56 réponses à ce sujet

[JonathonPR]

There should not have been a main enemy throughout the series. Each game should have explored different aspects of the setting with antagonists of different scales. The only reason the Reapers continued to be a threat was the writers decided to make new reasons they were an immediate threat. Reaper threats should have shown up generations apart. Cerberus could have been a primary antagonist for one of the games to explore the different sides of extremism. The other side would have been the opposite extreme of being directed by outside forces alone and not being willing to raise conflict with other races for the sake of humanities wellbeing at all. If your species was starving to death would you resort to piracy, extortion, or conquest if no one was willing to help?

[Reorte]

Probably not. The Reapers need a lot of re-work to be decent enemies but doing that would be better than Cerberus, since it would involve completely redoing everything from scratch. They might've been better enemies for a different game.

[SAmaster01]

I'm just thinking it would have been easier to write.

If the Reapers had not existed, then perhaps Saren is simply an extremist xenophobe, out to destroy Humanity, and the system that allows them to exist. The Alliance obviously beefs itself up to deal with this threat, with the Citadel covertly and sometimes not covertly aiding the Allaince and Shepherd.

In Mass Effect 2, the Collectors have now come from the Dark part of Space, and are abducting colonists along the frontier, Human and otherwise, just with a Human Majority since mostly humans are settling the area. Shepherd, after some incident that may or may not involve his death is welcomed into Cerberus, and greeted by the Illusive man. You go on a suicide mission to take out the Collectors, in a show of human dominance and force.

However, in Mass Effect 3, Cerberus has now grown too big for it's britches, having gone from Heroes to idealists, to extremists. Perhaps having become too frustrated with alien tactics and politics that come at the expense of human power, such as the Saren and Collector Incidents, plus any that might happen in DLC, such as the Terra Nova terrorist attack, attempt a power play, taking over the heads of Human Governance, and overtaking the Citadel. The battle then becomes to clear humanities good name, gathering allies to restore the old system (or create a new one) and put down the very monster you created. Or perhaps you can side with Cerberus, and instead work with them and their resources to put down the rebellion. The final battle being a mirror of you fight against Saren as you and your armies fight through the Citadel, for or against Cerberus, with the boss being a former teammate, an alliance member, such as the VS who is now vindicated for their suspicion of you, if you side with Cerberus, or against a Cerberus allied teammate such as Miranda or Jacob, or even someone like a rewritten Kai-Lang, with the Illusive Man just being an ordinary man that you get to choose whether you get to take him in alive or not.

At the very least, we would have never seen the star child.

[Lady Abstract]

Hell to the no

[Wolfva2]

JonathonPR wrote...

There should not have been a main enemy throughout the series. Each game should have explored different aspects of the setting with antagonists of different scales. The only reason the Reapers continued to be a threat was the writers decided to make new reasons they were an immediate threat. Reaper threats should have shown up generations apart. Cerberus could have been a primary antagonist for one of the games to explore the different sides of extremism. The other side would have been the opposite extreme of being directed by outside forces alone and not being willing to raise conflict with other races for the sake of humanities wellbeing at all. If your species was starving to death would you resort to piracy, extortion, or conquest if no one was willing to help?

Yeah, curse those stupid writers for keeping the Reapers the main protagonists just because the entire trilogy was set up and advertised as fighting against a galactic extinction even!  No, they should have NOT done what they said they were going to do and instead create a completely different game where you run around exploring the galaxy and dealing with other races!  Like in Star Trek!


Coulda shoulda woulda so what.  They designed this game to be against the Reapers.  COULD they have had other protagonists?  Yep.  And it'd be a completely different game.  Of course, people would STILL be complaining about whatever they did do; if there's one constant in humanity, it's our love of griping.  So, instead we'd have a post like, "Why didn't Bioware make a trilogy where we were fighting godlike aliens trying to kill us all instead of this stupid game where one day we're fighting reapers, then the next cerberus, then the next the batarians!  I feel like I'm playing Star Trek Online!"

[TheVanishedOne]

MysticSpace wrote...

I was way more interested in beating killing TIM and Kai-Lame than the reapers.

Can't agree more. I just want to slice Kai Leng  slowly because he killed Krois. I'm not OK if anyone mess up with my teammates. <_<

If Cerberus become main villian, humanity will have a bad reputation in Council Space. 

[Heatpipe]

Agree. Now thinking, ME3 would have been better if the story wasn't about full scale reaper attack.
Instead of reaper, fighting TIM and his cerberus from preventing there plan of controlling the reapers would have worked.

Well, we all know that cerberus had to attack the Citadel in anyway to try control on the reapers.
So like ME1 we do this we do that and at the final stage we fight in the Citadel with cerberus and boss TIM and then cerberus kiss goodbye.

ME4 - The Full Scale Reaper Invasion!

Modifié par Heatpipe, 20 septembre 2013 - 02:03 .

[Ice Cold J]

 Only insomuch as you can't fight a Reaper with foot soldiers.

If you fought another avatar of Harbinger as the "Final Boss," I'd have been OK with that. Not saying taht final scramble at the missle battery wasn't hard, but...

