorta retconned to be gray in ME2 and then sorta retconned to be really bad in ME3. Just saying.

MisterJB wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I don't get it. Petrovsky might be a more reasonable guy, but that doesn't change the fact he works with Cerberus. He's well aware of the terrible things Cerberus does and is compliant with him. And unlike Miranda, we don't get to spend an entire game changing his mind on just how much of a bad-guy TIM really is.

Siding with Petrovsky sounds like the folks back in ME2 who wanted to legitimately join Cerberus despite crap like Project Overlord.

Torturing one person to gain control over a race of synthetics to do your dirty work for you and establish Cerberus' and TIM's dominance over humanity and the rest of the galaxy? We're getting off cheap.
Cerberus has as worthy goal. Sometimes their methods are justifiable, sometimes they are not. That doesn't mean decent people can't support it.

Fix'd that for ya.

Modifié par Zardoc, 07 novembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Ithurael]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Hmm. The purpose of the DLC is to "retake" Omega from Cerberus. Petrovski is working with Cerberus. Without knowing anything about the guy or the specifics of the DLC I can safely predict it doesn't end well for him.

I can sympathize with concerns about character derailment though I don't see why this comes as any surprise given what Bioware's already pulled.

The point of ME3 was to retake earth and all we did was compromise with those who took it.

[The Spamming Troll]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-07-back-to-omega-aria-and-nyreen-mass-effects-first-female-turian-star-in-4-hour-dlc

According to that article:
"The DLC will challenge players to ask themselves why they're supporting Aria. Is it because you want to use Omega's resources in the ongoing battle against the Reapers? Or are you supporting Aria's brutal revenge mission
against Cerberus, the pro-humanity nutballs everybody loves to hate? “

Take that for what you will.

"which both outcomes will mean nothing or equate to the same results anyways."

is bioware retarded?

seriously, is bioware retarded?

*no offense to retards*

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

ME2 Cerberus:
"My blood is the same colour as yours and what I do, I do to protect Earth, same as you. You don't like how I do it, that's your prerogative. But there are things going on our there that you know nothing about. Threats to the human race that no one ever hears about. Because we stop them. There's dangers all around us and whether you like us or not, Cerberus may be all that stands between you and the abyss."

ME3 Cerberus: "I'll get you next time Shepard, next time."

ME3-TIM: "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...
I can sympathize with concerns about character derailment though I don't see why this comes as any surprise given what Bioware's already pulled.

Perhaps not as a surprise. But so far I could delude myself into believing that what happened in ME3 was a mistake they weren't aware of when they made it, or the result of time pressure. They don't have such an excuse this time, after all the complaints. Should they do it again, then I'll *know* they don't care about character consistency, and I will lower my expectations - and tighten my purse strings - accordingly for their future games. 

[wright1978]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Asch Lavigne wrote...

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-07-back-to-omega-aria-and-nyreen-mass-effects-first-female-turian-star-in-4-hour-dlc

According to that article:
"The DLC will challenge players to ask themselves why they're supporting Aria. Is it because you want to use Omega's resources in the ongoing battle against the Reapers? Or are you supporting Aria's brutal revenge mission
against Cerberus, the pro-humanity nutballs everybody loves to hate? “

Take that for what you will.

"which both outcomes will mean nothing or equate to the same results anyways."

is bioware retarded?

seriously, is bioware retarded?

*no offense to retards*

Pretty much my take on it too. Shep becomes Aria's stooge and he/she can either be a compliant stooge or a complaining stooge. That's the new ME team's take on choice.

[MegaSovereign]

Cerberus hasn't changed. There was already heavy implications that TIM was subtly indoctrinated in ME2...

And in ME3 he still seems to be the "ends justify the means" type of guy.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...
I can sympathize with concerns about character derailment though I don't see why this comes as any surprise given what Bioware's already pulled.

Perhaps not as a surprise. But so far I could delude myself into believing that what happened in ME3 was a mistake they weren't aware of when they made it, or the result of time pressure. They don't have such an excuse this time, after all the complaints. Should they do it again, then I'll *know* they don't care about character consistency, and I will lower my expectations - and tighten my purse strings - accordingly for their future games. 

I believed that they might have read constructive feedback. Obviously not.

[MisterJB]

Zardoc wrote...
Fix'd that for ya.

Thankfully, it's not like the other races are willing to torture other species to create shock troops or conceal judgement day bombs on homeworlds...oh wait...