1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

leaguer of one wrote...
It is not demonizing them if this is the 3 game they were doing things like that. Cerberus point for the writers is  to show the definition of extremism and how far it can go wrong.
Note that everything that Cerberus does in ME3 is not new. They been doing that since ME1 and well into me2.
If you are disappointed that they when that direction then I suggest really readin into TIM's character.

I was not making myself clear it seems. I am fine with all of this. This is great even. TIM is great.

But even in ME1, they were a human supremacist groups. Filled mostly with people focused on elevating humanity through extra-legal ways. They were in ME2 as well. People who joined cerberus out of a belief humanity was held back, because they had no other, because Cerberus promised to help them with things that mattered to them.
It wasn't what Cerberus was on TIM's level that made them interesting, it was what they were on the grassroots level and how that was combined with TIM's plans.

In ME3 they were a bunch of zombies that was essentially turning the people they said they cared about over to the same thing that was destroying humanity. And they weren't even very subtle about it.

That was what disappointed me. And to bring this back to the DA setthing... it's precisely what I'd prefer they didn't do with the templars. Let us see honourable ones, let us see moral ones who care about the mages well being, let us see good solid pragmatic arguments for the support of the circle system. Funny templars, horrible templars, templars you'd respect. The whole spectrum from Alrik to Thrask to Cullen to Gregoir to Ser Otto.
Human villains. Villains you can understand and relate to. That actually have a good point. Not unsympathetic monsters that merely look human.
That's much more interesting.

[Shadow Fox]

Ausstig wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xil already sees them as outright villains.

Xil also wants to kill everyone who is not suppourting the mages. And seems to forget any facts that don't suppour Xil's views.

Xil is a radical so I would take what Xil says with a large amount of salt.   

To be honest she's one of the reasons I side mostly with Templar supporters.

[Ausstig]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xil already sees them as outright villains.

Xil also wants to kill everyone who is not suppourting the mages. And seems to forget any facts that don't suppour Xil's views.

Xil is a radical so I would take what Xil says with a large amount of salt.   

To be honest she's one of the reasons I side mostly with Templar supporters.

Oh I know how you feel, when Xil talks about people being only good for match wood. I feel a desire to kill mages ( and bile) rise. 

Can't think why <_<

Modifié par Ausstig, 21 août 2013 - 08:49 .

[Dave of Canada]

leaguer of one wrote...

About Cerberus, why does every after ME2 see Cerberus as the nuetral better evil group. They are a group tht act with out ethics.

They were with out ethic in ME1. They were with out ethic in ME2. They were with out ethic in ME3.  

Even a blind person should see  that the moment you goals change for cerberus they would cut your throat. Even your crew saw it. Yet, people beleived they can be trusted?

You guy are really naive.
 There goal is the advancement and protection of humanity, that never changed. The thing is that they do it through ruth less means.  You saw it in all 3 games yet it a surprise in ME3?

The problem isn't Cerberus being pragmatic and cold, the problem is the writing addessing it.

Mass Effect 1 established Cerberus as a black-ops Alliance group which focused on creating super soldiers for an unknown purpose, their leader being known as the "General". They had no characterization, all we knew was they were rutheless.

Mass Effect extended universe and the second game established Cerberus with a clearer image, Cerberus was a group which was formed to protect humanity's interests against alien threats and was formed to fight against the Reapers, our goals align and we work with them against the Reapers.

Whether you like working with them or not can be explored through dialogue, you can call them out or approve of their methods or oppose them every step of the way. They kept secrets but they had no reason to work against you, you both wanted the same goal.

Suddenly, Mass Effect 3 comes out of the wetworks and establishes Cerberus as the Sith Empire of the Mass Effect universe, suddenly being everywhere and being more relevant than the Reapers while having huge amounts of resources despite the extended universe establishing them as nearly-destroyed.

Not only this, you can agree with their methods and goals completely but never have the option to say so. You're forced to see countless Cerberus atrocities which are supposed to make you hate them, people point out that they have a point with said atrocities and Shepard's dialogue options boil down to "They're evil" or "They're really evil".

