692 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Actually, Cerberus as a whole does fit the whole "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" theme in ME rather well, and I think they were trying to make some sort of dark counterpart to Shepard and the Alliance, given the generally depersonalized nature of the Reapers. Not all of the execution was perfect, but I don't mind their role.

[HellbirdIV]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, Cerberus as a whole does fit the whole "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" theme in ME rather well, and I think they were trying to make some sort of dark counterpart to Shepard and the Alliance, given the generally depersonalized nature of the Reapers. Not all of the execution was perfect, but I don't mind their role.

I think that putting Shepard together with Cerberus in ME2 is where it went wrong, honestly.

If Cerberus had remained an opposing faction - not a cartoonishly evil one like in ME3, but basically keeping their ME2 characterization while avoiding making excuses for their more morally questionable things like Pragia, and it would have added some interesting dimension and perspective.

By forcing Shepard to side with them they had to be watered down for it to make sense that Shepard would tolerate working with them, and then they tried reversing the damage in ME3 and... Well, we all know how that turned out.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, Cerberus as a whole does fit the whole "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" theme in ME rather well, and I think they were trying to make some sort of dark counterpart to Shepard and the Alliance, given the generally depersonalized nature of the Reapers. Not all of the execution was perfect, but I don't mind their role.

If Bioware had any intentions of continuing the theme of "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" then they would not have removed pro-human Shepard RP options from 2 and 3. But they did, so I disagree.

[Mr.House]

It all went wrong when Casey, Drew and Mac decided to reuse Cerberus after ME despite the massive contradictions that followed.

[Xilizhra]

I think that putting Shepard together with Cerberus in ME2 is where it went wrong, honestly.

If Cerberus had remained an opposing faction - not a cartoonishly evil one like in ME3, but basically keeping their ME2 characterization while avoiding making excuses for their more morally questionable things like Pragia, and it would have added some interesting dimension and perspective.

By forcing Shepard to side with them they had to be watered down for it to make sense that Shepard would tolerate working with them, and then they tried reversing the damage in ME3 and... Well, we all know how that turned out.

I find that acceptable, since it's natural that TIM would try to distort everything to Shepard, and be skilled at doing so.

If Bioware had any intentions of continuing the theme of "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" then they would not have removed pro-human Shepard RP options from 2 and 3. But they did, so I disagree.

Presumably too many people thought that Shepard was just being a speciesist jackass for Bioware to consider it worthy of continuing. I agree, so it works out. It's still a theme there, it's just that the protagonist has chosen one side (also the one that makes sense). Shepard fits best as the champion of equality/unity, with Cerberus as a nemesis.

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
Presumably too many people thought that Shepard was just being a speciesist jackass for Bioware to consider it worthy of continuing. I agree, so it works out. It's still a theme there, it's just that the protagonist has chosen one side (also the one that makes sense). Shepard fits best as the champion of equality/unity, with Cerberus as a nemesis.

Such a Shame Bioware had to blatently retcon established character traits and invaldiate certain scenarios in order to get what they want, as that generally doesn't  speak very highly of their storytelling qualities.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think that putting Shepard together with Cerberus in ME2 is where it went wrong, honestly.

If Cerberus had remained an opposing faction - not a cartoonishly evil one like in ME3, but basically keeping their ME2 characterization while avoiding making excuses for their more morally questionable things like Pragia, and it would have added some interesting dimension and perspective.

By forcing Shepard to side with them they had to be watered down for it to make sense that Shepard would tolerate working with them, and then they tried reversing the damage in ME3 and... Well, we all know how that turned out.

I find that acceptable, since it's natural that TIM would try to distort everything to Shepard, and be skilled at doing so.

If Bioware had any intentions of continuing the theme of "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" then they would not have removed pro-human Shepard RP options from 2 and 3. But they did, so I disagree.

Presumably too many people thought that Shepard was just being a speciesist jackass for Bioware to consider it worthy of continuing. I agree, so it works out. It's still a theme there, it's just that the protagonist has chosen one side (also the one that makes sense). Shepard fits best as the champion of equality/unity, with Cerberus as a nemesis.

So it's fine to get rid of options that exsisted because you and other people don't like them.

[HellbirdIV]

Lizardviking wrote...

If Bioware had any intentions of continuing the theme of "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" then they would not have removed pro-human Shepard RP options from 2 and 3. But they did, so I disagree.

I'm usually against limiting options in an RPG, but that's actually a change I don't mind.

