41 réponses à ce sujet

[Fugue766]

Imo this is how my image of paragon Shep would act sure I would have done more to state that I'm not with them I'm more using them to save he galaxy, but I really like what there doing with paragon Shep and Jacob.

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

I have to agree that the storyline and available dialog leaves goody 2 shoes Paladin type characters completely out in the cold. Then again, I never liked playing an RPG from atop a moral high-horse....

To be completely honest, I think Bioware realized there would be no way to justify a morally inflexible Paragon Shepherd even considering to work with Cerberus, so they sidestepped the entire issue.  The, "you brought me back from the dead, so I guess I owe you a chance", reasoning is pretty lame...

Modifié par Br0th3rGr1mm, 27 janvier 2010 - 06:13 .

[Fhaileas]

For me the root of this "detachment" lies not in rationalizing Shephard's actions in-game from a paragon/renegade perspective, but in the forced narrative that compels Shephard to act as s/he does. It just reeks of bad writing without having paid heed to the character development and narrative of the first game. From the story itself to the actions and re-actions of your comrades and NPCs from the original game, it almost seems that your none of your pivotal actions had any "meaningful" impact and your role as a friend, lover, hero and savior of the galaxy was merely superficial.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 27 janvier 2010 - 06:56 .

[ComTrav]

This argument does remind me of the DAO argument over whether or not your character should continue with the Grey Wardens after the Joining.



But it's pretty clear the Council and Systems Alliance aren't going to help you. If you want to stop the Collectors (and you do, or you could just stop playing), you need Cerebrus's help.

[SpideyKnight]

You guys have a weird sense of what Paragon is or isn't. Ever hear of redemption? I assume because the organization has some shady dealings you're just willing to write the whole thing off as scandalous? If this is TIM's way of trying to make up for the wrongs he's done, then he is really giving it a hell of a try and you owe him enough to see it through. Paragon choices allow you to let even the worst criminals go and seek redemption, Fist is a perfect example. TIM just operates on a larger scale, that doesn't mean he isn't deserving of the same redemption however. We know only of the bad things Cerberus did in ME1, they have a lot of worthwhile projects as well.

[stylepoints]

Why can't people spell cerberus.

[loldoompaw]

Nopasaran1936 wrote...

Does anyone else who played a full Paragon feel like this?

Yes, very much. My Shepard would have arrested every one of her new allies regardless of whether or not they were the "last hope for humanity". Cerberus is a terrorist organization, period, in Shepards's mind; the whole "the previous ones were just military" so far feels like an utter cop-out. It would be like working for Al-Qaida's "fund raising division" and justifying it by saying I don't personally blow up innocent civilians even though I take my directions directly from Osama bin-Laden (the Illusive Man directs the military branch of Cerberus as well, after all).

As for the Council giving my character the run-around and not believing my intel, how is that different from ME1?  The Paragon Shepard had the exact same problem before, and somehow managed to avoid working for terrorists. I'll keep playing because it's a good game and I'm holding out for a "plot turn" at some point that will justify it, but so far it's been very weak in giving me any real justification for supporting Cerberus rather than simply hijacking the Normandy-2 and turning it over to the Alliance.

Remember when Shepard had to steal the Normandy back in the first game?  Even Paragon Shepard knows when to break the rules.  I'm about half way through the game and it seems like Cerberus are the only ones who are willing to save the galaxy. 

What do you expect Shepard to do?  Stick with the Alliance and Council twidling his thumbs or go with the "terrorist" organization(who was obviously put in a bad light and apparently the ill doings we saw from the first game were done by rogue cells) and save the galaxy?

[Nopasaran1936]

I think you guys may be missing the point. There are plenty of ways of working a pure Paragon into the situation beyond the strong-arming and corner-cutting that has gone on so far in the story.

Just an example off the top of my head: Paragon Shepard goes to the Council and Alliance to turn in Cerberus and is publically rebuffed, but is given a top-secret task of infiltrating Cerberus and reporting on its activities, since the Alliance isn't capable of making a frontal assault on the organization without losing legitimacy in the face of growing public sentiment in favor of Cerberus. The Council won't back you beyond calling you a Spectre again, and the Alliance can't promise military support but will back you up in some under-the-table manner. Deep cover Paragon Shepard holds her nose and struggles to work with an organization she fought to destroy, and perhaps even develops a sense of the "shades of grey" in the process. The issue of "rogue cells" could be developed over the story, giving Shepard a different perspective on Cerberus.

