Yes, which is why it makes no sense to ask for them to remove save import when what you seem to really want is a narrative disconnect.
So just ask for the thing you want, instead of asking for some other thing and hoping that they deliver the thing you want by accident.
Narrative disconnect is already there, even with save imports.
I say just make a clean break. What I want, at least, is a clean slate.
Yes, which is why it makes no sense to ask for them to remove save import when what you seem to really want is a narrative disconnect.
So just ask for the thing you want, instead of asking for some other thing and hoping that they deliver the thing you want by accident.
No. It makes perfect sense. They've already said it has no connection with Shepard or the events of the trilogy. The narrative disconnect is a given. I simply said they should leave the save import out of it and allow the game to be a self-contained story.
I hate that movie because of the ending: ***spoilers***Signs!
I know, off topic. But I love that movie.
I hate that movie because of the ending: ***spoilers***
Okay, so the aliens are ammonia based life forms and water is essentially toxic to them. This is scientifically reasonable and a cool inclusion as scifi often overlooks life "not as we know it"...
...but the setting was wrong. You mean to tell me that this species was advanced and intelligent enough to construct interstellar spacecraft, but not intelligent enough to realize that they were about to invade a planet that was over 70% surface water!?
And so they are defeated by god damn water hoses and super soakers. Da fuq.
Other than that, the tension of the movie was awesome and well done. But the ending ruins it for me. Just like the ending of The Village.
Now traveling to a hostile planet is reasonable to an extent, especially if what they want is here, but going down to said planet naked is what made it so idiotic.
That would be like humanity traveling to a planet 70% covered in lava, and filled with lava aliens, and rather than wearing protection while on the surface we all decide to run around in our birthday suits.
So the aliens arrogance is worthy of a hundred facepalms. Still a good movie imo. I love the eeriness throughout the entirety of the film.
When it came out 15+ years ago, most of the complaints were due to the lack of footage of the aliens. Those people should've just watched a Michael Bay film.
True, but they're willing to spend billions to perform a feat of God on Shepard, get him a new ship with leather seats, and continually fund his mission to completion. They're obviously bad people and they have a penchant for breaking everything they touch, but they are undeniably useful.
If nothing else, ME3 shows that Cerberus' evil tactics made them a strong contender in the war. The moral question here is whether or not Shepard can ignore the criminality of the organization and leverage their assets to get the job done (i.e. the renegade mentality).
Except in the war they were a hindrance, the time that could have been spent fighting the reapers is wasted by fighting Cerberus. If they were morally grey they would still do questionable things but they wouldn't be hindering the fight against the reapers.
Except in the war they were a hindrance, the time that could have been spent fighting the reapers is wasted by fighting Cerberus. If they were morally grey they would still do questionable things but they wouldn't be hindering the fight against the reapers.
Well then, pfft, maybe we should have stayed with Cerberus and controlled the Reapers!
*goes to Mars*
*helps EVA kill everyone*
*builds Cerberus Crucible with an indoctrinated slave army*
*MUAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA*
But we still use Cerberus assets. Continually, their actions and constructions do help Shepard, even to an essential extent. This maintains through all 3 games, it just is little-known in ME1, and is more challenged in ME3 instead of reinforced as a concept (in ME2 it was a focus of things).
EDIT: They ARE morally grey as an organization (even if maybe cartoonishly bad as people by the end). Their actions (something many forms of morality focuses on, as opposed to intent) do ensure Shepard's success. Their pursuit of human advancement made sure, by intent even, that we were able to challenge the Reapers. You can condemn so much of Cerberus, but as an organization, they were written to be essential to Shepard even getting to complete the Crucible. And not just for 'existing and doing their thing', but for actively trying to help Shepard fight the Reapers and Collectors. ME3 shifted away from this aspect more, but their Greyness did continue in a way, through how they ended up technically right (at least if we believe certain things) about the Reapers and their mechanisms and how we could harness their power instead of waste it.
But yes, their Greyness eroded more by the end of ME2, and by the end of ME3, it was nearly indisputable that they were Bad. This is a trend in the writing that I've seen many hate.
Some of those assets were ex-Cerberus, not to mention that their not to mention the fact that they committed cartoonish acts in ME1 with the rachni clones and throian creepers going out of control that could have caused a major catastrophe if Shepard didn't stop them. ME2 was no better with project overlord which would have resulted in most if not all VI/AI systems being controlled by by a human/VI hybrid had Shepard didn't stop it. So over all Cerberus did more harm than good and what little good they did is just over shadowed by all the problems that they caused. If they we morally grey then the thing's they would've done more good even if their qctions were questionable but througout the trilogy this is clearly not the case.Well then, pfft, maybe we should have stayed with Cerberus and controlled the Reapers!
*goes to Mars*
*helps EVA kill everyone*
*builds Cerberus Crucible with an indoctrinated slave army*
*MUAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA*
But we still use Cerberus assets. Continually, their actions and constructions do help Shepard, even to an essential extent. This maintains through all 3 games, it just is little-known in ME1, and is more challenged in ME3 instead of reinforced as a concept (in ME2 it was a focus of things).
EDIT: They ARE morally grey as an organization (even if maybe cartoonishly bad as people by the end). Their actions (something many forms of morality focuses on, as opposed to intent) do ensure Shepard's success. Their pursuit of human advancement made sure, by intent even, that we were able to challenge the Reapers. You can condemn so much of Cerberus, but as an organization, they were written to be essential to Shepard even getting to complete the Crucible. And not just for 'existing and doing their thing', but for actively trying to help Shepard fight the Reapers and Collectors. ME3 shifted away from this aspect more, but their Greyness did continue in a way, through how they ended up technically right (at least if we believe certain things) about the Reapers and their mechanisms and how we could harness their power instead of waste it.
