93 réponses à ce sujet

[oldag07]

Like many people, I find it difficult to believe I that someone who buys a ship and a crew and spends vast amounts of resources to bring someone from the dead would completely change his objectives. The Illusive man isn't stupid, and it seems out of character for him to get lured into being indoctrinated.

 

BUT. . . .

 

I believe I understand why Bioware made them a baddie in ME3. I think one overlooked reason why Cerberus was turned into the big Baddie of ME3 was the fact that from a gameplay point of view, a third faction, more importantly a humanoid faction, was needed both in single and multiplayer. To be honest, I playing all three fractions but I enjoy fighting Cerberus the best in single player. The diversity of the different opponents themselves is what makes multiplayer fun.  All Reapers and Geth all the time would just not have been as fun. Variety is the spice of life. Personal opinion of course.

 

Hindsight is 20/20.  One way Bioware could have got around the problem was using the Shadow Broker as the humanoid bad guys. That of course throws out the best DLC in ME2, and dramatically changes the story of ME3.  But the SB was the only other mysterious organization that could have provided humanoid bad guys in ME3. It might have made more sense to use them because we didn't know who controlled it in ME2 before the Shadow Broker DLC.  It might have been a Reaper.  And because we didn't know the SB motives until the DLC, he didn't have to do a complete 180 storywise, he could have been bad from the beginning.

 

Of course I really do enjoy the game. . . . I am just a fan boy speculating. . . .  Liara becoming the SB was also a good dramatic move, and while it didn't make as much since in a macro view point to make Cerberus the baddy, it made since dramatically to make the the baddy.  The mistrust of Shepard from the "good guys".  Forcing the dirty dozen to separate. . . . . These made for good drama in ME3.

[Nethalf]

They just wanted to get themselves killed. With style.

[Gervaise]

Cerberus becoming the baddies in ME3 fitted with their previous reputation from ME1 and with the lore concerning the Reapers.  We were told in ME1 that the Protheans were hampered in their fight from enemies within their ranks.   This is confirmed by Javik.   It means that on top of their superior forces the Reapers have the advantage of chaos in enemy ranks.   It also means that they are more likely to gain information about isolated communities that they might otherwise overlook in the harvest.   The only way Ilos avoided this was to cut themselves off completely from the outside world.    Given how widespread Cerberus is in the galaxy, it stands to reason that the Reapers would see them as a useful way of sowing mistrust and discord in the galactic community.

 

The odd thing in ME2 was that we were allowed to operate so freely in Citadel space considering the Cerberus was an outlawed organisation in Alliance space and the Council would regard them as renegade humans.     However, it would seem that TIM had a lot of high level contacts within the alliance and was able to access a fair bit of classified information about Shepard, the crew and even the Normandy.    Given the Reapers had targeted the humanity as their main interest it is hardly surprising that they would wish to take over Cerberus in order to undermine any resistance.

[Sir DeLoria]

Because every shooter needs random human mooks to kill en mass. Screw consistent writing or player decisions.

[Kingthlayer]

Cerberus became the bad guys because BioWare didn't feel the need to create the dueling story that they set up in Mass Effect 2.  Instead of having Mass Effect 3 be the big pay off of the trilogy they opted to make it "the best place to start", in making that decision they ended up making most of the previous cast become either cameos or not there at all.

 

I blame myself and Witcher 2 for thinking that BioWare would go that route with us being allowed to either play as Cerberus or Alliance.  EA is all about that dollar sign, why create a game with two different paths when most players don't even finish the game the first time through.  One of the reasons I'm concerned about the next Mass Effect, wouldn't surprise me at all to see a 10 hour First Contact War game with multiplayer as the focus.

[DeinonSlayer]

Cerberus became the bad guys because BioWare didn't feel the need to create the dueling story that they set up in Mass Effect 2. Instead of having Mass Effect 3 be the big pay off of the trilogy they opted to make it "the best place to start", in making that decision they ended up making most of the previous cast become either cameos or not there at all.

I blame myself and Witcher 2 for thinking that BioWare would go that route with us being allowed to either play as Cerberus or Alliance. EA is all about that dollar sign, why create a game with two different paths when most players don't even finish the game the first time through. One of the reasons I'm concerned about the next Mass Effect, wouldn't surprise me at all to see a 10 hour First Contact War game with multiplayer as the focus.