The whole point of the ongoing story and a major theme of the first game (to say nothing of the later ones) is that Pro-Human Shepard was just being an ignorant jackoff. Humanity can't and probably shouldn't stand on its own - diverse species unified but still unique are the Cycle's greatest strength, after all.

It would have hurt the story if you tried to play your Shepard as Pro-Human while the rest of the story basically carries on without you, no?

[Xilizhra]

Such a Shame Bioware had to blatently retcon established character traits and invaldiate certain scenarios in order to get what they want, as that generally doesn't speak very highly of their storytelling qualities.

I experienced no retcons at all.

So it's fine to get rid of options that exsisted because you and other people don't like them.

Because they don't fit in the overall story. I certainly know of many people who'd love to get rid of certain ME3 endings for the same reason.

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
I experienced no retcons at all.

I did.

[Xilizhra]

Fixers0 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I experienced no retcons at all.

I did.

Well, perhaps Bioware shouldn't have included it from the beginning.

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, perhaps Bioware shouldn't have included it from the beginning.

Or perhaps they should have paid decent effort into preserving continuity.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Such a Shame Bioware had to blatently retcon established character traits and invaldiate certain scenarios in order to get what they want, as that generally doesn't speak very highly of their storytelling qualities.

I experienced no retcons at all.

So it's fine to get rid of options that exsisted because you and other people don't like them.

Because they don't fit in the overall story. I certainly know of many people who'd love to get rid of certain ME3 endings for the same reason.

You can be pro human while still getting uspport from aliens and easly have Shepard believe they are usaing them as fodder and to weaken other races. Instead, Bioware got rid of pro-human and forced every Shepard to be an alien loving chap is bullocks. You support this because you don't like the other opitions and you have proven in the past you don't give a dam but your own opinion and as long as you can play the way oyu want. Screw consistancy and giving players options as you have proven many times in the past.

Also the fact that you don't see a retcon shows you are blind.

[Seboist]

HellbirdIV wrote...

It would have hurt the story if you tried to play your Shepard as Pro-Human while the rest of the story basically carries on without you, no?

Yeah, cause retcons/inconsistencies galore,Giant baby arnold, inane daddy issues, Lazarus, Crucible, Cerb Sith Empire and Reaper motivation sure didn't hurt things.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I experienced no retcons at all.

I did.

Well, perhaps Bioware shouldn't have included it from the beginning.

Or Bioware should have continued with what they where doing instead of pulling a 180. This is text book poor planing at it's best.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

If Bioware had any intentions of continuing the theme of "what is humanity's place in the galaxy?" then they would not have removed pro-human Shepard RP options from 2 and 3. But they did, so I disagree.

I'm usually against limiting options in an RPG, but that's actually a change I don't mind.

The whole point of the ongoing story and a major theme of the first game (to say nothing of the later ones) is that Pro-Human Shepard was just being an ignorant jackoff. Humanity can't and probably shouldn't stand on its own - diverse species unified but still unique are the Cycle's greatest strength, after all.

It would have hurt the story if you tried to play your Shepard as Pro-Human while the rest of the story basically carries on without you, no?

The theme of ME1 was to prove renegade Shepard wrong? I disagree, I thought the whole thing with the council was ambigious and ultimativly up for the player to decide for themselves. I don't see how it would be impossible to have a version of ME3 where the different species combines arms out of necessity and where everyone is trying to manipulate the tide of the war to make sure that their species comes out on top.

[Xilizhra]

You can be pro human while still getting uspport from aliens and easly have Shepard believe they are usaing them as fodder and to weaken other races. Instead, Bioware got rid of pro-human and forced every Shepard to be an alien loving chap is bullocks. You support this because you don't like the other opitions and you have proven in the past you don't give a dam but your own opinion and as long as you can play the way oyu want. Screw consistancy and giving players options as you have proven many times in the past.

This "alien-loving" thing is deeply unsettling. I actually wonder if it might not be this very attitude, in part, that led Bioware to cut down on speciesist options for Shepard; harboring large nests of faux-racists may not be something that Bioware wanted to encourage, something I can hardly blame them for.

The theme of ME1 was to prove renegade Shepard wrong? I disagree, I thought the whole thing with the council was ambigious and ultimativly up for the player to decide for themselves. I don't see how it would be impossible to have a version of ME3 where the different species combines arms out of necessity and where everyone is trying to manipulate the tide of the war to make sure that their species comes out on top.

Given that killing the Council did absolutely nothing helpful, and in fact hinders you later on, I doubt there was that much ambiguity.

