15 réponses à ce sujet

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

 Is there any background info on the Illusive man? Did I miss it or isnt it there? Did Bioware intend to have his background a mystery? The way I picture it from his personality (Just how I would see it fitting) is that he was a rich businessman who lost his family to alien pirates and that his intentions were good to begin with. Kinda like the saying "The road to hell is paved in good intentions". But his bitterness and lust for revenge made him corrupt on the way. You guys think something like that is the case, or is he simply a selfish, narcissistic powerhungry madman?

I think the Illusive man is one of the most intriguing characters in the game but I never found any background info on him. Just curious what you guys think about him as a character and about his personality. If there is no official lore on his background - do you think that is best that way to maintain his mystery?

[PsiFive]

If you're open to the idea of expanded universe type stuff then there's apparently a heap of background on TIM in the novels. Can't tell you what as I'm generally anti-EU and so haven't read them.

What I think about him and his personality, well, sorry but I tend to refer to him on the forums as The Idiotic Man. He ought to be a great character but unfortunately the writers have made almost every Cerberus project we come across end either in failure or in the product of the research eventually being lost to Cerberus, which kind of makes him look like someone who keeps on making terribad decisions.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

You should check out Mass Effect: Evolution, OP. It's a comic set during the First Contact War and it gives a ton of background on TIM. Also, the novels by Drew Karpyshyn (last two out of three).

PsiFive, it's good to see you're still around here! Tell me, why are you opposed to the EU? Most of it are extentions on stuff you hear characters mention in the games. Revelation, for example, is a great backstory novel, it just feels natural, perfectly set in the universe, and it's very accurate, well writtten, everything. You really should check it out. Same could be said about Ascension. Right now I'm finishing yet another ME2 playthrough and then I'm off to read Retribution, really looking forward to it.

I think most of the stuff chronologically prior to the comic Inquisition (which has some consistency problems with who is the C-Sec executor and therefore should be considered doubtful) is worth checking out. Everything that comes after Inquisition, on the other hand... Well, you know. It shouldn't be taken seriously, euphemistically speaking.

[PsiFive]

Staff Lt Alenko wrote...

Tell me, why are you opposed to the EU? Most of it are extentions on stuff you hear characters mention in the games. Revelation, for example, is a great backstory novel, it just feels natural, perfectly set in the universe, and it's very accurate, well writtten, everything.

Why am I opposed to EU? I'm not, not really. I just don't enjoy it in the main and feel that there's a lot of very poor EU out there for various franchises. Most Star Wars EU I really can't stand and I think that quite a bit of it is of lower quality than some of the fanfic I've seen. Star Trek is similar though not as bad as it at least had some pretty good sci-fi writers doing EU novels now and then. Not knocking those who enjoy them, and I'll admit that some of it's okay to quite good, but by and large too much EU tends to latch on to minor plot stuff and deviate too wildly from the source material, sometimes directly contradicting established canon in the process. This is perhaps more forgivable and certainly easier to deal with by means of the Rodenberry method (if it ain't on the screen then it ain't canon) than when something that is unambiguously canon contradicts earlier established canon.

And here is where I have a real issue with the Mass Effect EU specifically. No, I haven't read very much of it (some of the comics are all I've read in full, other than that plot summaries and extracts) but it's clear from the précis that as a whole the EU is very Cerberus heavy. Established canon, ie the first game, has Cerberus as an unltra-secret Alliance black ops organisation that's gone off the reservation and has to be shot up by Shepard in a short series of minor sidequests. Fair enough, and perhaps something that's worth revisiting for a book and maybe a game. What's actually happened is that the whole Mass Effect series ended up revolving around bloody Cerberus as all the writers, even the otherwise excellent Karpyshyn, developed such a ****-on for this insignificant and non-essential ME1 sidequest that they had to be unconvincingly morphed from rogue black ops group that almost nobody's ever heard of into the late 22nd century version of Al Qaeda. ME2 gets away with it - just barely - by explicitly stating that Cerberus is limited in both personnel (150 or so, most of whom end up dead because TIM's an idiot) and resources, hinting that TIM spent most of the money on Shepard and the SR2, and by not having the entire population of the Citadel screaming "Terrorists" everytime a Cerberus logo covered Normandy pulls up outside. I can play ME2 and still just about believe that there's not much more to them than was established in ME1.

After that of course we go through the looking glass so hard that we end up in the house next door. ME3 has Cerberus almost everywhere. Did I say Al Qaeda? More like the People's Liberation Army - they're in more than half the game, which is supposed to take place a bare six months after Shepard took TIM's most valuable assets that TIM hadn't already lost or destroyed by his own descisions and either let them go (Jacob, Miranda, most of the crew) or handed them to the Alliance military (Shepard and the Normandy 2). Cerberus is also better equipped than the Alliance troops. Fighters and cruisers at Grissom? Please! Constructing the frigate sized Normandy took a large proportion of TIM's funds - out of what orifice did he pull the money and manpower to get all this other stuff in under half a year? Don't even get me started on the most annoying character in the history of gaming, if not sci-fi, Kai Leng and his magic plot armour. Alongside him I can even forgive George Lucas for Jar Jar bloody Binks.