But yes, their Greyness eroded more by the end of ME2, and by the end of ME3, it was nearly indisputable that they were Bad. This is a trend in the writing that I've seen many hate.
Some of those assets were ex-Cerberus, not to mention that their not to mention the fact that they committed cartoonish acts in ME1 with the rachni clones and throian creepers going out of control that could have caused a major catastrophe if Shepard didn't stop them. ME2 was no better with project overlord which would have resulted in most if not all VI/AI systems being controlled by by a human/VI hybrid had Shepard didn't stop it. So over all Cerberus did more harm than good and what little good they did is just over shadowed by all the problems that they caused. If they we morally grey then the thing's they would've done more good even if their qctions were questionable but througout the trilogy this is clearly not the case.
Disagree. The good they did was essential for victory against the Reapers. The problems were stopped. The successes ended up destroying the Reapers in my game. Maybe not in yours?
They were Reaper pawns by the time ME3 rolls around. As is anybody who is overexposed to Reaper tech.
Well they weren't, they activly tried to stop Shepard on nermorus occasions and Shepard was nothing more than a pawn in their plans and a lot time and resources that could have been used to fight the reapers was used to stop Cerberus. The only truly morally grey group is the STG but since they did things that were questionable but yielded good results, most of Cerberus things only back fired and just created more problems.Disagree. The good they did was essential for victory against the Reapers. The problems were stopped. The successes ended up destroying the Reapers in my game. Maybe not in yours?
Except in the war they were a hindrance, the time that could have been spent fighting the reapers is wasted by fighting Cerberus. If they were morally grey they would still do questionable things but they wouldn't be hindering the fight against the reapers.
Exactly, which is why they shouldn't have turned evil. They were morally ambiguous right until ME3.
They were never morally ambiguous. They were extremists with a messed up moral compass and code of ethics, if they even had either at all.
I saw it more like Dark Grey lol.
They wanted humanity uplifted and they got it. They got Shepard. The Normandy. EDI. Corporations to pitch in. Scientists to surpass much of the rest of the galaxy. I could go on with several more examples but I'm making burritos.
The idea of Cerberus continued. The organization degraded and died.
"Cerberus is an idea. That idea is not so easily destroyed."
They were never morally ambiguous. They were extremists with a messed up moral compass and code of ethics, if they even had either at all.
Exactly, which is why they shouldn't have turned evil. They were morally ambiguous right until ME3.
They were never portrayed as morally ambiguous they were depicted as mad scientist in most of the trilogy, if Bioware were depicting as being morally ambiguous then Bioware didn't do a very good job of it in all three games. If Bioware depicted them as being more competent in all three games and actually get stuff done without putting half the galaxy in danger yet have questionable methods then they may have been morally grey but this isn't the case in all three games.
They were never morally ambiguous. They were extremists with a messed up moral compass and code of ethics, if they even had either at all.
Actually they were suppose to be morally ambiguous, but the rachni clones, project overlord and the adjutants on Omega made them look like mad scientist instead.
I saw it more like Dark Grey lol.
They wanted humanity uplifted and they got it. They got Shepard. The Normandy. EDI. Corporations to pitch in. Scientists to surpass much of the rest of the galaxy. I could go on with several more examples but I'm making burritos.
The idea of Cerberus continued. The organization degraded and died.
They didn't Cerberus had no role in getting humanity on the council and played no part in the crucible or improving humanities standing in the galaxy. All they did was put the safety of the galaxy in serious jeopardy and hindered the war effort with the reapers.
They were never morally ambiguous. They were extremists with a messed up moral compass and code of ethics, if they even had either at all.
I agree. BioWare should have focused on making them be somewhat competent and getting some results and had the moral ambiguity come from exploring Shepard having to work with evil to accomplish his goals.
Some of the attempts to make them more palatable (those were just rogue cells!) just made them look inept. Besides would an ends justify the means extremist really have that much of a problem with experimenting on children or hapless soldiers if it meant giving humanity an edge?
They were never portrayed as morally ambiguous they were depicted as mad scientist in most of the trilogy, if Bioware were depicting as being morally ambiguous then Bioware didn't do a very good job of it in all three games. If Bioware depicted them as being more competent in all three games and actually get stuff done without putting half the galaxy in danger yet have questionable methods then they may have been morally grey but this isn't the case in all three games.
Actually they were suppose to be morally ambiguous, but the rachni clones, project overlord and the adjutants on Omega made them look like mad scientist instead.
They didn't Cerberus had no role in getting humanity on the council and played no part in the crucible or improving humanities standing in the galaxy. All they did was put the safety of the galaxy in serious jeopardy and hindered the war effort with the reapers.
lol Cerberus probably got Udina hired.
They kill popes.
lol Cerberus probably got Udina hired.
They kill popes.
These things came from the same group with a huge track record of experiments back firing on them and killing any one who's involved and potentially putting the galaxy at risk of a major catastrophe. Morally grey groups tend to be very competent when carrying out most of their actions Cerberus are the exact opposite as they have been portrayed as being very incompetent in most of the work they've carried out.
TIM: Cerberus is an idea Shepard.
Shepard: Uh huh.
"Cerberus is an idea. That idea is not so easily destroyed."
"Stand for something, join Cerberus."
Let me correct that:
"Stand for the advancement and preservation of humanity, join Cerberus"
AKA don't dabble in any Cerberus in ME4 because that horse is as dead-beat as the endings.
Retour en haut