692 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]Not really. Can you tell me when the Reapers started to dig into his brain? I rather think my interpretation is fitting.[/quote]
The digging didn't change between the bit where the monolith zapped him, before Cerberus was even founded, and ME3. Of course, it's entirely possible that Cerberus' creation was motivated by Reaper corruption.

[/quote]

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption. 

It obviously had to have changed at some point. Cerberus is starting to become something they aren't, and I believe that it's because the Reapers are changing them into that for the purpose of using them against us.

[quote]Perhaps he was ambitious for humanity. Perhaps he was a survivalist. Perhaps he did adopt extreme views. In the end, I can sympathize with those goals, even if I don't entirely agree with them. I do believe he truly wanted what was best for humanity. I do believe he was even willing to die for it. He did die for it, when my Shepard finally convinced him that he was damning humanity by standing in our way. His last act was to remove himself as a Reaper agent so that Shepard could save the galaxy from the Reapers.[/quote]
He died as Saren did, and for the same reasons.
[/quote]

And I think Saren was a sympathetic figure to an extent as well. I find his original motivations to be lacking - mostly out of a desire to exterminate or at least severely discredit humanity, then later coming to the realization that the Reapers were beyond his control but being in to deep to stop it.

[quote]

[quote]Don't know what you're talking about. My Shepard is bringing them back himself with Miranda.[/quote]
No they won't. Thankfully, neither character was written in such a way that would allow for it. Miranda has wholly rejected Cerberus, as has Shepard. Your fantasy has little to nothing to do with the actual game or characters, any more than the various slashfics I've seen do.[/quote]

Yes, they will. The fact that ME3 inhibits RP'ing is mark against the writers not me. Miranda rejects what Cerberus is becoming at the end of ME2, not what they were (which is what my Cerberus will be), and Shepard is more than capable of being RP'ed as pro-Cerberus in ME2, with sympathy for the concepts behind Cerberus in ME1. So yes. It's headcanon. But that's all we're left with. Your headcanon is no better or worse than mine. 

There's no rule that says I can't headcanon whatever I want. I think it's perfectly in line for the Shepard that I've RP'd throughout the games to reform Cerberus. Or do you intend to stop me? Am I not paragon enough for you? Should I have my Shepard exterminate the Asari from the galaxy?

[Xilizhra]

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption.

It obviously had to have changed at some point. Cerberus is starting to become something they aren't, and I believe that it's because the Reapers are changing them into that for the purpose of using them against us.

Cerberus has always been Cerberus. TIM became indoctrinated, but I increasingly doubt that he was at the beginning of ME3. Shepard was only a tool to weaken the Reapers' advance into the galaxy and buy him time; he always intended to take over completely when the Reapers showed up, as he didn't want the Reapers destroyed (come to think of it, neither do I, so we ironically do share common ground).

Yes, they will. The fact that ME3 inhibits RP'ing is mark against the writers not me. Miranda rejects what Cerberus is becoming at the end of ME2, not what they were (which is what my Cerberus will be), and Shepard is more than capable of being RP'ed as pro-Cerberus in ME2, with sympathy for the concepts behind Cerberus in ME1. So yes. It's headcanon. But that's all we're left with. Your headcanon is no better or worse than mine.

Your headcanon is utterly irrelevant to any discussion that involves a universe that people other people are playing in, such as this one. Why you continue to go off-topic is beyond me.

And ME3 doesn't inhibit roleplaying in any direction that matters.

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption. 

 Cerberus was a black ops for the alliance created after the first contact wars.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption.

It obviously had to have changed at some point. Cerberus is starting to become something they aren't, and I believe that it's because the Reapers are changing them into that for the purpose of using them against us.

Cerberus has always been Cerberus. TIM became indoctrinated, but I increasingly doubt that he was at the beginning of ME3. Shepard was only a tool to weaken the Reapers' advance into the galaxy and buy him time; he always intended to take over completely when the Reapers showed up, as he didn't want the Reapers destroyed (come to think of it, neither do I, so we ironically do share common ground).

Cerberus was indeed always Cerberus. That's why I respect and admire them. That's why I'm bringing them back. I'm not going to make the same mistakes as before.

I don't believe he always intended to take control of the Reapers. I think he sought a way to use their technology against them. I think his idea's for control, though I disagree with them, were inspired, though ultimately misguided.