This is heavily apparent after the mission where you see that Cerberus can control Reaper-constructs, Hackett mentions how useful the technology could be and Shepard instantly dismisses it because "it's evil". I kept the goddamn Collector Base for the same reason, Shepard. Stop being inconsistent.

Then you've got the stupidity-laced side quests which has Cerberus just randomly killing humans because... who cares? Shoot them already! Pew pew pew.


So when people say they want Templar to turn into Cerberus, all they're really telling me is they want someone they disagree with to turn into a caricature so they don't feel bad for killing them. The fact that mages could just as easily fit that caricature is completely ignored.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 août 2013 - 08:53 .

[Shadow Fox]

Ausstig wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xil already sees them as outright villains.

Xil also wants to kill everyone who is not suppourting the mages. And seems to forget any facts that don't suppour Xil's views.

Xil is a radical so I would take what Xil says with a large amount of salt.   

To be honest she's one of the reasons I side mostly with Templar supporters.

Oh I know how you feel, when Xil talks about people being only good for match wood. I feel a desire to kill mages ( and bile) rise. 

Can't think why <_<

Extremism only hurts a cause.

[Ausstig]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xil already sees them as outright villains.

Xil also wants to kill everyone who is not suppourting the mages. And seems to forget any facts that don't suppour Xil's views.

Xil is a radical so I would take what Xil says with a large amount of salt.   

To be honest she's one of the reasons I side mostly with Templar supporters.

Oh I know how you feel, when Xil talks about people being only good for match wood. I feel a desire to kill mages ( and bile) rise. 

Can't think why <_<

Extremism only hurts a cause.

If I could a sign that the PC could carry around in DA:I. I may just buy the game.

On that note, could I get that sign in DA2? And hit people with it, people who's name sounds like Danders. And I sign saying red lyirum = Bad. 

[Shadow Fox]

Ausstig wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xil already sees them as outright villains.

Xil also wants to kill everyone who is not suppourting the mages. And seems to forget any facts that don't suppour Xil's views.

Xil is a radical so I would take what Xil says with a large amount of salt.   

To be honest she's one of the reasons I side mostly with Templar supporters.

Oh I know how you feel, when Xil talks about people being only good for match wood. I feel a desire to kill mages ( and bile) rise. 

Can't think why <_<

Extremism only hurts a cause.

If I could a sign that the PC could carry around in DA:I. I may just buy the game.

On that note, could I get that sign in DA2? And hit people with it, people who's name sounds like Danders. And I sign saying red lyirum = Bad. 

Anders is the one guy I don't hesitate to murder knife.

[Mykel54]

Dave of Canada wrote...
This is heavily apparent after the mission where you see that Cerberus can control Reaper-constructs, Hackett mentions how useful the technology could be and Shepard instantly dismisses it because "it's evil". I kept the goddamn Collector Base for the same reason, Shepard. Stop being inconsistent.

Then you've got the stupidity-laced side quests which has Cerberus just randomly killing humans because... who cares? Shoot them already! Pew pew pew.

Honestly when i found out what you point, plus that Mordin changed his mind on the genophage, that Shepard´s behaviour made sense only as a paragon, and the whole white and black morality of ME3 (Genophage? Bad, Geth? Good), i felt ashamed of even be playing the game. It is very disturbing when you compare the exposition conflicts had on ME2, being something complex with no clear answers, to ME3 moralist discourse, from cerberus, the genophage, the geth or even other AI intelligence like EDI.

I liked ME for the setting and the grey morality of it, and ME3 turned it upside down into something extremely boring and generic where good guys shoot the bad guys. I hope the same doesn´t happen to DAI, and i don´t know how some people, fans of previous games, can even ask for something like that.

[KainD]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Extremism only hurts a cause.

Only if you care about opinions of other people and want their support. Personally I don't give a damn what others think, I am just doing what I feel like doing, regardless. 

[KainD]

@EntropicAngel

The story becomes stronger yes, but it only leaves happy those, that can connect to the set character and their morals.