I could go on but a major part of why I simply cannot take most of ME3's story seriously is the way it's feels stretched, torn, bashed, cut and stiched back into a shape that allows Cerberus a starring role that established canon would suggest is incredibly unlikely. And I can't help but wonder if this would have happened had the Cerberus love-in not begun in the EU and then ended up crossed back into the games because, it seems to me, people ran out of ideas that didn't involve Cerberus. My problem with Mass Effect's EU is that a lot didn't so much add to the ME universe as take it over.

That's my 2¢ anyway, and it's why I prefer to stick just to the first two games and ME: Redemption, and really hoped Indoctrination Theory turned out to be true in the third (getting killed by the beam is my next best option). YMMV and if that gives you more fun out of the franchise then that's all that matters. It's like an all you can eat buffet and it's right that each individual takes as much or as little as they want to most enjoy their meal.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Ah, but you misunderstand. Don't bring ME3 into all this. Remember - it doesn't exist I absolutely agree 100% with everything you say about it and it should NOT to be taken seriously, like I said before. Nothing that chronologically comes after Inquisition (it included) should be. Here's the chronology http://en.wikipedia....fect_chronology . Trust me, I've given it some thought

I know sometimes (very often, in fact) EUs can be pretty weak. But the Karpyshyn book trilogy is aces, as good as the stuff you (and I) stick to. It remains faithful to the story and the spirit of the first two games. In fact, I believe that should you give Ascension a try, it could give you a bit of a fresh take on Cerberus (nothing too fancy, just a confirmation that they are structured more or less like IRA in space and that they in fact have many different projects ( we've discussd this a while back) And yes, I am giving the last book, Retribution, a benefit of a presumption of innocence here, as I haven't read it yet, but I'm willing to bet a handful of credits against a handful of dextro-amino peanuts that it's gonna come through.

Oh and, almost forgot: as EUs go, there is probably nothing more awesome than Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, which has been nominated the honorary Episode VII, VIII and IX of Star Wars by the most genre-savvy fanbase. It consists of three novels: Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising and The Last Command, and they are all mindblowing. You read them and it really is like watching SW films, and I mean proper SW films, with Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and everyone else. Plus, for added awesomeness, they've all been written in the nineties, before the new trilogy happened. You should definitely check them out if you're an SW fan and don't know them yet.

Modifié par Staff Lt Alenko, 04 janvier 2013 - 12:35 .

[capn233]

Personally I do not like the Evolution comic, or the explanation of TIM. Nor do I like the backstory on Saren that is in there.

I would say that Revelation, Ascension and Retribution aren't too bad and some of those have TIM in them.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Read Mass Effect: Evolution :DDD It's amazing and explains TIM Side-stories, Shanxi and how he got those creepy blue eyes

[PsiFive]

Staff Lt Alenko wrote...

Ah, but you misunderstand. Don't bring ME3 into all this. Remember - it doesn't exist  

Can't not bring ME3 into it, mate. It's a lead in from the chronology that you refer to, most of which is absolutely shot through with Cerberus and TIM because of the inexplicable hard on the writers got for Cerberus after ME1. Don't forget that the EU is not like Middle Earth stuff where the writer wrote a huge amount of stuff and then pulled a couple of strands of it into a story. It's more or less the other way round and they've pulled a couple of strands of a self contained story and extrapolated a relatively huge amount of stuff out of it.

I'd even argue that it's affected ME2's plot. You yourself said that the three books are faithful to the spirit of the first two games, but that's kind of the point. They are not faithful to the spirit of the first game in which an insignificant and near unheard of black ops group did some extremely retarded stuff and, if you play the assignments which I don't always bother to do if I'm concentrating on the plot, Shepard appeared to wipe them out (granted, "appeared" is the operative word here). So then we have the start of ME2 and some Shepards should be saying "Cerberwhat? Nope, sorry, never even heard of you" when Cerberus is centre stage and now deeply invovled in the main plot, retconned (not very well) into an apparently fairly well known supremacist terrorist group with their own logo (rarely done by real life terrorists unless they want to become ex-terrorists) and headed and personally overseen by this clown TIM who seems like he couldn't find his own arse with a galaxy map and a VI assistant. ME2 just about got away with it, or would have if only ....

And while we're on the subject of the EU, I notice you mention the latest book, Retribution. So not only did ME3 not happen but Mass Effect: Deception, that largely unloved, error strewn pile of garbage that we all heard would be rewritten because it gets so much wrong, also didn't happen? 

But as with all things YMMV and it'd be a less interesting world if we all saw things the same way. Some people say that ME3 ruined the first game or two for them - I don't but I do say the EU and its Cerberus infatuation made possibly the second and certainly the third game less than I'd have hoped they could be. Other people absolutely love everything ME without exception and can't get enough. Like the role play, neither view is wrong even if one or other can point to, or justify as the case may be, actual mistakes and plot holes. We all choose what we can accept and what we're prepared to voerlook for the sake of the story.