Shepard was a tool to weaken the Reapers. He knew this himself. He even expected TIM to find a way to halt the Reapers and stop them permanently. Just not in the same manner as Shepard hoped.

Yes, they will. The fact that ME3 inhibits RP'ing is mark against the writers not me. Miranda rejects what Cerberus is becoming at the end of ME2, not what they were (which is what my Cerberus will be), and Shepard is more than capable of being RP'ed as pro-Cerberus in ME2, with sympathy for the concepts behind Cerberus in ME1. So yes. It's headcanon. But that's all we're left with. Your headcanon is no better or worse than mine.

Your headcanon is utterly irrelevant to any discussion that involves a universe that people other people are playing in, such as this one. Why you continue to go off-topic is beyond me.

And ME3 doesn't inhibit roleplaying in any direction that matters.

I'm playing in this universe too. Sounds like you're saying my opinion is meaningless because you don't agree with it. Or am I not allowed to be what you don't want me to be?

Yes it does. You're essentially saying I can't roleplay to be an anti-alliance Shepard. I have to be a paragon of white-knightly justice. Moral ambiguity might not matter to you, but it certainly matters to me.

Essentially, it means I can't roleplay the way I want to roleplay. I have to play as someone else's Shepard. I refuse to let my Shepard be that Shepard. Thankfully, the game is... ambiguous enough that I don't necessarily have to entirely be that Shepard. I can write around it and make my Shepard be the Shepard I want him to be. 

Sorry if that angers you.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption. 

 Cerberus was a black ops for the alliance created after the first contact wars.

But why was it created? I think it was created by TIM as a means, among other reasons of varying agreeability, to prepare for the Reapers.

At the end of Evolutions, TIM acknowledges that something is out there, and that something is coming, something that will greatly challenge humanity. And TIM want's to make sure that humanity is able to rise to that challenge and overcome it.

[Xilizhra]

Yes it does. You're essentially saying I can't roleplay to be an anti-alliance Shepard. I have to be a paragon of white-knightly justice. Moral ambiguity might not matter to you, but it certainly matters to me.

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

At the end of Evolutions, TIM acknowledges that something is out there,
and that something is coming, something that will greatly challenge
humanity. And TIM want's to make sure that humanity is able to rise to
that challenge and overcome it.

There's the problem. Humanity alone could never do it no matter what Cerberus did; it had to be the galaxy united as a whole. Not ruled by humans, but coming together.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 août 2013 - 01:34 .

[dreamgazer]

Xilizhra wrote...

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

Nothing, nor is there anything wrong with the opposite if the material allows, which Mass Effect tries to do.

[CynicalShep]

@ MassivelyEffective
Well, the lost nuke was released by the Alliance after having their backsides handed to them by the turians, so it was a understandable precaution. The fact that it was still lost after all this time is a different story. Still, this I can get behind. I'm not exactly fond of being lead either but I think that by the 3rd ME he treats you more like an equal rather than a subordinate. I view him the same. I think he actually commands more respect than most of the other ME characters. Of course, that also has something to do with Lance Henriksen being a really good VA and Hackett being more practical than "goody-two-shoes" Anderson and "the politician we love to hate" Udina.

Modifié par CynicalShep, 11 août 2013 - 01:43 .

[rekn2]

Xilizhra wrote...

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption.

It obviously had to have changed at some point. Cerberus is starting to become something they aren't, and I believe that it's because the Reapers are changing them into that for the purpose of using them against us.

Cerberus has always been Cerberus. TIM became indoctrinated, but I increasingly doubt that he was at the beginning of ME3. Shepard was only a tool to weaken the Reapers' advance into the galaxy and buy him time; he always intended to take over completely when the Reapers showed up, as he didn't want the Reapers destroyed (come to think of it, neither do I, so we ironically do share common ground).

Yes, they will. The fact that ME3 inhibits RP'ing is mark against the writers not me. Miranda rejects what Cerberus is becoming at the end of ME2, not what they were (which is what my Cerberus will be), and Shepard is more than capable of being RP'ed as pro-Cerberus in ME2, with sympathy for the concepts behind Cerberus in ME1. So yes. It's headcanon. But that's all we're left with. Your headcanon is no better or worse than mine.

