657 réponses à ce sujet

[Vortex13]

A difference in opinion then. I felt what made the reapers interesting was how overpowered they were and that victory didn't seem likely. That's why I was invested in the franchise to start to see how the game would end. Had the reapers had a variety of flaws and weaknesses shown early on, that would have largely undermined the build up to the final game. I don't think there was anything wrong with the reapers themselves. I just believe a change in lead writer and being pressed for time led to an unfulfilling ending with the existential threat not getting the attention it deserved.

 

 

It really didn't help that Cerberus got more screen time than the Reapers in ME 3 in that regard either. 

 

 

For all those: "X character is nothing but a writer's pet!" ( though most complaints are centered on Liara) people out there. Said character has got nothing on Cerberus, the true writer's pet of the series. 

[Erstus]

Mass Effect 3 took what was an overall well-written and morally grey faction and then turned them into these ridiculous space-nazis.

I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 and working with Cereberus. I could even support their ambitions at that time. Mass Effect 3 made them a running joke

[Revan Reborn]

I agree that Cerberus got way too much of a focus in ME3. It was likely an excuse because Mac didn't really know how to craft a story around fighting individual reapers, as we barely tackled any. Cerberus was interesting in ME2, but they were diluted and overused in ME3 to the point of just being a constant reminder of the mistakes BioWare had made with the trilogy. The reapers went from being menacing and an interesting antagonist to barely being used and ultimately irrelevant as their strings were being pulled by a kid-like rogue AI.

[Iakus]

Mass Effect 3 took what was an overall well-written and morally grey faction and then turned them into these ridiculous space-nazis.
 

That's kinda what they started out as, though.  It was only in ME2 that they turned into some benevolent secret society who put their logo on everything and have poor safety protocols 

 

What's ridiculous about the ME3 version of them is their finding the Star Forge and going all Sith EMpire.

[straykat]

That's kinda what they started out as, though.  It was only in ME2 that they turned into some benevolent secret society who put their logo on everything and have poor safety protocols 

 

What's ridiculous about the ME3 version of them is their finding the Star Forge and going all Sith EMpire.

 

I never saw them as benevolent, even in ME2. Still shady, still "human first".. and Illusive Man slowly showed his true colors, which made for a good story in how much you played your Shep in line with him.

[Iakus]

I never saw them as benevolent, even in ME2. Still shady, still "human first".. and Illusive Man slowly showed his true colors, which made for a good story on how much you played your Shep in line with him.

True enough.  I didn't either.  But that was the face Bioware was trying to put on them.  Or at least that they were "morally grey"

[Master Warder Z_]

and then turned them into these ridiculous space-nazis.

 

Dude, that's a insult to Zeon, the Helghast and every other well written fascist space entity and or nation.

 

Cerberus was supposed to be a third party, independent of the great galactic society, with their own interests and belief at large, which were tossed away other then that they have nothing in common with any right wing nation state.

 

 

o.o

 

Killzone never let you play the right side in that war which was unfortunate.

[Quarian Master Race]

Killzone never let you play the right side in that war which was unfortunate.

Best part is you could easily argue that. The UCN and its ISA puppet states were just as much if not more of a facist regime, only with pathetic false pretenses of liberalism and democracy. They annexed Vekta and threw every single man, woman and child living on the world onto a horrendously inhospitable planet to suffer, die and mutate for generations simply, because the Helghan corporation that was ruling Vekta at the time tried to declare its economic independence and avoid the UCA taxation that was strangling its profits. As if that wasn't enough they starved the Helghast to death for 200 years with a bunch of absurdly inhumane embagos. Could they really be surprised when the Helghast fought back in the only way they could? The that universe doesn't really have any cliche'd "good guys", which is one of the best things about it.

Guerrilla seems to be at least warming to the idea of playing as the Helghast in more than just in the MP, given that Shadow Fall did let us play against the Vektan scum and take out Sinclair in one mission (albiet with Echo Visari, who doesn't really embody the typical Helgahst ideals of her grandad).