[KainD]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The whole idea of a "cause," Kain, is that you DO want the support of other people.

Does that leave me with no cause? 

[Xilizhra]

Which I'd find terribly disappointing and uninteresting. One of the best parts of DA is it's moral ambiguity and even if the templars fall slightly more on the blacker side of the grey scale, they're at least on it. This would make it more black and white and put them neatly in the black. Which would lessen my interest for the entire setting.

Out of curiosity though Xil... Would you prefer if the templars were turned outright villains and any possibility to side with them is removed?

That was more or less my plan, yes. Except minus the "turned;" they were already that way, and The Last Straw just let you be a villain protagonist.

You do realise that diminishing a conflict means to make it pointless, right? It'd essentially means mages have suffered 900 years for no real reason at all. Solving and diminishing an issue is to completely different things.

Of course they've suffered for no real reason; it was a broken system built on paranoia and warped cult behavior.

So when people say they want Templar to turn into Cerberus, all they're
really telling me is they want someone they disagree with to turn into a
caricature so they don't feel bad for killing them. The fact that mages
could just as easily fit that caricature is completely ignored.

I don't feel bad for killing them anyway. This is really just to let Bioware focus on a more detailed and stronger story for an overall main path without having to worry about issues like PC villains.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 21 août 2013 - 01:07 .

[leaguer of one]

Dave of Canada wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

About Cerberus, why does every after ME2 see Cerberus as the nuetral better evil group. They are a group tht act with out ethics.

They were with out ethic in ME1. They were with out ethic in ME2. They were with out ethic in ME3.  

Even a blind person should see  that the moment you goals change for cerberus they would cut your throat. Even your crew saw it. Yet, people beleived they can be trusted?

You guy are really naive.
 There goal is the advancement and protection of humanity, that never changed. The thing is that they do it through ruth less means.  You saw it in all 3 games yet it a surprise in ME3?

The problem isn't Cerberus being pragmatic and cold, the problem is the writing addessing it.

Mass Effect 1 established Cerberus as a black-ops Alliance group which focused on creating super soldiers for an unknown purpose, their leader being known as the "General". They had no characterization, all we knew was they were rutheless.

Mass Effect extended universe and the second game established Cerberus with a clearer image, Cerberus was a group which was formed to protect humanity's interests against alien threats and was formed to fight against the Reapers, our goals align and we work with them against the Reapers.

Whether you like working with them or not can be explored through dialogue, you can call them out or approve of their methods or oppose them every step of the way. They kept secrets but they had no reason to work against you, you both wanted the same goal.

Suddenly, Mass Effect 3 comes out of the wetworks and establishes Cerberus as the Sith Empire of the Mass Effect universe, suddenly being everywhere and being more relevant than the Reapers while having huge amounts of resources despite the extended universe establishing them as nearly-destroyed.

Not only this, you can agree with their methods and goals completely but never have the option to say so. You're forced to see countless Cerberus atrocities which are supposed to make you hate them, people point out that they have a point with said atrocities and Shepard's dialogue options boil down to "They're evil" or "They're really evil".

This is heavily apparent after the mission where you see that Cerberus can control Reaper-constructs, Hackett mentions how useful the technology could be and Shepard instantly dismisses it because "it's evil". I kept the goddamn Collector Base for the same reason, Shepard. Stop being inconsistent.

Then you've got the stupidity-laced side quests which has Cerberus just randomly killing humans because... who cares? Shoot them already! Pew pew pew.


So when people say they want Templar to turn into Cerberus, all they're really telling me is they want someone they disagree with to turn into a caricature so they don't feel bad for killing them. The fact that mages could just as easily fit that caricature is completely ignored.

   For one thing, In ME2 it was clear there goal was to protect and advance humanity. Take to Miranda in ME2 about it. She clearly says" Cerberus goal is the advancement of humanity."