Will look into the SW VII, VIII, IX you mentioned though. I may have to get drunk enough to forget about I, II and III first. 

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

PsiFive wrote...

Staff Lt Alenko wrote...
Ah, but you misunderstand. Don't bring ME3 into all this. Remember - it doesn't exist  

Can't not bring ME3 into it, mate. It's a lead in from the chronology that you refer to, most of which is absolutely shot through with Cerberus and TIM because of the inexplicable hard on the writers got for Cerberus after ME1.

Sure you can. ME was always as much every player's story as that of its creators', and even the latter have said so on many occasions. When you immerse yourself in the secondary world, pour yourself into it, get emotionally involved in it, and then the creators completely drop the ball and apparently try to turn that world into garbage, you not only have the incentive to reject those parts that hace become corrupted, you have every right and legitimacy to do so. To quote MrBtongue (the man who does Tasteful Understated Nerdrage, search it on youtube if you don't know what I'm talking about, he's like a Jedi Master of intelligent fiction analysis), when there are plot elements that are "...based on a contrivance, they have no narrative legitimacy. You are free to ignore them and substitute your own events in their place. And your version will be every bit as valid as the official one if not more so." Holding the line isn't everything - it's probably even more important to know where to put that line. Having said that...

I'd even argue that it's affected ME2's plot. You yourself said that the three books are faithful to the spirit of the first two games, but that's kind of the point. They are not faithful to the spirit of the first game in which an insignificant and near unheard of black ops group did some extremely retarded stuff and, if you play the assignments which I don't always bother to do if I'm concentrating on the plot, Shepard appeared to wipe them out (granted, "appeared" is the operative word here). So then we have the start of ME2 and some Shepards should be saying "Cerberwhat? Nope, sorry, never even heard of you" when Cerberus is centre stage and now deeply invovled in the main plot, retconned (not very well) into an apparently fairly well known supremacist terrorist group with their own logo (rarely done by real life terrorists unless they want to become ex-terrorists) and headed and personally overseen by this clown TIM who seems like he couldn't find his own arse with a galaxy map and a VI assistant. ME2 just about got away with it, or would have if only ....

...we come to the Cerberus plot. I understand you're not very keen on it. You're basically right on all counts. The Cerberus plot from ME1 has been chosen as a base for the continuation of the main story, and when you focus on that, it has been blown way out of proportion (the Cerberus plot, not the main story). However, I think the key here is one word: tradeoff. What you get thanks to this "Cerberus hard on", as you call it, is... well, the second game, really. And for me it's probably the single most awesome game I've ever played. I mean sure, the whole dying-and-getting-then-rebuilt-by-a-terrorist-organisation-that-was-an-Alliance-black-ops-group-except-it-wasn't thing is a bit silly. However, what you get in return is pure awesome: the dossiers, the loyalty missions, the suicide mission, the lot. Even TIM, even though a product of not so much a retcon but an overblown expansion of a sidequest, is nevertheless a great character, IMHO. Much of the love I have for the series stems from ME2, not just ME1. And besides, bear with me here for a while:
1) Cerberus owns a number of companies and corporations which serve them as front, including Eldfell-Ashland Energy and Cord-Hislop Aerospace. That could be the explanation for their elusiveness and, crucially, for the logo (it could be simply the logo of one of those companies)
2) Throughout the second game, you get many oportunities to make it clear you're not friends with TIM via a number of both paragon and renegade responses.  I admit, if your Shep is a Sole Survivor, then there is a gaping hole in my argument, since that wasn't addressed at all as far as I know, and I can see that could be a problem. Fortunately for me, I'm a War Hero player.
3) There is actually an option to state you haven't heard of or don't remember Cerberus at the beginning of ME2, in the conversation with Jacob.
4) (extra important) The whole Cerberus plot should have been treated completely and utterly differently in a proper, worthy ME3. Differently, that is, than it was treated in that other one. You know. The one that doesn't really exist.

So there we are. It's all up to you, ofcourse, but I'd say give Cerberus plot a chance and read the Karpyshyn books. You'll love to hate TIM

And while we're on the subject of the EU, I notice you mention the latest book, Retribution. So not only did ME3 not happen but Mass Effect: Deception, that largely unloved, error strewn pile of garbage that we all heard would be rewritten because it gets so much wrong, also didn't happen? 

Ah. Now you understand. [said in the voice of Kreia from KotOR2]

But as with all things YMMV and it'd be a less interesting world if we all saw things the same way. (...) Like the role play, neither view is wrong even if one or other can point to, or justify as the case may be, actual mistakes and plot holes. We all choose what we can accept and what we're prepared to overlook for the sake of the story.

I think we can all agree on that. But if you ever run across anyone who likes ME3 endings, be careful, he's probably indoctrinated!

Will look into the SW VII, VIII, IX you mentioned though. I may have to get drunk enough to forget about I, II and III first. 

Definitely check them out. Zahn rocks.


[EDITed a number of times for typos and formatting - bloody tablets. Also, curse the absence of post preview option.]

Modifié par Staff Lt Alenko, 04 janvier 2013 - 11:06 .