That's literally ALL that would be needed to smooth out the inconsistency, but I've seen no sign of such an option. There's gently leading a story to a definite conclusion, and then there's railroading that utterly disregards character choice and personality. The first ME did this quite well, since you could act Renegade or Paragon, law abiding or reckless, and yet the story still played out in a definite direction. In this game, at least so far in my playing, there is no reasonable explaination given as to why the ultimate Paragon Shepard would even play games with Cerberus to begin with. It's made worse by the fact that TIM even says Shepard has a choice, when clearly the Paragon Shepard isn't allowed to be Paragon. You're just saddled immediately with a decision that Paragon Shepard most likely would not have made.

The bottom line is that Cerberus might very well be the only organization that can save the galaxy, they might even be good at the heart of it, but there is no truly "Paragon" way to start working with them provided by the writers. I have no problem playing an evil character, either; my Jade Empire character was maxed out Closed Fist. My problem is that the we were permitted, even encouraged, to make a Shepard in ME1 that simply doesn't work in the story of ME2, at least not as presented. All we have is the law-abiding Shepard immediately taking cues from Galactic Terrorist #1, without even meeting with the Alliance or Council first to report in after being MIA for two years.

Hopefully this issue will be resolved as the story progresses, but a lot of things could have been done to make the transition smoother in the beginning. Like I said, the short example I gave off the top of my head would resolve most of the issues people are complaining about here, and it wouldn't require a substantial rewrite of the story as it stands. It's not that Shepard works with Cerberus, it's that there is no reasonable justification for why Paragon Shepard would do so immediately, and that works against immersion.

Modifié par Nopasaran1936, 27 janvier 2010 - 10:40 .

[xMister Vx]

I think people should remember that we are NOT talking about a "pure" Paragon.
The reason is very simple - Shepard isn't entirely your character. Sure, you have a certain freedom of choice regarding his behaviour - within the boundaries that have been defined by the writers. Therefore, he cannot be a Lawful Stupid paladin. He realises that he doesn't have much choice, that he has to get this mission, and accepts the backing of Cerberus. If you play Paragon, he will voice his concerns and even say that he's fully prepared for their possible treason, which is more than enough. A smart Paragon also has a reason to stay in Cerberus to learn more about their activities.
It's still a story of a man who gets the job done either way (with a difference in methods only). You basically can't say "oh, my Shepard would never do that", because the character is much more defined by the writers than in other games. That's what's so great about him. To cite a recent example, you don't get to choose as much as in Dragon Age (where your character is also mute), but you trade that for a character with more personality.

I'm not sure how many people on here are familiar with tabletop roleplaying, but there are instances when the GM invites someone to play an important NPC. Shepard is in the middle, between that and a regular player character.
 

[ComTrav]

Nopasaran1936 wrote...

I think you guys may be missing the point. There are plenty of ways of working a pure Paragon into the situation beyond the strong-arming and corner-cutting that has gone on so far in the story.

Just an example off the top of my head: Paragon Shepard goes to the Council and Alliance to turn in Cerberus and is publically rebuffed, but is given a top-secret task of infiltrating Cerberus and reporting on its activities, since the Alliance isn't capable of making a frontal assault on the organization without losing legitimacy in the face of growing public sentiment in favor of Cerberus. The Council won't back you beyond calling you a Spectre again, and the Alliance can't promise military support but will back you up in some under-the-table manner. Deep cover Paragon Shepard holds her nose and struggles to work with an organization she fought to destroy, and perhaps even develops a sense of the "shades of grey" in the process. The issue of "rogue cells" could be developed over the story, giving Shepard a different perspective on Cerberus.

