402 réponses à ce sujet

[andy6915]

Or were they... [cue dramatic score]

Well... Yeah. Cerberus was an enigma back then. What we assumed was the majority of their organization was pretty much just a Cerberus cell. It's like with the Turians when they took over Shanxi, they assumed that was the bulk of the human's forces. They assumed that right up until an entire fleet showed up to kick the Turians back off the planet. They assumed that was the bulk of them when really they were just a small part. You can't know how much of an organization you've destroyed when you don't even know how big it is to begin with.

[Fixers0]

Well... Yeah. Cerberus was an enigma back then. What we assumed was the majority of their organization was pretty much just a Cerberus cell. It's like with the Turians when they took over Shanxi, they assumed that was the bulk of the human's forces. They assumed that right up until an entire fleet showed up to kick the Turians back off the planet. They assumed that was the bulk of them when really they were just a small part. You can't know how much of an organization you've destroyed when you don't even know how big it is to begin with.

 

A narrative doesn't work that way. Cerberus wasn't an enigma, it was exactly as we're told it was: Alliance black'ops gone rogue, nothing more and nothing less. When the narrative tells u we wiped out Cerberus we have no reason to doubt that information unless there was strong suspsion that it wasn't of which there was no evidence. Applying information retroactively in order to justify flaws in the narrative is what we call a retcon.

[andy6915]

The narrative never said you wiped out Cerberus. At any point. I do the Cerberus missions in ME1 on every playthrough, of which they are many playthroughs. And I do all of them, the Toombs mission and the Husk mission and the 3 Rachni missions that have Cerberus involvement and all the Kohoku missions in the Voyager cluster. You're not told you wiped them out after any of those assignments.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well... Yeah. Cerberus was an enigma back then. What we assumed was the majority of their organization was pretty much just a Cerberus cell. It's like with the Turians when they took over Shanxi, they assumed that was the bulk of the human's forces. They assumed that right up until an entire fleet showed up to kick the Turians back off the planet. They assumed that was the bulk of them when really they were just a small part. You can't know how much of an organization you've destroyed when you don't even know how big it is to begin with.

 

I wouldn't say Cerberus was an enigma. Back in ME1 the game was pretty clear with what Cerberus was, there was no deeper mystery about who they were or what their ultimate goal was; they were just a generic, B-movie evil organization. And while we can stand back and say that the Cerberus in the later games and the Cerberus in ME1 are not mutually exclusive (although I don't believe this), the point is this is a story. There was no build up to the sudden twist at the beginning of ME2 that Cerberus was suddenly something more, they could have made up an entirely new organization and it would have had the same dramatic affect, in fact it would have worked better and have been much, much less contrived.

[Fixers0]

The narrative never said you wiped out Cerberus. At any point. I do the Cerberus missions in ME1 on every playthrough, of which they are many playthroughs. And I do all of them, the Toombs mission and the Husk mission and the 3 Rachni missions that have Cerberus involvement and all the Kohoku missions in the Voyager cluster. You're not told you wiped them out after any of those assignments.

 

Toombs mentioned that he could escape someone destroyed Cerberus only after you completed the missions in the voyager cluster, while the source is argueably subjective, the narrative doesn't create the reasonable suspsion that is needed in order to doubt this claim. 

[andy6915]

That's just it, we weren't sure about Cerberus in the first game. Did we know who the leader was? No. Did we know how well funded they were? No. Did we ever encounter their main facility? No. Did we know exactly how or why they went rogue? No. Did we know the numbers, the number of people in the organization? No. Did we ever find out where their main facility even was? No. Did we ever discover how many facilities they even had? No.

 

Not an enigma? By what definition?

[Fixers0]

That's just it, we weren't sure about Cerberus in the first game. Did we know who the leader was? No. Did we know how well funded they were? No. Did we ever encounter their main facility? No. Did we know exactly how or why they went rogue? No. Did we know the numbers, the number of people in the organization? No. Did we ever find out where their main facility even was? No.

 

All this his information is irrelevant, If the narrative never bring this up, you shouldn't either. All we needed to know about Cerberus is what is being told. from a purist literary perspective In mass effect 1, Cerberus had no leader and the bases we see are all that exist.

[andy6915]

Well by that logic Thane and Samara didn't even exist back then because we were never told about them, thus their existence in a retcon. Saying "well it wasn't mentioned back then so obviously it's a retcon" is really bad logic. Future titles further clarifying previously vague info isn't a retcon.