[PsiFive]

1) Yes, and that much is a just about plausible fit with the Cerberus seen in ME1, though the retconn from Alliance black ops gone rogue to privately funded, quasi-corporatist, terrorism agency isn't all that convincing if you think too hard about it. This is like Al Qaeda suddenly turning out to be the owners of a multi-natinoal or two. Still, 1) is a point I have always conceded - ME2 story is a diversion from ME1 and most of the sillier parts I can overlook (up until Arrival when it just went batsh!t insane). The logo will always be retarded, e.g. Jack recognises it on the Normandy hull presumably because it's all over Pragia too, while security cleared Shepard doesn't bat an eyelid at it on Lazarus station walls and personnel. D'oh.

2) Yes, see above. See also 4) below.

3) Yes there is, but it always seemed to me to be almost an afterthought. As if someone had gone "Damn, just remembered that this Cerberus mob that we've been obsessing over for two years was a minor sidequest that not all players may have used. We'd better put something in the conversation wheel for the Cerberus reveal convo to that effect." And then they just carry on regardless. Disappointing - the conversation really ought to go down quite different lines for a Shepard who has no idea who the hell these weirdos are.

4) Yes. As I've said often before the paragon end of ME2 should leave Cerberus a near broke, irrelevant laughing stock, not the space going army it became. The renegade ending would make a certain amount of sense as TIM would have got some much needed prestige with his backers. Given the disparity between the final options ME3 should perhaps have been two or parallel plots, one in which Cerberus features, possibly as an enemy or possibly for extreme renegades an ally for part of the game, and a near Cerberus free one where the only contact is abusive and occasionally misleading hate email from an increasingly bitter TIM.

But here's the thing. The Cerberus backstory is really for people who care about Cerberus. It's not unlike Starbrat being there to provide an explanation for the Reapers and what they do, weak explanation though it is and directly contradicting what Sovereign said about the Reapers and their goals being utterly beyond the understanding of organics. Sovereign was such a good baddie that I didn't feel any need to know or understand, and Reapers that can't be understood are scarier villains than Reapers that can be understood and maybe can be more easily understood by people with severe head trauma.

Cerberus is similar. The backstory of the idiots who were experimenting with rachnii and thorian creepers until Shepard shot 'em all was worth at most a medium sized codex entry to me, because it was I think four very short assignments. Expanded on for the second game more can and should be, and was, added with dialogue as and when it's plot relevant. But by the end I know as much about Cerberus as I felt I needed to, and once I've either given him the Collector Base or blown it up I expected either to be hearing anything else I needed to know in ME3 or hearing next to nothing because they'd gone back to ME1 level relevance or less.

None of which happened and instead we got.... what we got.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Very well; It is obvious that I cannot dissuade you. Just a few matters, though:

Firstly, Jack had first-hand knowledge of an inside of a Cerberus facility, so she could have connected the corporate logo to the shadowy organisation behind it. It's obvious she's done some reasearch on Cerberus at some point before she was incarcerated in Purgatory, since she knows exactly what to look for in files she gets from Miranda.

Secondly, Cerberus' financial situation is unchanged regardless of whether you choose to destroy the Collector Base or keep it. The backers, if you assume any are necessary for Cerberus to keep running (they OWN entire companies which do their thing all the time and generate income, and probably have tons of shareholder value in other companies) should be impressed with Cerberus' intervention leading to stopping the Collectors (which happens either way). To me, the importance of the last choice of ME2 was never in the Base itself, but in the stand Shepard takes toward Cerberus. And remember the crew of the Normandy follows Shepard. Ergo: base destroyed - Miranda, Jacob and the crew all give the finger to TIM and go their separate ways, some joining/going back to the Alliance maybe. Base kept - they follow Shepard's judgement and keep on working for Cerberus. Which might put them in harm's way in ME3, for example. That's the way I feel it should be handled. I really don't understand why you keep insisting that Cerberus is broke by the end of ME2.

And thirdly, there is nothing alike in the little retcons connected to Cerberus and the catastrophe we all know about which I really don't want to discuss, since I've flushed it from my system a long time ago. I think you're just angry or disappointed with the Cerberus plot so much that you've compared the two.

I feel Cerberus is, all things considered, a good call. It's a good secondary villain for ME3 (please bare in mind that every time I say ME3 I think of the one to be, not the one that is... because it isn't ), the primary being, of course, Reapers, and the reason for that is the need for a human enemy. An enemy that can be measured by and to the protagonist's own scale, engaged in conversations and reasoned with. An enemy like that is a vital part in any good epic story. Take LotR, for instance. It has Sauron as the main villain, but it also has Saruman. Conversations with Reapers make for great dramatic moments, but it's hard to imagine Shepard engaging in a lengthy dispute with Harbinger and using Charm or Intimidate options on him. I think Cerberus should play a big role in ME3, but in the right way: Cerberus troops Shepard fights in ME3 should be small, deadly strike teams or assassination teams, ones like those encountered on Binthu. Well equipped and well armed, all wearing Cerberus Assault Armor just like the one we've seen in ME2, given to Shepard by TIM, and squad leaders wearing red Inferno Armor, same deal. They should be tough enemies, not by numbers but by skill. Absolutely no Evil-Sith-Empire-Army-On-Rocket-Boots crap. There shouldn't be too many of them - just enough for some decent fight sequences. They could be supported by cannon fodder mercs where many enemies would be necessary. And the strength of the organisation should stem not from resources, but from resourcefulness; not from numbers, but from cunning and skills of their operatives. Their modus operandi should be espionage, sabotage and assassination, not open warfare for which they are completely unsuited. That's how Cerberus should be handled.