If Cerebus was the main villian, either make the Kai Leng battle a litte harder/more drawn-out or given the Illusive Man some sort of physical domination i.e. a mech, some crazy biotic abilities...

[SirLugash]

If the Reapers weren't the greatest threat (and therefore enemy) back in ME1 I doubt that the series would have interested me as much as it acutally did.

Modifié par SirLugash, 20 septembre 2013 - 10:13 .

[Nightwriter]

Depends. If Cerberus were the main villains, would BioWare plan them out as well as they planned the Reaper plot arc?

Modifié par Nightwriter, 20 septembre 2013 - 11:08 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

I'm going to say no.

[N7Gold]

MysticSpace wrote...

Cerberus has been up to no good since ME1 but for some reason reason the reapers get the main billing as the main threat yet they only take up seemingly 30% of the battles in ME1-ME3.  And that's being generous with that estimation.  In ME1 you fight husks a third of the time you investigate miss colonist/scientist and they behave just like the thorian creepers on Feros.  ME2 you fight the collector's 4 times and the rest of times you fight random mercs and twice you fight geth because you know variety is the spice life, and in ME3 you fight the reapers more, but I was way more interested in beating killing TIM and Kai-Lame than the reapers.  I thought Harbinger would be Shepard's arch enemy: Randomly possessing reaper troops, taunting us, randomly showing up on the reaper controlled maps, etc.  Instead we keep getting called by TIM to let us know that he's dumped us and now he's decided to live out his childhood fantasy of owning COBRA. Hell, he's already got a ninja (not really) and the Baroness (Eva Core) so they should have just made them the main villians.  What do you think?

It would not. They aren't the villains you think they are, but still they were founded by a man who has been touched by Reaper tech ever since the end of the First Contact War. And its been proven that anyone who is indoctrinated does not favor the idea of destroying the Reapers. Question is, why?

[thehomeworld]

No, a huge reason why I hated ME2 was because we were working for them despite even having the Akuze background. And in ME3 it became very annoying to constantly run into them when I should've spent more then half that time fighting the reapers.The reapers as a mysterious enemy we knew little about was fine its just they started to mis-handle them in ME2 making Harbi Sir spam talker was a big problem when prior we hand only speaking when nessisary Sovi and in 3 they gave them the dubest motive to kill the galaxy I've seen since the reboot of the day the world stood still or the whole 2012 green movement propaganda movie, we're going to save you from machines killing you by being machines that do kill you.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 20 septembre 2013 - 11:45 .

[XXIceColdXX]

The amount of exposure Cerberus had in ME1 was about right . At most Cerberus should have only been given 1 priority mission, in ME3 to wrap up loose ends but that's it.

I love Mass Effect but felt they went overboard with Cerberus.

[DatRandomGuy1]

EDIT: Completely wrong topic. -.-

Modifié par DatRandomGuy1, 21 septembre 2013 - 11:50 .

[Red Panda]

Steelcan wrote...

Cerberus should have been an ally in ME3, but got to have human mooks

Because the mercenaries were too multicultural?

[wolfhowwl]

Steelcan wrote...

Cerberus should have been an ally in ME3, but got to have human mooks

An optional ally.

[Remix-General Aetius]

oh god no, just finished the trilogy with my new FemShep and I was already sick to death of Cerberus by the time I got to Mars.

they were nothing more but a bunch of side-missions in ME1, just a little extra loose end to tie up. having said that, I personally don't mind "being a part of Cerberus" in ME2 because technically it's not true at all.
Shepard didn't voluntarily join them, and by the time he/she woke up, we were facing an insidious galactic threat in the form of the Collectors. Cerberus had the resources to take them on, Shepard took hold of those resources and do what needed be done.

Karin Chakwas summed it up nicely. "We used them". But come ME3 they became tiresome in an instant. We got more important things to worry about, yet half the missions in the game involve them. I'm like "fock off already".

[ATiBotka]

Would the series be better off if the Reapers were the main villain instead of Cerberus?

[Lars10178]

No, the reapers were the only real threat in ME1, Cerberus had a few moments int he spotlight. ME2 was awesome in how they were implemented. ME3 could have used a different approach to Cerberus.

[DJ Airsurfer]

What do you mean "if"?

[FlyingSquirrel]

It's tough to say because that would be a complete revamp of what the series is about. I've often thought that Bioware set their sights a little too high by introducing the possibility of mass galactic genocide only a few hours in (when Tali tells you what she found in the geth memory core), and that the appeal of exploring this intricate fictional universe sat uneasily with the idea that it could soon all be destroyed. So if they'd decided to limit the scope a little more, or waited until close to the end to introduce an existential threat, then yes, Cerberus would have been a better villain. Maybe the Reapers could have been extinct, and Cerberus unwittingly revives them by trying to exploit what's left of their technology or something like that.

But, like I said, then we're probably talking about very different games. An obvious difference is that if Cerberus were the one working with the geth (for whatever reason) in ME1 and Shepard spends the entire game fighting them, why would they revive Shepard in ME2?

[Baihu1983]

They should have been dealt with in 2 or early on in 3.