[Barquiel]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Such a Shame Bioware had to blatently retcon established character traits and invaldiate certain scenarios in order to get what they want, as that generally doesn't speak very highly of their storytelling qualities.

I experienced no retcons at all.

So it's fine to get rid of options that exsisted because you and other people don't like them.

Because they don't fit in the overall story. I certainly know of many people who'd love to get rid of certain ME3 endings for the same reason.

You can be pro human while still getting uspport from aliens and easly have Shepard believe they are usaing them as fodder and to weaken other races. Instead, Bioware got rid of pro-human and forced every Shepard to be an alien loving chap is bullocks. You support this because you don't like the other opitions and you have proven in the past you don't give a dam but your own opinion and as long as you can play the way oyu want. Screw consistancy and giving players options as you have proven many times in the past.

Also the fact that you don't see a retcon shows you are blind.

The all human Council was a retcon. But it never made much sense...and it never should have been an option in ME1 imo. You can support cerberus in ME2...and then we have Shepards (forced) Earth centric bias in ME3. I think you can play a pro-human Shepard throughout the trilogy.

[Seboist]

What's comical about it all is how ME3 vindicated Renegade femshep's belief that aliens need humans to save them from themselves.

[Mr.House]

Yes, because being pro-human means you're a racist. Yup.

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Yes, because being pro-human means you're a racist. Yup.

Well, given that you contrasted it with "alien-loving," it certainly seems that your interpretation is such. Though I don't quite agree; my Shepard is certainly pro-human, she's just also pro-everyone-else.

What's comical about it all is
how ME3 vindicated Renegade femshep's belief that aliens need humans to
save them from themselves.

The main Reaper-fighting expert coincidentally happened to be human and has a multispecies and vital crew; it has nothing to do with human superiority of any sort, especially since most of the human military was crushed and worthless without backup.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 août 2013 - 12:44 .

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
Given that killing the Council did absolutely nothing helpful, and in fact hinders you later on, I doubt there was that much ambiguity.

It did, Until Bioware pushed the retcon button.

[Seboist]

Barquiel wrote...

The all human Council was a retcon. But it never made much sense...and it never should have been an option in ME1 imo.

A plot where humans are being slurpeed into creating a three eyed giant baby arnold because of "genetic diversity" sure was a more sensible replacement.

Modifié par Seboist, 11 août 2013 - 12:43 .

[Mr.House]

Barquiel wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Such a Shame Bioware had to blatently retcon established character traits and invaldiate certain scenarios in order to get what they want, as that generally doesn't speak very highly of their storytelling qualities.

I experienced no retcons at all.

So it's fine to get rid of options that exsisted because you and other people don't like them.

Because they don't fit in the overall story. I certainly know of many people who'd love to get rid of certain ME3 endings for the same reason.

You can be pro human while still getting uspport from aliens and easly have Shepard believe they are usaing them as fodder and to weaken other races. Instead, Bioware got rid of pro-human and forced every Shepard to be an alien loving chap is bullocks. You support this because you don't like the other opitions and you have proven in the past you don't give a dam but your own opinion and as long as you can play the way oyu want. Screw consistancy and giving players options as you have proven many times in the past.

Also the fact that you don't see a retcon shows you are blind.

The all human Council was a retcon. But it never made much sense...and it never should have been an option in ME1 imo. You can support cerberus in ME2...and then we have Shepards (forced) Earth centric bias in ME3. I think you can play a pro-human Shepard throughout the trilogy.

No you can't. In ME you where allowed great freedom in your Shepards beleif. Yes you could be a racist ass, but you where also aloowed to be pro-human while also seeing that other races had things humans should adapt to be stronger. in ME2 this is reducded big time and in ME3 it's non-exsistant. A couple of throw away liens about supporting Cerberus(which does not matter) and teh Erath obsession is not that good. ME was good because you had freedom in what you wnated Shepard to beleive in. ME 2 and ME3 said screw that.

[HellbirdIV]

Lizardviking wrote...

The theme of ME1 was to prove renegade Shepard wrong? I disagree, I thought the whole thing with the council was ambigious and ultimativly up for the player to decide for themselves.

The choice with setting up a "human-dominated" Council at the end is one of the things that don't really work in context of the larger story - the theme I'm referring to is more specifically the place the different alien squadmates have in the story, which admittedly is downplayed a lot more in ME1, though still present.

Lizardviking wrote...

I don't see how it would be impossible to have a version of ME3 where the different species combines arms out of necessity and where everyone is trying to manipulate the tide of the war to make sure that their species comes out on top.

That's basically what happens already. Shepard just isn't one of those people.