As for your video, meh, I never liked Orlock much. Was trying too hard to ape Visari, and failing miserably given that the ISA stragglers were still running around on his planet 6 months after the war was already won, with only some private sector industrialist doing anything about it. Stahl was way better at rhetoric, to boot.

https://www.youtube....h?v=KHsSzRPOGoU

Of course, maybe that's just because Malcom McDowell has the perfect voice for a propaganda speaker.

[UpUpAway95]

Even with this being the case, we don't exactly know how much time passed over the course of ME1. There's nothing to suggest Kaidan and Shepard aren't good friends by now and that Ash couldn't have been a potential love interest. The point is there was meant to be a struggle with grappling who to choose.

 

Even if this is the case, as I explained above, we do not know how much time actually passed from Eden Prime to Virmire. The game is all about player choice, so this is a rather silly point to illuminate. Regardless of how you "construct it," this was meant to be a moral dilemma in choosing between two of your crew who you likely had grown a liking towards. Depending on your choice, you were going to lose one of them.

 

A difference in opinion then. I felt what made the reapers interesting was how overpowered they were and that victory didn't seem likely. That's why I was invested in the franchise to start to see how the game would end. Had the reapers had a variety of flaws and weaknesses shown early on, that would have largely undermined the build up to the final game. I don't think there was anything wrong with the reapers themselves. I just believe a change in lead writer and being pressed for time led to an unfulfilling ending with the existential threat not getting the attention it deserved.

 

I'm surprised at you Revan... Game canon (per the Wiki) clearly indicates that events of ME1 all took place within a 1-year timespan.- 2183 CE.  By the time 2184 CE rolls around, the Wiki clearly states that Cerberus has already developed a clone of Commander Shepard and is working on reconstructing the "original" Shepard. 

 

Shepard first joins the Normandy on it's "shakedown' run and the Wiki has the following to say about Kaidan specifically:

 

"Finally Kaidan was transferred to the SSV Normandy under Captain Anderson, where he later worked alongside Commander Shepard."

 

The Wiki also clearly states the following about the Normandy SR-1: "Commissioned in 2183, the Normandy was initially commanded by an Alliance officer named Elli Zander. After Zander came into conflict with turian chief engineer Octavio Tatum over the limits of the ship's drive core, Zander was removed and David Anderson placed in command. Shortly thereafter, the Normandy was handed over to Commander Shepard when the Commander became the first human Spectre, and served as Shepard's main source of transportation and base of operations."

 

So, quite clearly the Eden Prime attack did not occur right at the beginning of 2183 CE and Shepard did not join the Normandy until sometime after Kaidan.  So, at most, it's 1 year..  Now, we have to allow at least 4 days after the wrap-up of ME1 and the destruction of the Normandy (per Pressly's statement at the beginning of ME2) and we also have to allow some time for Liara and Feron to recover Shepard's body from the Shadow Broker (not to mention whatever time it took for the Shadow Broker to obtain Shepard's corpse)... and then allow Cerberus to reconstruct in the very specific amount of time Jacob tells Shepard he's been on Cerberus' operating table... I'm sure you can now see where this is going.

 

Shepard did not have much opportunity to have known either Ashley or Kaidan as "long-time" friends prior to Virmire.  Whether or not they became "good friends" in a short time is a matter of the player's choice.  The dialogue is there to come across as barely tolerating either one of them or both...  Still, your original statement did include the implication that they had been good friends for a long time.  I'm not suggesting that the decision is or isn't a dilemma, just that the player actually controls how much of a dilemma they want to interpret it to be.  What undermines the construction of this problem comes in ME2, where the Paragon dialogue choice responds with "I had to save as many as I could."  The scenario really failed to indicate clearly that one choice over the other involved a clear difference in the overall number of people saved.  It is completely unknown how many of the Normandy crew may have been with the squadmate who armed the bomb... even though it is clearly indicated in the dialogue that there were others with him/her fending off the incoming geth.

[In Exile]

That's kinda what they started out as, though. It was only in ME2 that they turned into some benevolent secret society who put their logo on everything and have poor safety protocols

What's ridiculous about the ME3 version of them is their finding the Star Forge and going all Sith EMpire.