[ImaginaryMatter]

That's just it, we weren't sure about Cerberus in the first game. Did we know who the leader was? No. Did we know how well funded they were? No. Did we ever encounter their main facility? No. Did we know exactly how or why they went rogue? No. Did we know the numbers, the number of people in the organization? No. Did we ever find out where their main facility even was? No. Did we ever discover how many facilities they even had? No.

 

Not an enigma? By what definition?

 

In a story though you don't have to explain every single last detail. Just because the game doesn't tell us about Anderson's childhood or who his parents were doesn't mean he's a mystery and he could be an alien... or something like that. If the all that stuff about Cerberus's leadership and funding was important there would be some reflection on it, but there isn't. It's implicit that Cerberus in ME1 is nothing more than what the game tells us, even the writer's have acknowledged that Cerberus wasn't meant to be anything greater than what it was, that development came later. It's pretty clear from how awkward and contrived Shepard's first meeting with TIM is that none of that was planned in advance.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Well by that logic Thane and Samara didn't even exist back then because we were never told about them, thus their existence in a retcon. Saying "well it wasn't mentioned back then so obviously it's a retcon" is really bad logic. Future titles further clarifying previously vague info isn't a retcon.

 

That's not what he said at all.

[andy6915]

In a story though you don't have to explain every single last detail. Just because the game doesn't tell us about Anderson's childhood or who his parents were doesn't mean he's a mystery and he could be an alien... or something like that. If the all that stuff about Cerberus's leadership and funding was important there would be some reflection on it, but there isn't. It's implicit that Cerberus in ME1 is nothing more than what the game tells us, even the writer's have acknowledged that Cerberus wasn't meant to be anything greater than what it was, that development came later. It's pretty clear from how awkward and contrived Shepard's first meeting with TIM is that none of that was planned in advance.

Well of course that's true, but only in the same way that Tuchanka for example was only vaguely talked about and clarification happened later. Hell, some parts of that were retconned, Tuchanka apparently has lava all over the place according to ME1. But that's from a story point of view, I'm talking from an in-universe canon explanation. Yes of course Cerberus wasn't planned to be a big corporate super power in ME1, but that doesn't reflect on the canon itself. You're focusing on it as a fiction, I'm focusing on it from an in-universe perspective. And from that perspective, there was nothing confirming or denying just how big Cerberus actually was back then.

 

A retcon needs to contradict previous information. What happened with Cerberus in ME2 and onwards didn't actually contradict anything were told about it in the first game.

[Fixers0]

Well by that logic Thane and Samara didn't even exist back then because we were never told about them, thus their existence in a retcon. Saying "well it wasn't mentioned back then so obviously it's a retcon" is really bad logic. Future titles further clarifying previously vague info isn't a retcon.

 

Thane and Samara actually didn't exist in Mass Effect as they were written for  Mass Effect 2's, strictly speaking they're not retcons because they have no major connections to established narrative elements, If samara was Liara's sister for example, it would be a retcon.

 

Retroactively adding content to to established narrative elements is one of the definition of a retcon though, whether or not it damages the narrative is up to each invdiual casem the more contrived the worse.

[andy6915]

Thane and Samara actually didn't exist in Mass Effect as they were written for  Mass Effect 2's, strictly speaking they're not retcons because they have no major connections to established narrative elements, If samara was Liara's sister for example, it would be a retcon.

 

Retroactively adding content to to established narrative elements is one of the definition of a retcon though, whether or not it damages the narrative is up to each invdiual casem the more contrived the worse.

No, it has to contradict previous info the be a retcon. By your logic every single added thing in a sequel is a retcon. Darth Vader is Luke's father? Retcon. Mage human warden has a cousin named Hawke who goes on to be famous? Retcon. Existence of a group called the Blue Suns? Retcon.

 

"Thane and Samara actually didn't exist in Mass Effect as they were written for  Mass Effect 2's, strictly speaking they're not retcons because they have no major connections to established narrative elements"

 

Cerberus as it is in ME2 onward didn't exist in Mass Effect as it was written for Mass Effect 2's, strictly speaking they're not retcons because they have no connections to established narrative elements. Cerberus could have been that big in ME1 and we just didn't know it, just like Justicars and Drell could have existed back then and we just didn't know it.

[Fixers0]

No, it has to contradict previous info the be a retcon. By your logic every single added thing in a sequel is a retcon. Darth Vader is Luke's father? Retcon. Mage human warden has a cousin named Hawke who goes on to be famous? Retcon. Existence of a group called the Blue Suns? Retcon.