   In ME2, yes you can say the goals we the same up to an extent but That still depended on the decisions of the Illusive man and his intent. Cerberus was never just about protecting humanity. In ME3, TIM who was already established of being ruthless took that ruthless means to the full extent in ME3. We already know Cerberus was trying to make super soldiers and they succeed in one with Shepard and used him/her and a blue print for others. They also refine the use of indoctrination, which they were experimenting on from ME1. And let's not forget that Cerberus has front as ship makers and weapon makers for year and was state in the codex of ME2 to be stole piling for years weapon in the terminus system. Also those losses were just the fronts and much of the agents of Cerberus not those stock piles. But sanctuary solved that issue. Added, as formidable as Cerberus was they were really taking just pot shots at vastly weakened armies in ME3. They still had a vastly smaller army then the allied forces, which is why they folded so easily to the alliance during the battle of Cronos station.

But let address the matter of the choice of joining Cerberus in ME3......THEY WOULD OF INDOCTINATED YOU.

And that would lead to failure. As I said before, I don't really see the issue with Cerberus. Choice may be the only issue but choosing to be with Cerberus would mean choosing to no longer make choices. As for Shepard calling them evil. It the mean he/her is calling there actions evil. Sure, they can control the reapers...How many people's lives were destroyed by the research to do so. Added, what we see in ME3 is not even the first atrocity.

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Extremism only hurts a cause.

Only if you care about opinions of other people and want their support. Personally I don't give a damn what others think, I am just doing what I feel like doing, regardless. 

L earn the meaning of every action has a reaction. That only works if you are not going to be part of civilisation.

[Shadow Fox]

KainD wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Extremism only hurts a cause.

Only if you care about opinions of other people and want their support. Personally I don't give a damn what others think, I am just doing what I feel like doing, regardless. 

Ask the Dalish how that worked for them.

[ames4u]

EJ107 wrote...

I think the majority of the human enemy forces will be the new faction mentioned in the combat mechanics video "Ventari" or something.

I don't think Templars will be portrayed as bad as a whole, and I'm sure not all will go around killing mages on sight. I do have to wonder how the more extreme ones would react to the mages in our party or a mage inquisitor though. Technically even Vivienne is now an apostate in their eyes, and she is very pro-circle. I can't see the mages randomly attacking the group because of the non-mages in it.

We have yet to see how the veil tear will affect mages though. It's quite possible that while we have templars running around killing mages we also have free mages being possesed in the streets and shooting fireballs at local Chantry's. 

I'm sure they'll play it carefully though. The article said that DA:2 showed us the worst of both sides and implied that this time we would see the better sides of both factions.

I now have the overwhelming desire to fill up my group with Mages whenever an encounter with the non-divine Templar order is coming. Just to see what happens.

Modifié par ames4u, 21 août 2013 - 06:13 .

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

That was more or less my plan, yes. Except minus the "turned;" they were already that way, and The Last Straw just let you be a villain protagonist.

Of course they've suffered for no real reason; it was a broken system built on paranoia and warped cult behavior.

I don't feel bad for killing them anyway. This is really just to let Bioware focus on a more detailed and stronger story for an overall main path without having to worry about issues like PC villains.

Fair enough. I don't think it's any surprise that I don't agree. So in this sense at least, I hope you do not get what you desire (but I do hope it is satisfactory to you nonetheless).

Personally, I'd prefer if both (all three) sides are all equally valid. Each having their strengths and their flaws. Allowing you to choose to ally and work with them or oppose them as you please. The conflict not being an issue to solve but a continous setting element.

But I think that's all I have to say in this matter. So it is time for me to bow out.

[Vortex13]

cjones91 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Except they're really not.  I mean think about it, the mages had their hay day a long time ago and ever since a bunch of mundanes booted them out of half the continent the last great mage empire has been on the decline.  On top of the mundanes have been able to keep a lid on mages for almost 1 thousand years and that system only failed because a number of people took large quantities of stupid.

Since more mages are being born than ever before I'd say the pendulum will swing back towards mundanes being put in check by mages and to be honest I will like to see the opressors being opressed for once.