They were still Nazis in ME2. You couldn't go five feet without stumbling on their pure evil and abominable experiments. Just because the people they sorrounded Shepard with weren't lunatics or racists doesn't make them good.

[Pasquale1234]

Shepard did not have much opportunity to have known either Ashley or Kaidan as "long-time" friends prior to Virmire.  Whether or not they became "good friends" in a short time is a matter of the player's choice.

Actually, it's entirely possible that Shepard had met Kaidan before either of them were assigned to the Normandy. They may have gone through training together or somesuch. It happens.

It is pretty clear from the dialogue that Shepard is meeting Ashley for the first time on Eden Prime, however.

[UpUpAway95]

Actually, it's entirely possible that Shepard had met Kaidan before either of them were assigned to the Normandy. They may have gone through training together or somesuch. It happens.

It is pretty clear from the dialogue that Shepard is meeting Ashley for the first time on Eden Prime, however.

 

Possible, yes.  Highly unlikely though because of the following:

 

1) Shepard asks Dr. Chakwas "What do you know about the lieutenant?" and is clearly unaware of his problem with L2 implants.

2) To the best of my knowledge, even if Shepard is a biotic, he/she asks questions of Kaidan about BAat and Jump Zero that make it pretty darned unlikely that Shepard went there for training. 

3) To the best of my knowledge, there are no dialogue options where Shepard even remotely suggests he may have trained with or met Kaidan at all before being assigned to the Normandy.

4) Conversely, Shepard and Ashley both apparently went through the same boot camp at different times (i.e. they never met there) but did train under the same officer (can't remember his name) and that dialogue will appear if Ashley's conversation options are investigated far enough (and in such a way that Shepard starts to express some interest in her).  I believe this conversation can take place even if Shepard is not a soldier class.

 

(NOTE:  I've not played the Trilogy through with all classes of Shepards in both genders; so, I would welcome any additional insight from people who have as to how drastically these conversation change in ME1 if Shepard is, in particular, a female biotic.)

 

At any rate, it doesn't change my main point about that particular dilemma.  Whether Shepard likes or dislikes either one or both of them is well within the player's ability to express with the dialogue available in the game long prior to Virmire, so the player controls that aspect of this "morality" surrounding the choice and it need not have anything to do with Shepard being a good or long-time friend of either one.  Shepard is also free to make the choice purely from a tactical perspective... that's fine, doesn't detract from the "dilemma" at all... just makes it less of a "moral dilemma."  The issue comes in ME2, where the paragon choice indicates that Shepard could have made the choice based on saving more people than the other choice... but the relative numbers of people involved on each side of that choice is never revealed in ME1... so the Paragon statement pretty much boils down to Shepard lying about (or being deluded about) why he/she made whatever choice he/she made.

[Iakus]

They were still Nazis in ME2. You couldn't go five feet without stumbling on their pure evil and abominable experiments. Just because the people they sorrounded Shepard with weren't lunatics or racists doesn't make them good.

AH, but those were all projects that had "gone rogue"

 

Riiiiiiight

[In Exile]

AH, but those were all projects that had "gone rogue"

Riiiiiiight

If I'm so incompetent as an organisation that every one of my scientific endeavors is hijacked by evil scientists whose main experiment is inflicting absurd quantities of pain and suffering for limited to no scientific gain, then that's not really far removed from being intentionally evil.

Besides, that still works for ME3. TIM isn't evil - he's just so incredibly incompetent he thinks his stupid plan of controlling the reapers by indoctrinating his troops and actively sabotaging the war effort will work! Once you accept the level of stupid required to make all the rogue projects possible, you basically have to accept that all of ME3 is also a product of that same incompetence.

[Master Warder Z_]

Best part is you could easily argue that. 

 

 

AH, but those were all projects that had "gone rogue"

 

Riiiiiiight

 

*snorts*

 

Because there is progress without sacrifice, there is strength without cost?