 

Cerberus as it is in ME2 onward didn't exist in Mass Effect as it was written for Mass Effect 2's, strictly speaking they're not retcons because they have no connections to established narrative elements. Cerberus could have been that big in ME1 and we just didn't know it, just like Justicars and Drell could have existed back then and we just didn't know it.

 

You're wrong, there not need to be a direct contradiction in order for something to be a retcon, any modfication  made to pre established elements is considerd a contradiction, even if there is no direct contradiction. Adding totally new elements to a narrative differs from adding content to allready established elements, this something you don't seem to get. 

[andy6915]

Like the already established element that Luke's father was murdered by Vader, thus retcon when we find out that in fact his father is still alive and is the guy who apparently murdered his father? That wasn't totally new elements, that was "adding content to already established elements" which is your definition of a retcon. Which means any kind of plot twist or change to something already established is a retcon to you.

 

Again... Your logic sucks .

[Fixers0]

Like the already established element that Luke's father was murdered by Vader, thus retcon when we find out that in fact his father is still alive and is the guy who apparently murdered his father? That wasn't totally new elements, that was "adding content to already established elements" which is your definition of a retcon. Which means any kind of plot twist or change to something already established is a retcon to you.

 
Actually, critics agree, that Vader being Luke's vader probably was A retcon. After all, pre-established facts is modified, In fact you could say that there is a direct contradiction because Luke's vader is actually still alive.
 
And yes, genius, as I've said, any change to establisehd material can be considerd a retcon, whether it damages the narrative or is not up to individual analysis.
 
And I fail why my logic "'sucks". As it's not my logic, but rather a commonly accepted definition.

[andy6915]

No, it sucks because your definition of a retcon is so broad that the term is rendered effectively meaningless.

[Fixers0]

No, it sucks because your definition of a retcon is so broad that the term is rendered effectively meaningless.

 
To you perhaps, but to more skilled literary critics it would be quite easy to identify when established narrative materials is altered and when completely new narrative materials is added.

 

And once again it's not my definition, but rather one the that is commonly acecpt, If you wan to get techncial  this specific form of retcon is also called a Revision.

[Rainbowhawk]

N7.

 

Come on. It's no question. Cerberus just recycles the same unit types and throws them into the fire fight to have their heads blown off by Carinfix bullets while the N7 crew are more creative in their tactics. One N7 Slayer and One N7 Paladin could probably take on a whole legion of Cerberus troops alone. And even if a squad of N7 are cornered by Cerberus they can always call for help from their alien buddies because the Alliance are friends with the Krogen, Turians the geth and all the others because Cerberus are just a whole bunch of Xenophobic Master Race bigots.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

N7.

 

Come on. It's no question. Cerberus just recycles the same unit types and throws them into the fire fight to have their heads blown off by Carinfix bullets while the N7 crew are more creative in their tactics. One N7 Slayer and One N7 Paladin could probably take on a whole legion of Cerberus troops alone. And even if a squad of N7 are cornered by Cerberus they can always call for help from their alien buddies because the Alliance are friends with the Krogen, Turians the geth and all the others because Cerberus are just a whole bunch of Xenophobic Master Race bigots.

 

Well Mr. United States JSF (lol), I find this to be a completely inaccurate assessment. It's hard to really gauge the actual effectiveness of either N7 or Cerberus soldiers (beyond what we see in ME3, who are indoctrinated drones for the most part, and shown to be rather effective when not facing the likes of Shepard), since there really isn't any material to assert what kinds of specialties and mission capabilities they have beyond Shepard, N7 MP players, Cerberus MP players, and Kai Leng, all of whom demonstrate incredible capability. Shepard of course qualifies for both N7 and Cerberus, seeing as he was both at two points in his life. But to catch up from my digression, you just pulled all of this out of your ass.

 

As for the Cerberus 'xenophobic master race bigots', which is hardly true and in fact slightly inversed considering alliance soldiers themselves (Ashley and Admiral Mikhailovich comes to mind here) are known for their own rather dismissive and prejudiced attitude towards aliens. In fact, as I recall, really only Shepard ever seems to be the only person in the alliance that consistently deals with aliens in any real capacity beyond Udina, whose motivations, abilities, and ideology are at your disposal to interpret.

[DeinonSlayer]

@Massive -why are you so protective over Cerberus?

Do I need to post the crocodile-stick-poking video again?

[Invisible Man]

@Massive -why are you so protective over Cerberus?

that seems to be massively's area of expertise. defending cerberus.

@Deinonslayer
by all means post that vid, I never get tired of it.