If they do a game on the First Contact War, I guarantee that per standard shooter conventions the player will kill more Turians than died canonically in the entire conflict.

If they do a game on the Morning War, you couldn't pay me to play on the Geth side. Though there was an interesting HL2 mod I saw which could serve as a model for multiplayer - each player on the Quarian side plays in a TPS perspective, controlling an individual soldier, while a single person controls the Geth RTS-style with an overhead view and fights against them.

Rachni Wars/Krogan Rebellion might be vaguely interesting.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

From a meta-perspective, they were a convenient group of human targets for Shepard to shoot at to build some semblance of story and to distract from the overpowered Reapers that would have broken the story otherwise.

 

In universe, indoctrination, pure and simple. They became too careless and abandoned any attempt at subtlety or caution when studying Reaper tech. It blew up in their face. They needed a lot more control to make sure that indoctrination wouldn't happen to key people when they did study Reaper tech.

 

I'm upset at my Shepard's inability to feel sympathy for Cerberus or express his enjoyment and satisfaction working for them.

[Gervaise]

By the way, you say TIM was too clever to get indoctrinated.   Well, in ME2 we went to a supposedly "dead" Reaper than Cerberus scientists had previously been sent to investigate and became indoctrinated.   Given this experience you would think the last thing any sane person would want to do would be to take over the Collector Base when it is clear that the Reapers were able to control this from dark space.    This was the chief reason I wanted it destroyed - because I saw it as dangerous.   Likewise he saw no danger in using Reaper tech salvaged from Sovereign or using Reaper implants on his soldiers even though his own scientists were warning him that these soldiers were already hearing voices.   The main question to ask is at what point he became indoctrinated but it was clearly inevitable once he started to covert Reaper power.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

If they do a game on the First Contact War, I guarantee that per standard shooter conventions the player will kill more Turians than died canonically in the entire conflict.

If they do a game on the Morning War, you couldn't pay me to play on the Geth side. Though there was an interesting HL2 mod I saw which could serve as a model for multiplayer - each player on the Quarian side plays in a TPS perspective, controlling an individual soldier, while a single person controls the Geth RTS-style with an overhead view and fights against them.

Rachni Wars/Krogan Rebellion might be vaguely interesting.

 

I'd totally be one of the Geth-supporting Quarians that gets viciously murdered by his own people.

[DeinonSlayer]

From a meta-perspective, they were a convenient group of human targets for Shepard to shoot at to build some semblance of story and to distract from the overpowered Reapers that would have broken the story otherwise.
 
In universe, indoctrination, pure and simple. They became too careless and abandoned any attempt at subtlety or caution when studying Reaper tech. It blew up in their face. They needed a lot more control to make sure that indoctrination wouldn't happen to key people when they did study Reaper tech.
 
I'm upset at my Shepard's inability to feel sympathy for Cerberus or express his enjoyment and satisfaction working for them.

It wasn't easy roleplaying my Shepard who was a member all the way through the events of ME1. Some conversations have to be avoided altogether to stay in-character.

[DeinonSlayer]

I'd totally be one of the Geth-supporting Quarians that gets viciously murdered by his own people.

Assuming we can believe anything at all the Geth choose to show us in the Consensus in light of their total control over the content, obvious interest in garnering Shepard's sympathy and constant lies of omission. Just throwing that out there. Don't care for a prolonged debate.

Seriously. If Bioware's writers had half the subtlety IT advocates believe, the fact it was a history presented by the Geth would itself be grounds for suspicion, but I suspect we were meant to blindly accept what they shovel-fed us over the course of the arc. Same with Cerberus, Synthesis, et al.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

  One of the reasons I'm concerned about the next Mass Effect, wouldn't surprise me at all to see a 10 hour First Contact War game with multiplayer as the focus.

A canonical First Contact War would have about 1 hour of gameplay, followed by a cut scene where it takes the entire second fleet to defeat a Turian patrol fleet.  

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It wasn't easy roleplaying my Shepard who was a member all the way through the events of ME1. Some conversations have to be avoided altogether to stay in-character.