That's kinda what started the whole Circle thing.  Mundanes, oppressed by mages for 1-3 millennia, rose up and proceeded to oppress mages.  Now you hope the mages, oppressed by mundanes for 900+ years, will rise up to oppress mundanes.  Round and round and round it goes and am I the only one who really hopes somebody in game advocates ending the cycle of oppression and retaliation?  Cause I've got to tell you, if I'm the guy saying we need to calm down and stop the violence, things have gone way too far.

I will advocate for peace however if the people of Thedas does'nt change the way they view mages then it's out of my hands and survival of the fittest will see who's right.

Ah forget the Mages! Forget the Templars! 

Too much Gifted vs Mundane battles going on. I want the Darkspawn to win, not the Awakend version, just the plain run of the mill, followers of the Arch Demon Darkspawn. 

In a "Survival of the Fittest" match up, my money is on the side that:

1. Is genetically imortal.

2. Is a biological weapon.

3. Can out-breed any other species/can mate with any other species.

4. Has access to magic available outside the Fade.

I could go on, but you can see who the real winner in a fight is.

They may be lacking in civilization, but the Darkspawn are equal oppertunity monsters. ALL women are acceptable Brood Mothers, and ALL men are acceptable food for said Brood Mothers. There is no political corruption, no religous zealotry; Darkspawn are the most honest of all the factions in Dragon Age.

They don't lie and promise power like the demons do, they don't bicker and quabble over who's blood is more noble. They are the rightful inheritors of Thedas 

/Sarcasm 

Seriously, I hope the Templars are not made into moustache twirling villians. Or the Mages. I want both sides to be actual people in DA:I.

[DPSSOC]

leaguer of one wrote...
About Cerberus, why does every after ME2 see Cerberus as the nuetral better evil group. They are a group tht act with out ethics.

They were with out ethic in ME1. They were with out ethic in ME2. They were with out ethic in ME3.  

Even a blind person should see  that the moment you goals change for cerberus they would cut your throat. Even your crew saw it. Yet, people beleived they can be trusted?

You guy are really naive.
 There goal is the advancement and protection of humanity, that never changed. The thing is that they do it through ruth less means.  You saw it in all 3 games yet it a surprise in ME3?

My problem with Cerberus was never that they were villains, it was that they were one dimensional and boring, which would have been fine after ME1 but after ME2 it was a real let down.  Cerberus is evil in ME3 not in service to some greater goal but seemingly just because.  None of their actions make any sense; example, why attack Alliance operations?  If there goal is to find a way to control the Reapers why hamper the Alliance's ability to fight them, it keeps the Reapers attention away from you.  Attacking the Citadel I could understand later once they learned it was needed to make the Crucible work, but at the time it happens it doesn't really serve their goals?  What could they have hoped to gain.

Then they dropped indoctrination on him as the nail in the coffin, nope no reason, no greater agenda, no ulterior motive or goal he was just a puppet.  They took a potentially complex antagonist, one we could understand and sympathize with even if we disagreed, and turned him into a cartoon.  TIM in ME3 has about as much character and complexity as Dr Robotnik or the Shredder.

[leaguer of one]

DPSSOC wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
About Cerberus, why does every after ME2 see Cerberus as the nuetral better evil group. They are a group tht act with out ethics.

They were with out ethic in ME1. They were with out ethic in ME2. They were with out ethic in ME3.  

Even a blind person should see  that the moment you goals change for cerberus they would cut your throat. Even your crew saw it. Yet, people beleived they can be trusted?

You guy are really naive.
 There goal is the advancement and protection of humanity, that never changed. The thing is that they do it through ruth less means.  You saw it in all 3 games yet it a surprise in ME3?

My problem with Cerberus was never that they were villains, it was that they were one dimensional and boring, which would have been fine after ME1 but after ME2 it was a real let down.  Cerberus is evil in ME3 not in service to some greater goal but seemingly just because.  None of their actions make any sense; example, why attack Alliance operations?  If there goal is to find a way to control the Reapers why hamper the Alliance's ability to fight them, it keeps the Reapers attention away from you.  Attacking the Citadel I could understand later once they learned it was needed to make the Crucible work, but at the time it happens it doesn't really serve their goals?  What could they have hoped to gain.