[PsiFive]

First point was in my earlier reply. Yes, Jack would've recognised the logo from Pragia. But that means Cerberus have been using that logo for, at a very conservative estimate given Jack's apparent age, about a decade and more likely much longer, which in turn brings up the original question: Shepard, an N7 special ops Alliance soldier and a Council Spectre, has not come across it before and doesn't peg Jacob for Cerberus and shoot him the second they meet? Really? Especially if the Cerberus sidequests were played since you'd expect there to be some off screen debriefs and reports read and the logo to come up somewhere even though it was inexplicably not seen in the Cerberus facilities Shepard explored in ME1. Sure it's possible, but to me it seems too unlikely to be plausible. It's not a huge deal for me and it's a plot hole I can overlook, just like I overlook the crap about thermal clips and Jacob's loyalty mission (actually I've headcanoned my way around both those) and characters remembering certain things that you might not have even done in the first game, but I think it does indicate poor retconning that I suspect was made necessary by writing the second game around the EU instead of the other way round. The golden rule for EU should be original medium first and foremost, followed by original medium, original medium and original medium, and everything else should fit around that. That's my 2¢ anyway.

Second point. Cerberus' financial situation certainly is changed. I've seen the argument before and I approach it by role playing a TIM backer. On that point I'd say backers are necessary - I don't recall anything in game that says Cerberus owns entire corporations, just that says they are financed by people who do. This seems a reasonable and plausible progression from Cerberus as they are in ME1. It's not not at all inconceivable that a rogue Alliance black ops group could attract external funding so as to be able to split away from the Alliance entirely when they go completely off the reservation. It seems highly unlikely that they'd have had corporation buying size funds themselves unless nearly everything we're told about what Cerberus is in ME1 is false, and if they did have that kind of money why do they only have about 150 people working for them? That's probably less than the Shadow Broker.

So yes, I think backers are a necessity unless rewriting ME1, and yes one of TIM's projects has succeeded. Or if taking a more critical line one of his projects has finally not completely backfired. However, if it was me I'd be thinking that the assets that achieved this - Shepard, the team, the Normandy and her crew - have been lost forever. Going from memory in game dialogue implies half their resources went on bringing Shepard back and about half of what was left was spent building Normandy. Worse, the precursors to the more significant of those assets - the Lazarus scientists - have also been lost. That plus Cerberus track record of disastrous projects that blow up in TIM's face would be just about forgivable if there was some kind of physical ROI to show for it. Securing the base would make me think about giving him another chance and another cheque, but "Ooops, Shepard blew it up because I overruled Miranda and didn't put a control chip in, herp derp." would have me and any other rational investor off looking for another creepy eyed guy. Or maybe even just approach Shepard and the Alliance (possibly discreetly depending on how directly I'd been involved with Cerberus) since Shepard was clearly the key to The Idiotic Man's single on screen success of note. 

Staff Lt Alenko wrote...

To me, the importance of the last choice of ME2 was never in the Base itself, but in the stand Shepard takes toward Cerberus. And remember the crew of the Normandy follows Shepard. Ergo: base destroyed - Miranda, Jacob and the crew all give the finger to TIM and go their separate ways, some joining/going back to the Alliance maybe. Base kept - they follow Shepard's judgement and keep on working for Cerberus. Which might put them in harm's way in ME3, for example. That's the way I feel it should be handled. I really don't understand why you keep insisting that Cerberus is broke by the end of ME2.

Agreed. As I said earlier something like that is what I expected to happen in ME3. And incidentally I don't insist that Cerberus is broke by the end of ME2. It might sound like splitting hairs but my argument is that they should reasonably be a near irrelevance by the beginning of ME3 - not because of ME2's end but because ME3 establishes that the next thing that happens is that Shepard nicks off back to the Alliance with ship, crew and team. Annoyingly this is irrespective of the last decision in ME2, but if the beginning of ME3 is that Shepard does a runner with all TIM's best and shiniest stuff WTF is Cerberus doing being able to take on the Alliance military mano a mano? This doesn't happen because it makes sense for it to happen - it's a huge arse pull and makes no sense on critical examination, so I believe it's probably happened because having poured so much Cerberlove into the EU the writers were too heavily invested in Cerberus to conceive a Cerberus free or nearly free plot anymore. Or not... I'm only guessing and maybe they'd just already paid Martin Sheen for two games.

Whatever, point is I'm fine with the story as it stands at the end of ME2 - there are minor flaws, inconsistencies and plot holes up to that point but nothing I can't overlook and overall it's broadly a plausible fit with what's established in ME1.