Your headcanon is utterly irrelevant to any discussion that involves a universe that people other people are playing in, such as this one. Why you continue to go off-topic is beyond me.

And ME3 doesn't inhibit roleplaying in any direction that matters.

i wanted to bang shiala...argument destroyed.

[CynicalShep]

rekn2 wrote...

i wanted to bang shiala...argument destroyed.

I concur, but then again I was always kind of a manwh*re

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption. 

 Cerberus was a black ops for the alliance created after the first contact wars.

But why was it created? I think it was created by TIM as a means, among other reasons of varying agreeability, to prepare for the Reapers.

At the end of Evolutions, TIM acknowledges that something is out there, and that something is coming, something that will greatly challenge humanity. And TIM want's to make sure that humanity is able to rise to that challenge and overcome it.

 It was created just like any black ops is created, a new war, an new enemy. In this case it was the turians. Cerberus went rogue and we are here today. Cerberus are just like the CIA, obviously not the same ideals etc but the same construct. And it wasnt Created by TIM, the alliance created Cerberus.

Modifié par shingara, 11 août 2013 - 01:47 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

dreamgazer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

Nothing, nor is there anything wrong with the opposite if the material allows, which Mass Effect tries to do.

Paragons of white-knightly justice tend to be insufferable and moralistic. Which is just as annoying as Renegades of almighty doucheness.

[rekn2]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

Nothing, nor is there anything wrong with the opposite if the material allows, which Mass Effect tries to do.

Paragons of white-knightly justice tend to be insufferable and moralistic. Which is just as annoying as Renegades of almighty doucheness.

you forgot to add that they seldom live up to their insanely high standard that they set for everyone else

[dreamgazer]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

Nothing, nor is there anything wrong with the opposite if the material allows, which Mass Effect tries to do.

Paragons of white-knightly justice tend to be insufferable and moralistic. Which is just as annoying as Renegades of almighty doucheness.

Well, yeah, if we're talking in absolutes and if people let those extremes affect their real-world perspective that aggressively. I was mostly referring to the roleplay aspect of "being"; as for me, none of my Shepards are above a 75/25 split in any direction.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes it does. You're essentially saying I can't roleplay to be an anti-alliance Shepard. I have to be a paragon of white-knightly justice. Moral ambiguity might not matter to you, but it certainly matters to me.

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

A lot. It's not who I am. It's not what I am. It's not who I want to be. It's not what I want to be. 

I could quote how I think it's too naive, too simple, too moralistic, too simple, too childish, too ordinary, to black-and-white, too boring, too uninteresting, too predictable, too unsatisfactory, too absolute, too arrogant, too ignorant, too self-righteous, too unoriginal, too narrow, too blind, etc.

Instead, I'll post an image from my favorite detective living in 221B Baker Street. 



This applies to my Shepard. It applies to TIM. It applies to everyone I find interesting, real or fictional. It applies to me.

At the end of Evolutions, TIM acknowledges that something is out there,
and that something is coming, something that will greatly challenge
humanity. And TIM want's to make sure that humanity is able to rise to
that challenge and overcome it.

There's the problem. Humanity alone could never do it no matter what Cerberus did; it had to be the galaxy united as a whole. Not ruled by humans, but coming together.

I never denied this.

In fact, ME2 had Cerberus doing this very thing to fight the Collectors. I have no doubt that this would have continued had they not been indoctrinated.

Cerberus is a survivalist group. They want to ensure humanities survival, even if the rest of the galaxy is lost. 

All races do it to a degree. I can't blame them for it. They're looking out for their own species future. They want to ensure that they can live on as a species.

I don't entirely agree with it, especially when it leads to politically neorealist society. The Council I see as more of an alliance between the big 3 races to keep themselves on top. When humanity proves that they have the ability to rock the boat, they're offered a spot to keep them in line and dependent on each other. It's a powers game, the Council. But I understand completely why they do it, and really don't fault them for it until it becomes obstinate to galactic security, as it did in regards to the Reapers.

In that manner, that's why I view the Council as impediments to the very goal you're ascribing too. Listen to the Council at the beginning of ME3. They aren't coming together to face the threat. They're falling into their own shells to protect their own asses. They even denied the threat in ME2 when they could have united then.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And what, precisely, is wrong with being a paragon of white-knightly justice?