That's literally ALL that would be needed to smooth out the inconsistency, but I've seen no sign of such an option. There's gently leading a story to a definite conclusion, and then there's railroading that utterly disregards character choice and personality. The first ME did this quite well, since you could act Renegade or Paragon, law abiding or reckless, and yet the story still played out in a definite direction. In this game, at least so far in my playing, there is no reasonable explaination given as to why the ultimate Paragon Shepard would even play games with Cerberus to begin with. It's made worse by the fact that TIM even says Shepard has a choice, when clearly the Paragon Shepard isn't allowed to be Paragon. You're just saddled immediately with a decision that Paragon Shepard most likely would not have made.

The bottom line is that Cerberus might very well be the only organization that can save the galaxy, they might even be good at the heart of it, but there is no truly "Paragon" way to start working with them provided by the writers. I have no problem playing an evil character, either; my Jade Empire character was maxed out Closed Fist. My problem is that the we were permitted, even encouraged, to make a Shepard in ME1 that simply doesn't work in the story of ME2, at least not as presented. All we have is the law-abiding Shepard immediately taking cues from Galactic Terrorist #1, without even meeting with the Alliance or Council first to report in after being MIA for two years.

Hopefully this issue will be resolved as the story progresses, but a lot of things could have been done to make the transition smoother in the beginning. Like I said, the short example I gave off the top of my head would resolve most of the issues people are complaining about here, and it wouldn't require a substantial rewrite of the story as it stands. It's not that Shepard works with Cerberus, it's that there is no reasonable justification for why Paragon Shepard would do so immediately, and that works against immersion.

I'm singling this out just because when TIM said "you a have a choice", I sorta read it as, "you have a choice, but not really, I wouldn't have brought you back from the dead without a control chip if I didn't KNOW you would help me."

I don't think you're totally railroaded through, here--you're given plenty of times to express your discomfort. I think the point is to make Paragons feel a little uncomfortable, to wonder exactly how you got into this mess that some of your closest friends from the last game are wondering what happened to the Shepherd they knew. I think it's meant to be a hard dilemma for the Paragon Shepherd when they go back to the Council, maybe thinking he'll narc on Cerberus, and the Council basically tells him to screw off. (And I thought they would stop being annoying once I saved their lives. I was wrong.)

I think TIM knows you're not going to get any help from Citadel or the Alliance, and thatyour support from your old crew is going to be limited, and he also knows that if you're any kind of galactic hero you'll want to stop the collectors after seeing Freedom's Progress.

[Nopasaran1936]

xMister Vx wrote...

I think people should remember that we are NOT talking about a "pure" Paragon.
The reason is very simple - Shepard isn't entirely your character. Sure, you have a certain freedom of choice regarding his behaviour - within the boundaries that have been defined by the writers. Therefore, he cannot be a Lawful Stupid paladin. He realises that he doesn't have much choice, that he has to get this mission, and accepts the backing of Cerberus. If you play Paragon, he will voice his concerns and even say that he's fully prepared for their possible treason, which is more than enough. A smart Paragon also has a reason to stay in Cerberus to learn more about their activities.
It's still a story of a man who gets the job done either way (with a difference in methods only). You basically can't say "oh, my Shepard would never do that", because the character is much more defined by the writers than in other games. That's what's so great about him. To cite a recent example, you don't get to choose as much as in Dragon Age (where your character is also mute), but you trade that for a character with more personality.

I'm not sure how many people on here are familiar with tabletop roleplaying, but there are instances when the GM invites someone to play an important NPC. Shepard is in the middle, between that and a regular player character.
 

Again, this misses the point. It's not that a Paragon shouldn't work with Cerberus at all, it's that there is no good justification given for it in the game. As I said, I'm quite comfortable with a storyline being directed towards a certain definite end, but if that's going to be the case then give us reasons why the Paragon would follow that course. If being a "pure Paragon" Shepard isn't a real option, then it shouldn't even be a game mechanic. I'm fine with stories that don't have branching morality/ethical paths, just don't give them to us, make them a major fixture in the previous story, and then ignore them.

It really doesn't take much to effort to make a story in which the pure Paragon Shepard would be forced to work with Cerberus and then come to see the shades of grey. Heck, that would be an excellent plot development. As it stands, a mind-control chip would actually make more sense of the story.