Third point, I never said the somewhat clumsy retconning of Cerberus in ME2 was on the same scale as That Which Must Not Be Named. I'm fine with the ME2 story despite its flaws because with the exception of a certain bit of DLC that makes me want to grab whoever was responsible by the neck and shake some sense into them they're not significant. I'm not angry or disappointed with the Cerberus plot in ME2. It bugs me slightly because lore isn't like law where new overrides old, it's the other way round and old takes precedence such that new should fit in with it. But for all that ME2 was less than 100% successful either in fitting in with ME1 or retconning it perfectly it was still a good story that was both convincing and left believable avenues for the third game to follow. But I'd say only a minority of those avenues included Cerberus, and like I said above I suspect that by the end of ME2 BioWare's writers had lost the ability to write anything that didn't feature Cerberus as central antagonists regardless of whether it fit with what the first and then second games estabilshed. Fitting in Must-Have-Cerberus-At-All-Costs with what went on before and how all players could have handled it resulted in a mess.

I do agree with a lot of your last para, with the small qualification that Cerberus would have been a good possible secondary to tertiary antagonist depending on prior decisions. With what my renegade and renegon Sheps got up to it's almost as inconceivable that there'd be no Cerberus at all, no matter what, as it is that Cerberus would have to be this amazingly well equipped Sith Army On Rocket Boots (love that description, BTW) that can just about take on the forces of interplanetary states, no matter what. The kind of espionage/sabotage squad ideas you've mentioned would have been about right, though even that could easily have been overdone depending on earlier events - like I've said several times, withextreme paragon playthroughs Cerberus being spent as a significant force in ME3 is most likely, though that doesn't rule out a bitter and twisted TIM attempting to influence the course events by subtle and nefarious means or even a handful of loyal troops allowing small numbers of the type of squads you suggest. Equally that could be underdoing it, and I'd say would be underdoing in the case of one Shepard of mine who I played as initially reacting to Cerberus and Jacob with hositility but becoming persuaded by TIM and more or less signing up to Cerberus and its goals by the time he reached the Collector Ship. 

The trouble I have is all in the third game and its inability to accomodate any my Shepards in what I'd call a plausible narrative. I know it kind of sounds like I'm blaming the EU for this but that's not quite where I stand. For me a good story estabilishes rules and history for how the universe it takes place in works and what has gone before, which ME1 did, and good prequels and sequels work firmly within those rules and add no more than absolutely necessary for them to function as an additional story. When prequels and sequels either have to add a heap of new rules and history or just lift existing characters without referencing what's been established before, or worse, pulling entirely new stuff out of thin air that leaves us wondering why no mention was made of it in the earlier work (Star Wars midichlorians, I'm looking at you here, also most of Star Trek: Enterprise - where did all your aliens of the week go by Kirk's time, Enterprise?) they're, well, lets just say I wouldn't call them good additions. With that in mind I can buy Mass Effect becoming "Cerberus Effect" for one game and enough EU to link the first game to the second. So Mass Effect: Redemption I'm absolutely fine with as a story. Beyond that I don't think it adds to the central story and, as with Saren, I simply don't care enough about what ME1 established as a nuisance disbanded rogue black ops borderline racist nutjob group to be interested in their backstory even if it did mesh perfectly and beautifully with ME1. Frankly as important ME1 characters Saren and Anderson's history has vastly more interest for me, and it still wasn't enough to buy Revelation.

Modifié par PsiFive, 05 janvier 2013 - 05:16 .

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

D'you know what, hang on. I think I just realised where our misunderstanding lies. I just looked at the thread name and some of my earlier post and I see I've told the OP he can find Cerberus backstory in ME: Evolution as well as the books. That may not have been exactly accurate. It is accurate for Evolution, but in the books, there's no Cerberus backstory as such (except maybe for a few flashbacks one of the characters has). Cerberus simply is the villain there (with the Reapers lurking somewhere in the background, of course). In Ascension, the protagonist is Kahlee Sanders, just like in Revelation, and the story follows her efforts to protect an autistic young girl with dormant biotic abilities from Cerberus. You get Grissom Academy, Omega, and quite a large part of the book focuses on quarians and the Migrant Fleet. It's a great read, it really is. It was written before ME2 and combat descriptions in it fit ME1. There are no thermal clips yet and you get a sequence when one faction (I'm being vague to avoid spoilers) ambushes another faction on an uncharted world. It's as if it was taken right out of ME1. It even has rovers (not the Mako though ) . And yet it has Cerberus. And it was written by Drew Karpyshyn. This leads to a conclusion that Cerberus was a fairly esrly concept, created even before ME2 was developed. It does indeed indicate that ME2 was written with Ascension in mind. It becomes more and more obvious when you play the game having read the book, because there are quite a few cool little nods in the game that you simply won't get without having read Ascension. You get conversations in ME2 (without getting too spoileriffic I can say that most of them are conversations with Tali) that reference the events of the novel directly, and, as it is with most references, nods, shout-outs etc. it's unbelieveably cool to find them.