 

Just because Bioware hypes this stupid notion of white knights and paladins of justice doesn't mean I can't look across the board and understand the intent of what people who are willing to cross the line seek, I mean Cerberus sought to understand Prothean technology and incorporate it into modern tech, something that the Asari have been doing for centuries in secret, breeding expendable shock troops to throw at enemy forces? Wasn't that the entire idea behind the Geth? Speaking of the Geth, they were hostile isolationists at best, much as I call out the Quarians for picking a very stupid time to kick off a war, it doesn't mean that the Geth couldn't be hijacked by the Reapers again and invade. Overlord, Firewalker, Teltin, They all make sense, they are all done for the benefit of the species and none of them are ridicously 'evil' or done for the 'lulz' heck even the Thresher experiments could have borne fruit if Tombs wasn't such a baby about it.

[Ieldra]

Mass Effect 3 took what was an overall well-written and morally grey faction and then turned them into these ridiculous space-nazis.

I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 and working with Cereberus. I could even support their ambitions at that time. Mass Effect 3 made them a running joke

Unfortunately, they were always implied to be evil. The claim about "rogue cells" was always a very ovbious excuse.

 

I hated that because I liked their stated agenda - protection and advancement of humanity - and their dedication to radical advancement along paths others feared to consider. Since all we saw of their methods on-screen wasn't just a little dubious - which I wouldn't have minded - but monstrously evil, advancement in the life sciences acquired an evil aura by association. I really hated that.

 

So yeah, I liked working with them in ME2 as well, but I wish we'd had someone like Brynn Cole to balance the picture back then - though in the end, even she and her people weren't enough to balance the trilogy's rampant traditionalism. 

[Ieldra]

Just because Bioware hypes this stupid notion of white knights and paladins of justice doesn't mean I can't look across the board and understand the intent of what people who are willing to cross the line seek, I mean Cerberus sought to understand Prothean technology and incorporate it into modern tech, something that the Asari have been doing for centuries in secret, breeding expendable shock troops to throw at enemy forces? Wasn't that the entire idea behind the Geth? Speaking of the Geth, they were hostile isolationists at best, much as I call out the Quarians for picking a very stupid time to kick off a war, it doesn't mean that the Geth couldn't be hijacked by the Reapers again and invade. Overlord, Firewalker, Teltin, They all make sense, they are all done for the benefit of the species and none of them are ridicously 'evil' or done for the 'lulz' heck even the Thresher experiments could have borne fruit if Tombs wasn't such a baby about it.

I think there is a difference between crossing lines out of perceived necessity and being completely unconsiderate of people's well-being. For instance, it wouldn't have been necessary to use live human test subjects for the thresher maw experiments. Driving people hard to the point of apparent sadism isn't all that uncommon in special forces training, or so I hear, but the trainees are all there of their own will. Accepting some risk of death in your experiments is different from designing them so that they outright consume lives. So yes, I maintain that most of Cerberus' experiments were presented as gratuitously evil, stupidly evil even.

 

Not that I liked that. I always had a slightly more grey picture in my mind, based on the assumption that they weren't meant to be stupid enough to indulge in unnecessary evil across the board, but the presentation did imply exactly that.

 

I should mention that real-world examples of similar stuff - for instance in some of the N*zi concentration camps - were always bound up with people's desire to have and exert power over others. It was never just unscrupulous but rational science. An unscrupulous but rational scientist would still try to limit unpleasant side effects of their research to the unavoidable. 

[In Exile]

Unfortunately, they were always implied to be evil. The claim about "rogue cells" was always a very ovbious excuse.

 

I hated that because I liked their stated agenda - protection and advancement of humanity - and their dedication to radical advancement along paths others feared to consider. Since all we saw of their methods on-screen wasn't just a little dubious - which I wouldn't have minded - but monstrously evil, advancement in the life sciences acquired an evil aura by association. I really hated that.

 

So yeah, I liked working with them in ME2 as well, but I wish we'd had someone like Brynn Cole to balance the picture back then - though in the end, even she and her people weren't enough to balance the trilogy's rampant traditionalism. 