 

I never RP'd my Shepard as a Cerberus agent through ME1. I have him as being a person of interest for possible recruitment or candidacy shortly after the period when they did their deed (mine was surviving on Akuze). If you're familiar with Star Wars, I have Miranda taking a sort of 'Mara Jade' approach to him, sans the desire to murder him. She's impressed by his skills, but believes that he's too much of an alliance lapdog (which is inaccurate, as I have my Shepard being disillusioned with the alliance early on, having really joined them to find a greater destiny in space and to escape the life of crime back on Earth). She doesn't really believe that he's got what it takes. TIM on the other hand believes he might be the one who will lead humanity to greatness, and actually decides not to recruit Shepard to see how far he'll go on his own.

[Derpy]

Because Cerberus supports humanity while Shepard supports the banging of aliens.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Assuming we can believe anything at all the Geth choose to show us in the Consensus in light of their total control over the content, obvious interest in garnering Shepard's sympathy and constant lies of omission. Just throwing that out there. Don't care for a prolonged debate.

Seriously. If Bioware's writers had half the subtlety IT advocates believe, the fact it was a history present by the Geth would itself be grounds for suspicion, but I suspect we were meant to blindly accept what they shovel-fed us over the course of the arc. Same with Cerberus, Synthesis, et al.

 

We were, but at the same time, as far back as ME1 I saw glaring holes in Tali (and by extension, the Quarians) story, and with the introduction of Legion in ME2, I was pretty much convinced that there was a lot more going on behind all the stuff than we were led to believe by the galaxy at large.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Because Cerberus supports humanity while Shepard supports the banging of aliens.

 

They're not mutually exclusive are they? That said, if people want to screw aliens, that's their business. My Shepard will stick to human females.

[DeinonSlayer]

We were, but at the same time, as far back as ME1 I saw glaring holes in Tali (and by extension, the Quarians) story, and with the introduction of Legion in ME2, I was pretty much convinced that there was a lot more going on behind all the stuff than we were led to believe by the galaxy at large.

Assuming it wasn't a fabrication, the accidental-death-by-door-charge IMO may well have been an isolated incident which pales in comparison to the rest of the conflict. Some have tried to argue, basically, that the Morning War was a quarian-on-quarian genocide that the Geth looked on with traumatized puppy eyes (Auld Wulf), or to put a rifle in the hands of every last toddler solely to justify the act of killing them (Obadiah). I guess it ultimately comes down to personal interpretation.

[DeinonSlayer]

They're not mutually exclusive are they? That said, if people want to screw aliens, that's their business. My Shepard will stick to human females.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to conflate "pro-human" with "anti-alien." I don't see how the former necessitates the latter.

Ashley, for instance, I see as a human nationalist, but not a racist.

[shit's fucked cunts]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to conflate "pro-human" with "anti-alien." I don't see how the former necessitates the latter.

 

Wording. "I don't hate black people, I'm just pro-white. Man, I love being white, but you blacks are okay as well."

 

You'd kick the shit out of them.

[DeinonSlayer]

Wording. "I don't hate black people, I'm just pro-white. Man, I love being white, but you blacks are okay as well."

You'd kick the shit out of them.

And organizations like the NAACP, Black Panthers et al are OK because...?

Take my advice: don't take the thread in that direction.

[shit's fucked cunts]

Understood. It's just that pro-anything can sound bad to the right people. Pro-choice? More like anti-religious freedom.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

 

Wording. "I don't hate black people, I'm just pro-white. Man, I love being white, but you blacks are okay as well."

 

You'd kick the **** out of them.

 

Well, I'd first wonder why you made a strawman of their statement. 

[shit's fucked cunts]

Well, I'd first wonder why you made a strawman of their statement. 

 

Admit it, you've been waiting to say something clever like that to me for ages.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Understood. It's just that pro-anything can sound bad to the right people. Pro-choice? More like anti-religious freedom.

 

This statement actually represents the idea better than the first one. This is pretty much how it is.

 

You know, recently there was a bill in Arizona to allow businesses the right to refuse service to homosexual people. When it got struck down by Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona, a lot of people cried out that the bill being vetoed(which limited the civil rights of homosexual people) trampled on their religious rights and beliefs. Kansas already has said law in place, and there's talk that they'll even try to allow first-responders to refuse aid to people based on religious belief. 

 

That's what people are doing here: Civil rights for gays equals trampling on others 'religious rights' to shamefully large number of people.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Admit it, you've been waiting to say something clever like that to me for ages.

 

No, I just point out a fallacy when I see one. That said, in context with your next statement, it's clear you were playing Devil's Advocate. So in truth, it's no longer directed towards you so much as it is towards the people who make said statements.