It is the writer's story, and there's a definite intended conclusion, but the issue at hand is whether that story is being handled deftly or sloppily. I'm not complaining that my character doesn't have the freedom to do whatever they want in the context of another's story (that would be silly), I'm complaining that the story as presented seems to exclude plausible reasons for my character (who is developed entirely within the confines of the options and storyline of the first game) to go along with what's been offered. What's especially disappointing is that this oversight occurs in the context of a wonderfully written game, and it would be so easily remedied with minor script doctoring.

[Nopasaran1936]

I don't think you're totally railroaded through, here--you're given plenty of times to express your discomfort. I think the point is to make Paragons feel a little uncomfortable, to wonder exactly how you got into this mess that some of your closest friends from the last game are wondering what happened to the Shepherd they knew. I think it's meant to be a hard dilemma for the Paragon Shepherd when they go back to the Council, maybe thinking he'll narc on Cerberus, and the Council basically tells him to screw off. (And I thought they would stop being annoying once I saved their lives. I was wrong.)

I would love to see my Paragon Shepard be uncomfortable, to be put in a position where she's forced to make tough choices and see the shades of grey (again, it was done ME to great effect; the Rachni Queen dilemma is a great example of this). I'm not really given that chance, however, because the tough choices aren't presented in a way that fits the character that's been developed. In my alternative example above Paragon Shepard could be stuck in Cerberus as a mole, and gradually come to see that the organization isn't all bad, and might come to see the inherent corruption and failures of the Council and the Alliance as well. Perhaps Shepard could at least try to narc on Cerberus, but that option isn't even presented. To me that's a glaring oversight; at least have the offer available only to have it be rebuffed.



Expressing discomfort with Cerberus is not really much of a fix, and in fact makes the problem much bigger. Now we have a Paragon who not only is acting against character, but voicing discontent and saying that they're "not really working for Cerberus" the whole time? That's pretty heavy-handed, IMO.



In summary, it's not the working with Cerberus that's the problem, it's that there is no character-appropriate reason given for doing so.

[PatT2]

Pretty much, I think that people tend to remain what they were at their base. which puts any "pure" paragon sheps in a situation where they must roleplay against their own nature. There is no good way. Why not just fall on one's knife?

[MatronAdena]

egh my paragon shep hates Cerberus with every shred of her being...the options to make it clear she's not " with" them are there...perhaps not as bold as I would like... BUT I do find every chance I get " well Side quest wise" to send Cerberus data to the alliance and such, and do things intentionally against Cerberus SO it all works out.

[TheKnave69]

Khagen wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

MICHELLE7 wrote...

I have to agree with the op...Shep doesn't feel the same. I think you do get the option to to tell how you really feel about Cerberus in the scene with whoever you saved on Viremire but it comes across a little weak especially if you choose paragon. I left that scene thinking that my old LI was acting more like Shepard than Shepard was concerning Cerberus. Kinda a little weird.

That is EXACTLY how I felt!

Yea I do too.  There are several places where you can say you don't work for Cerberus but it is weak.  He seems way to "ok" with working for them. 

It's not that Shepard's OK with working with Cerberus, but it's a case of a rock and a hard place.  Work with people you hate for the good of the galaxy, or don't and let the galaxy burn...  It's Morton's Fork.  Both are bad situations, but which is the worst?  Besides, there are opportunities to screw Cerberus over.  For example, you can turn information over to Cerberus or to the Alliance, etc.  Also, something to remember, this is the second part of a trilogy.  Usually, the middle is where there are more complications, things are at their worst, etc.  Maybe, siding against Cerberus in this part will have ramifications in the third part, such as their downfall...

Modifié par TheKnave69, 29 janvier 2010 - 08:45 .

[ArcanistLibram]

Part of it is that, at some point, you have to be willing to play the damn game. The only faction in the galaxy that cares about the Collector attacks and that's willing to do something about it is Cerberus. If you don't join Cerberus, you can't fight the Collectors and if you don't want to fight the Collectors, you have absolutely no reason to play Mass Effect 2.

[schnydz]

Don't forget, ME1 allowed you to choose which pre-service history to have (Spacer, Earthborn, or Colonist) as well as a psychological profile (Sole Survivor, War Hero, or Ruthless).



As I'm playing ME2, I try to remember my history of where I've been pre- & post- ME1. This helps me play the character in the proper context. Just my slightly deflated 2 cents on the subject...