 

Generally speaking, when you get an organization whose goal is racial supremacy, it's hard not to go down the line of monstrous evil. Apart from the Lazarus Project, they aren't even pursuing scientific advancement. 

 

ME has screwy morals, but it's not about traditionalism. 

[Ieldra]

Generally speaking, when you get an organization whose goal is racial supremacy, it's hard not to go down the line of monstrous evil.

I disagree. The desire for your faction to be the dominant power - whether the faction is defined by race, nation, religion, willing membership or any other kind of distinction, doesn't matter - isn't intrinsically evil. In fact, to maintain and acquire power for their faction is a legitimate duty of leaders and governments. The evil always lies in the methods. The questions are always: how far are you willing to go to get that power, and what will you do with it once you have it?

 

There's also this: we're not dealing with racial distinction but with species distinction. In the real world, distinctions of race make little sense except as personal aesthetic preferences or in medicine. You may not like the typical face of race X, but no distinction in ability of any kind can be derived from the superficial trait "race". That would usually be different between different species, and ME only masks that because most species are human in everything but name and appearance, just as if they were a difference race rather than a different species. ME uses species relations as a metaphor for race relations, but I think that's not appropriate most of the time.

 

And lastly, we have the fact that species relationships are bound up with nation relationships in the ME universe, since each species is represented by one dominant faction. So are we talking about racism or patriotism here? Not that the latter can't express itself in monstrous evil just as easily as the former...

[Ahriman]

There's also this: we're not dealing with racial distinction but with species distinction. In the real world, distinctions of race make little sense except as personal aesthetic preferences or in medicine. You may not like the typical face of race X, but no distinction in ability of any kind can be derived from the superficial trait "race". That would usually be different between different species

Doesn't change anything, unless species A eats species B. If they have same moralities and capabilities then there's no reason to treat them differently. Unless you talk about evolutionary mechanisms stuff, which isn't the case for space fairing species.

[In Exile]

I disagree. The desire for your faction to be the dominant power - whether the faction is defined by race, nation, religion, willing membership or any other kind of distinction, doesn't matter - isn't intrinsically evil. In fact, to maintain and acquire power for their faction is a legitimate duty of leaders and governments. The evil always lies in the methods. The questions are always: how far are you willing to go to get that power, and what will you do with it once you have it?

 

There's also this: we're not dealing with racial distinction but with species distinction. In the real world, distinctions of race make little sense except as personal aesthetic preferences or in medicine. You may not like the typical face of race X, but no distinction in ability of any kind can be derived from the superficial trait "race". That would usually be different between different species, and ME only masks that because most species are human in everything but name and appearance, just as if they were a difference race rather than a different species. ME uses species relations as a metaphor for race relations, but I think that's not appropriate most of the time.

 

And lastly, we have the fact that species relationships are bound up with nation relationships in the ME universe, since each species is represented by one dominant faction. So are we talking about racism or patriotism here? Not that the latter can't express itself in monstrous evil just as easily as the former...

 

You're wrong. There is a radical difference between the advancement of your society, and essentially a fascist racist splinter group. Cerberus isn't the legitimate government of the Alliance. They aren't leaders. They aren't the government. They're a fascist splinter group. They aren't bound by laws, or any kind of social bond in conducting their experiments. 

 

And we are absolutely talking about racism moreso than we are about patriotism. This isn't about protecting your society - this is about creating a racially pure society. Cerberus, for example, wouldn't tolerate non-human citizens of the Systems Alliance based on their ideology.

 

There's a real argument about whether or not there's a difference between "species" and "race" (in the way we use it IRL, i.e., totally superficial phenotype differences). It's still ultimately an idea about racial essentialism - that being human is about some particular series or combinations of traits, not a shared culture or system of values. 

[Laughing_Man]

This isn't about protecting your society - this is about creating a racially pure society. Cerberus, for example, wouldn't tolerate non-human citizens of the Systems Alliance based on their ideology.