So yeah, Cerberus. They do appear to start their evolution from ME1 to ME2 not in ME2, but in Ascension. But Ascension as a story is really good, and written by the same author as the two games, set within the lore beautifully and I really do believe it shouldn't be treated as separate or extensional to the games. It's part of the overall story. What I'm trying to say is there are strong clues pointing to a conclusion that the idea to change Cerberus from sidequest material to a major player came from Drew himself. Yes, it does involve some unclear stuff like where the hell was Cerberus in ME1 if they're around since 2157 and how come they are referenced to as "Alliance black ops group"... Hell, d'you know what, I think I just found a plausible explanation! :

All we hear about Cerberus in ME1 is from Kahoku, right? He's been around a while (much older guy than Shepard) so he probably remembers First Contact War and stuff. And TIM was a merc working for the Alliance during FCW (Positive, it's in ME Evolution). Hell, Jacob says outright that "Illusive Man" is a name that the Alliance gave him and it got stuck. It's entirely plausible Cerberus started as an Alliance Black Ops group back during the FCW, and then evolved into a shadowy organisation. Kahoku hears the name Cerberus and associates it with the merc black op group he ran across during FCW. Simple, really

Of course, I know this theory has flaws. But the thing is, I think what Cerberus has gradually become is well made, as a plot element and an anti-hero/villain, just so that it simply doesn't deserve unbroken nitpicking. I just don't think it's fair to say that from ME2 it's a case of "Cerberlove" and "must have Cerberus at all costs". Not at all costs. Let's have them, because they're decent villains.

Back to Cerberus funding: It's clearly stated in Shadow Broker dossiers they've bought entire companies. It's also mentioned a couple of times in Ascension. They aren't so much of an IRA in space, more like... I dunno. Lehmann Brothers with a military division?

About the Colector Base decision and the Lazarus Cell (Normandy team and crew) possibly leaving Cerberus. Lazarus Cell isn't the only project Cerberus has. Loss of one cell can set them back a bit, but nothing major. Remember, TIM brought Shepard back for one reason: to stop the Collectors. I think he knew that Shepard's ideals and convictions might lead to... well, to the paragon ending. But I think he's taken that into account.

Seriously, you should give Ascension a try, PsiFive. It's Mass Effect at its' best.

[PsiFive]

Yeah, I know he wrote Ascension before ME2, or at least they were published in that order so it seems likely, and I'd always assumed that the ideas were his own. Doesn't change much for me I'm afraid. If Tolkien had given Frodo and Sam rifles I'd rip into the idea without hesitation because the fact it's the author's own idea doesn't automatically grant it worth. I still believe strongly that it has to make narrative sense.

And no, I'm not suggesting that the continued promotion of Cerberus as antagonists is anything like as silly as giving hobbits rifles. No, it doesn't get that bad until we're well into ME3 :-D I am saying that Cerberus as a concept doesn't just predate ME2 to Ascension, but predates Ascension to ME1, and for my tastes ME2 is a far superior work to Ascension and gels so much better with the original concept because I can buy the changed Cerberus concept far more readily if I put Ascension (the overall plot of which I'm roughly familiar with) out of my mind. YMMV but I find ME2 more convincing minus Ascension than with it because Ascension makes me ask more questions and answers few, if any. It may be well written and I might have enjoyed it as a read if I hadn't played the games, but I have and I know enough about the plot to know that for me it is, to use Mordin's favourite term, problematic. I'm not avoiding it blind - I checked the blurb first, pulled a face, then went online to get a precis. Having read a lengthy summary of the plot I then decided to give it a miss.

Yes, TIM was a merc in Evolution, but here you're justifying EU with itself, not with something from the games (and Evolution came after ME2, right?). His existence in ME1 isn't even hinted at as far as I recall, and as the original work I do tend to regard that as somewhat gospel and expect all subsequent material to avoid anything that either contradicts outright or raises awkward questions. TIM/Jack Harper the merc back in the day doesn't contradict, but it does raise awkward questions, not least of which is where the hell was any mention of the guy in the first game? It really is a matter of personal taste and clearly ours differ, but for me these EU Cerberus plots clash rather than complement. Revelation and Redemption are the stand out exceptions, though the first is actually about Saren and Anderson. I'll grant the Redemption story as being pretty good but it's not much more than you get from exploring all convo options in ME2 and LotSB.

Cerberus funding. Must admit I've overlooked the SB dossiers. I tend to do that with a lot of the text stuff and remember more of the game dialogue. But again I'd ask how believable it is that this tiddly black ops unit goes from being barely known and implied fairly recently disbanded (the Armistan Banes business and the sending of Alliance Marines to look for him - house cleaning?) to owning a number of major companies outright in a couple of years. Alternatively we ignore what's implied by the Alliance actions in ME1 and take the SB dossier as gospel instead, and I still have to ask how believable it is that TIM's buying whole companies only nine years after publishing the Cerberus manifesto that got him his nickname. Sorry, I just find it about as credible as the idea that Al Qaeda would be in the market for buying an airline or two around now, which of course is much much longer than nine years after their formation.