Then they dropped indoctrination on him as the nail in the coffin, nope no reason, no greater agenda, no ulterior motive or goal he was just a puppet.  They took a potentially complex antagonist, one we could understand and sympathize with even if we disagreed, and turned him into a cartoon.  TIM in ME3 has about as much character and complexity as Dr Robotnik or the Shredder.

That's were your also mistaken. There was a clear reason why cerberus attacked the alliance. It because the alliance has the magority info on the crucible. Do you thing cerberus would bother with the allied force if they got the cruciblr info on Mars? No, they would not. Everything they did whas because they wanted to slow down and/or take control of the production of the crucible so when they finally figuired out how to control the reapers they would have it ready for them to use.
 
It's not evil just because, if you think that then you are not listening and understanding anything the illusive man is trying to tell you. Cerberus want to control the reaper and use them to advance humanity, the allied force what to destory the reapers.  These opposing belief  is what cause the conflict with cerberus. This is not evil just because.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 22 août 2013 - 12:53 .

[DPSSOC]

leaguer of one wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
About Cerberus, why does every after ME2 see Cerberus as the nuetral better evil group. They are a group tht act with out ethics.

They were with out ethic in ME1. They were with out ethic in ME2. They were with out ethic in ME3.  

Even a blind person should see  that the moment you goals change for cerberus they would cut your throat. Even your crew saw it. Yet, people beleived they can be trusted?

You guy are really naive.
 There goal is the advancement and protection of humanity, that never changed. The thing is that they do it through ruth less means.  You saw it in all 3 games yet it a surprise in ME3?

My problem with Cerberus was never that they were villains, it was that they were one dimensional and boring, which would have been fine after ME1 but after ME2 it was a real let down.  Cerberus is evil in ME3 not in service to some greater goal but seemingly just because.  None of their actions make any sense; example, why attack Alliance operations?  If there goal is to find a way to control the Reapers why hamper the Alliance's ability to fight them, it keeps the Reapers attention away from you.  Attacking the Citadel I could understand later once they learned it was needed to make the Crucible work, but at the time it happens it doesn't really serve their goals?  What could they have hoped to gain.

Then they dropped indoctrination on him as the nail in the coffin, nope no reason, no greater agenda, no ulterior motive or goal he was just a puppet.  They took a potentially complex antagonist, one we could understand and sympathize with even if we disagreed, and turned him into a cartoon.  TIM in ME3 has about as much character and complexity as Dr Robotnik or the Shredder.

That's were your also mistaken. There was a clear reason why cerberus attacked the alliance. It because the alliance has the magority info on the crucible. Do you thing cerberus would bother with the allied force if they got the cruciblr info on Mars? No, they would not. Everything they did whas because they wanted to slow down and/or take control of the production of the crucible so when they finally figuired out how to control the reapers they would have it ready for them to use.

Ok but with the exceptions of Jacob's mission and Thessia, non of the encounters with Cerberus are related to the Crucible.  The attack on the Citadel doesn't make any sense until after they learn it's a key component of the Crucible and Sur Kesh doesn't make any sense either (only missions coming to mind at the moment.  TIM along with everyone else is aware that without the Crucible the Reapers can't be beaten, so there's no risk in allowing the Allied forces to hold the Reapers attention with open conflict, while they prepare in secret.
 

leaguer of one wrote...
It's not evil just because, if you think that then you are not listening and understanding anything the illusive man is trying to tell you. Cerberus want to control the reaper and use them to advance humanity, the allied force what to destory the reapers.  These opposing belief  is what cause the conflict with cerberus. This is not evil just because.

Yes they have a different goal, that is not evil for no reason, what is evil for no reason are their actions in pursuit of that goal.  Aside from the two I mentioned, and Mars I guess, how does anything involving Cerberus get them any closer to their goal of completing the Crucible and using it to control the Reapers?