Nothing, nor is there anything wrong with the opposite if the material allows, which Mass Effect tries to do.

Paragons of white-knightly justice tend to be insufferable and moralistic. Which is just as annoying as Renegades of almighty doucheness.

Well, yeah, if we're talking in absolutes and if people let those extremes affect their real-world perspective that aggressively. I was mostly referring to the roleplay aspect of "being"; as for me, none of my Shepards are above a 75/25 split in any direction.

Paragades 

[Nole]

You mean bipolar?

[dreamgazer]

AresKeith wrote...

Paragades 

Renegons and NeutralSheps too, dear boy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cerberus founding was motivated by the Reapers. I don't know about corruption. I don't think it was corruption. 

 Cerberus was a black ops for the alliance created after the first contact wars.

But why was it created? I think it was created by TIM as a means, among other reasons of varying agreeability, to prepare for the Reapers.

At the end of Evolutions, TIM acknowledges that something is out there, and that something is coming, something that will greatly challenge humanity. And TIM want's to make sure that humanity is able to rise to that challenge and overcome it.

 It was created just like any black ops is created, a new war, an new enemy. In this case it was the turians. Cerberus went rogue and we are here today. Cerberus are just like the CIA, obviously not the same ideals etc but the same construct. And it wasnt Created by TIM, the alliance created Cerberus.

I'm sorry, but you're false on many points. The games, the comics, and the novels contradict you.

Cerberus wasn't created until after the First Contact War. This is shown in Evolutions. TIM even tells Saren to prepare the Turians for the same challenge that TIM will prepare humanity for. This is all in Evolutions.

Cerberus was always 'rogue'. Evolutions, ME2, Ascencion, Redemption, and Revelation confirm this. They may have gotten their start as an independent alliance funded group, but they were never officially part of the alliance. It's hard to say that they're rogue from the alliance: where do they get much of their funding? Where do they get a lot of their intelligence? Where do they get a lot of their power? Where do they get a lot of their materiel? They're only 'rogue' as a means of plausible deniability for the alliance government. They're pretty much independent from the get-go as well.

And it was created by TIM. Did you read Evolutions? TIM created it based on influence from his own experiences and on talking with General Williams of Shanxi (Ashley's grandfather). It may have gotten its start with covert alliance backing (hence the black ops moniker), but it was always independent.

I will concede that retcons (from inconsistent writing) do muddle things up. This has been acknowledged by the writers.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 11 août 2013 - 02:31 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Paragades 

Renegons and NeutralSheps too, dear boy.

What is a Shepard that has a full paragon AND a full renegade bar?

That's my Shepard in ME1 and ME2.

In ME3, it's about 60/40 in favor of paragon.

I do consider my Shepard to be neutral.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WittingEight65 wrote...

You mean bipolar?

Does that mean that you can only be an absolute for either side?

[Xilizhra]

I could quote how I think it's too naive, too simple, too moralistic, too simple, too childish, too ordinary, to black-and-white, too boring, too uninteresting, too predictable, too unsatisfactory, too absolute, too arrogant, too ignorant, too self-righteous, too unoriginal, too narrow, too blind, etc.

Oddly, Paragon Shepard isn't any of those to my knowledge. Where do you see this?

This applies to my Shepard. It applies to TIM. It applies to everyone I find interesting, real or fictional. It applies to me.

TIM was on the side of Hell.

In that manner, that's why I view the Council as impediments to the very goal you're ascribing too. Listen to the Council at the beginning of ME3. They aren't coming together to face the threat. They're falling into their own shells to protect their own asses. They even denied the threat in ME2 when they could have united then.

Regrettably. But as a Spectre, I have a duty to the Council. Of course, frequently that involves me doing things better than they do, but I won't turn against them, not unless there's a truly popular revolt that would lead the galaxy better somehow. Which I seriously doubt would happen.

[garrus and ashley squad]

I've never had a full paragon or full renegade bar. Most of the time it's about equal, with a slight edge to paragon.

[AresKeith]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

I've never had a full paragon or full renegade bar. Most of the time it's about equal, with a slight edge to paragon.

I had both full in ME1

[garrus and ashley squad]

AresKeith wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

I've never had a full paragon or full renegade bar. Most of the time it's about equal, with a slight edge to paragon.

I had both full in ME1

They were almost full in me1 for me. There was never a clear advantage between the 2.