About the Collector Base decision: loss of Shepard and the Normandy is far more than the loss of just one cell. Best case scenario it's the loss of about a minimum of a sixth of Cerberus, worst case scenario it's the loss of TIM's last remaining functional cell in ME2. Remember what EDI tells us once the blocks are removed: Cerberus currently has just three cells with combined headcount of about 150 people. Lazarus is one cell, and we'll come back to that. Firewalker is another, and the losses there would seem to be 100%. Not many staff to lose but no survivors found. Only two names are mentioned but looking at the size of the facilities you'd have to figure on a few more than that. We can only guess but I'm assuming it's probably no more than twenty and maybe only half that. One cell down.

Overlord is next, and there we have one survivor (David lives too but I'm assuming EDI doesn't count him as Cerberus personnel) who ends up leaving anyway. We also have about fifty bodies in sight (I counted them once) and facilities large enough that far more than fifty could be elsewhere. That's a minimum of one third of Cerberus lost right there, and that's with the generous assumption that we saw all the bodies. I think it's more likely to be near half of Cerberus' numbers, and again losses are 100% because we learn later that the one survivor parts company with TIM. The second of the three cells is down too.

So that leaves the last of the three cells EDI mentions, Lazarus, and we already know it's lost to Cerberus. Assuming, reasonably I think, that EDI has not counted all the dead Lazarus Project scientists on Lazarus Station itself (only Miri and Jacob plus the project's subject survive) the cell has to be 150 minus Overlord and Firewalker. We know there's 25 or so Normandy crew as the lower limit and with the likely numbers lost in the other two projects it could be twice that, presumably people involved in constructing the Normandy on that second space station. So when Shep takes the crew and ship and accounting for the losses in the other two failed projects TIM's got maybe 25 or so left from the other part of Lazarus and whoever he's got on his personal staff (at least one person other than Miranda is with him in his main room in the ME2 intro).

So there's the numbers direct from the game. Best case scenario is one sixth of Cerberus manpower and its two most expensive assets, and that's assuming Overlord and Firewalker are already done when EDI tells you there are only three cells and 150 people so EDI's talking about two other unknown projects rather than the ones you already know of. Loss of one cell out of three is major, but If the cells are Overlord, Firewalker and Lazarus then we know that Cerberus loses nearly everyone it has.

Which mightn't matter if there was an option to start ME3 as a renegade who'd given the base to TIM and maybe even stayed with Cerberus, at least for a while. But ME3 is completely clear on this point: between the ending of 2 and the start of 3 Shepard has taken everything Cerberus gave him/her and handed it over to the Alliance bar a few people allowed to go into hiding (same thing as far as Cerberus is concerned). That's a huge hit for Cerberus, and remember that's the best case scenario. If the playthrough is such that Overlord and Firewalker had to be the other two cells then it's hard to see Shepard's between game defection back to the Alliance as anything less than catastrophic.

Hell, never mind taking my money elsewhere, I'd be thinking of having TIM assassinated before he could stuff anything else up. That might have been a nice plot twist in 3 - investigate something weird on such and such planet and right at the end you find TIM's room with him murdered in his chair, and then you realise that you've actually been exploring his secret base the whole mission and now need to guess if the info you find there will help or mislead you as well as trying to find the killer and getting something out of that too.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Well, I accept the hobbits with assault rifles argument, hands down. I was just pointing out that Cerberus evolution isn't someone else's idea forced on the series.

Anyway, my pet theory about Cerberus being completely unheard of in ME1 is that they were very well conspired back then and only thanks to Shepard's actions (Cerberus/Kahoku sidequests, also Listening Post Theta if I remember correctly and Corporal Toombs stuff as well) their activities became somewhat more known, since all that stirred up attention to them. And if Shepard didn't do these missions (these sidequests were ignored) - mine did, I always do a completionist run, but never mind that - then they were completed by someone else sometime between ME1 and ME2. Kahoku got through Citadel/Alliance bureaucracy, or someone got interested in his disapperance. After all, I refuse to accept that Shepard is the only person who does anything in this galaxy . That's my story and I'm sticking to it .

As for the rest, I've never considered Firewalker an actual Cerberus cell, more like an assignment-like project on the side. Other than that, you are correct, I forgot about that conversation with EDI. Best-case scenario is likely, since I think you can only hear about it after Joker unshackles her, which is towards the endgame when a responsible Shepard should have all the sidequests well finished . And hell, even if Firewalker was one, best-case scenario ain't that bad. They can still believeably do some damage in ME3 if they're smart.

BTW I just played through Pragia. It has "Cerberus logos" all over it, plus some similar yet different logos I didn't recognize. But, at least they tried and put all the scientists and guards that appear on video recordings in Cerberus uniforms from ME1 (you know, that green armor for guards and labcoats for boffins).

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Just an update, since I'm humbled: I have finally read ME: Retribution. It was sh!t.

Seriously, a huge disappointment after very good Revelation and Ascension. I'm not even sure I'm gonna consider it a part of the canon.