[The Hierophant]

It didn't matter anyway as Cerberus was an army of indoctrinated gun toting mooks who's leader was mind controlled by robo cuttlefish. The conflict of ideologies was rendered moot with that reveal as TIM/Cerberus were brainwashed puppets. What's so engaging about a conflict in which you are in the right by default?

[leaguer of one]

DPSSOC wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
About Cerberus, why does every after ME2 see Cerberus as the nuetral better evil group. They are a group tht act with out ethics.

They were with out ethic in ME1. They were with out ethic in ME2. They were with out ethic in ME3.  

Even a blind person should see  that the moment you goals change for cerberus they would cut your throat. Even your crew saw it. Yet, people beleived they can be trusted?

You guy are really naive.
 There goal is the advancement and protection of humanity, that never changed. The thing is that they do it through ruth less means.  You saw it in all 3 games yet it a surprise in ME3?

My problem with Cerberus was never that they were villains, it was that they were one dimensional and boring, which would have been fine after ME1 but after ME2 it was a real let down.  Cerberus is evil in ME3 not in service to some greater goal but seemingly just because.  None of their actions make any sense; example, why attack Alliance operations?  If there goal is to find a way to control the Reapers why hamper the Alliance's ability to fight them, it keeps the Reapers attention away from you.  Attacking the Citadel I could understand later once they learned it was needed to make the Crucible work, but at the time it happens it doesn't really serve their goals?  What could they have hoped to gain.

Then they dropped indoctrination on him as the nail in the coffin, nope no reason, no greater agenda, no ulterior motive or goal he was just a puppet.  They took a potentially complex antagonist, one we could understand and sympathize with even if we disagreed, and turned him into a cartoon.  TIM in ME3 has about as much character and complexity as Dr Robotnik or the Shredder.

That's were your also mistaken. There was a clear reason why cerberus attacked the alliance. It because the alliance has the magority info on the crucible. Do you thing cerberus would bother with the allied force if they got the cruciblr info on Mars? No, they would not. Everything they did whas because they wanted to slow down and/or take control of the production of the crucible so when they finally figuired out how to control the reapers they would have it ready for them to use.

Ok but with the exceptions of Jacob's mission and Thessia, non of the encounters with Cerberus are related to the Crucible.  The attack on the Citadel doesn't make any sense until after they learn it's a key component of the Crucible and Sur Kesh doesn't make any sense either (only missions coming to mind at the moment.  TIM along with everyone else is aware that without the Crucible the Reapers can't be beaten, so there's no risk in allowing the Allied forces to hold the Reapers attention with open conflict, while they prepare in secret.
 

leaguer of one wrote...
It's not evil just because, if you think that then you are not listening and understanding anything the illusive man is trying to tell you. Cerberus want to control the reaper and use them to advance humanity, the allied force what to destory the reapers.  These opposing belief  is what cause the conflict with cerberus. This is not evil just because.

Yes they have a different goal, that is not evil for no reason, what is evil for no reason are their actions in pursuit of that goal.  Aside from the two I mentioned, and Mars I guess, how does anything involving Cerberus get them any closer to their goal of completing the Crucible and using it to control the Reapers?

1.You're not getting it. The majority of the cerberus mission with Cerberus attacking was about dealing the curible project. The mission on the silarian home world  and tuchanka with cerberus was about dealying  the help need with crucible because it would end up delaying turian aid.
The attack on the citadel also make sense being that it's the only safe place in the galexy with the allied forced need to resupply and restock and cerberus holding it hostage would get yhr allied force to submit to there demands. It was all about control, just like cerberus did with taking over omega.

2.Cerberus from day one was always shown to be a ruthless organization that did any means to get to a goal. The want to advance humanity but they throw all ethics out the window to do that. You see that in ME1, in me2 , and in ME3. What happens on sactuary is not the first time they did something like that.
The point is to show what it mean to advance at any means nessary with out considering ethic.

If you don't see it the idea is that they are fine tuning a way to control the reaper but they have to do it before the allied forces make the crucilbe. So they attack key placesof command, communication , and resources to delay it's production till they are ready to use it.