 

I would argue that in a realistic scenario, much of Cerberus's experiments would have been done - although possibly in a slightly more humane way - by the Alliance itself, and not for the laughable concept of galactic domination, but rather in order to have some parity with the other races.

(it's not like other races don't do this kind of thing)

 

Bioware simply went with using dumb or rather naive morality for ME, which is why Cerberus looks like the caricature it is.

[In Exile]

I would argue that in a realistic scenario, much of Cerberus's experiments would have been done - although possibly in a slightly more humane way - by the Alliance itself, and not for the laughable concept of galactic domination, but rather in order to have some parity with the other races.

(it's not like other races don't do this kind of thing)

 

Bioware simply went with using dumb or rather naive morality for ME, which is why Cerberus is the caricature it is.

 

No, all of the experiments range from insane to insane and stupid. The exception, again, is the Lazarus project - that's about immortality, and if it we actually a technically feasible project humanity would burn trillions seeing it to fruition.

 

But otherwise, what experiments do we see Cerberus run? The Rachni, which starts insane (let's enslave a sentient race as child soldiers!), the Thorian Creeper (let's use a mind controlling alien plant to create monstrous abominations of humans and somehow control them!), Overlord (let's torture an autistic child and see if it can defeat super-advanced AI!) and what we see with Jack (let's enslave, abuse and beat children to create super-soldiers!).

 

The basic premise of all these experiments is evil. 

 

The other stuff, the Alliance was in on - like the Normandy or proto-EDI. 

[Laughing_Man]

No, all of the experiments range from insane to insane and stupid. The exception, again, is the Lazarus project - that's about immortality, and if it we actually a technically feasible project humanity would burn trillions seeing it to fruition.

 

But otherwise, what experiments do we see Cerberus run? The Rachni, which starts insane (let's enslave a sentient race as child soldiers!), the Thorian Creeper (let's use a mind controlling alien plant to create monstrous abominations of humans and somehow control them!), Overlord (let's torture an autistic child and see if it can defeat super-advanced AI!) and what we see with Jack (let's enslave, abuse and beat children to create super-soldiers!).

 

The basic premise of all these experiments is evil. 

 

The other stuff, the Alliance was in on - like the Normandy or proto-EDI. 

 

I'm talking mainly about creating stronger biotics with subject zero and later project phoenix or whatever (all those new biotic classes from cerberus & the MP), and yes, also in regards to project overlord.

 

I can hear your outrage about torturing an autistic kid already...

 

No, I didn't mean in the way it was done, it was dramatized and blown out of proportions for pure shock value, and to drive home the melodramatic point that - "humanity's reach exceeded its grasp..."

 

It's not like you had to trap the kid on a device that wouldn't look out of place in the hands of the Spanish inquisition, nor was it necessary to pry his eye-lids open or to stab all those things into him, all this process could have been done in complete comfort with him sitting in a nice chair, wearing a neural interface helmet.

 

You know, the way a more realistic less "Dr Evil" scientific approach is usually is.

 

For someone like him it probably would have been more enjoyable than regular interaction with people.

 

Bioware seemingly can't present a moral choice without letting you know via a hammer to your face what is the "correct" one.

 

The real moral question shouldn't have been in regards to Dr Stupid and how he treated his brother, the real conundrum should have been whether it is okay to control synthetics in the wake of the Eden Prime massacre, in order to stop something like this from occurring again.

[Ieldra]

You're wrong. There is a radical difference between the advancement of your society, and essentially a fascist racist splinter group. Cerberus isn't the legitimate government of the Alliance. They aren't leaders. They aren't the government. They're a fascist splinter group. They aren't bound by laws, or any kind of social bond in conducting their experiments. 
 
And we are absolutely talking about racism moreso than we are about patriotism. This isn't about protecting your society - this is about creating a racially pure society. Cerberus, for example, wouldn't tolerate non-human citizens of the Systems Alliance based on their ideology.

Are there any non-human citizens of the Systems Alliance? I don't recall any. Nations in ME are monolithic in terms of species. As for Cerberus not being leaders or the government, true, but that affects only their legitimacy, not the question of whether their goals - as opposed to their methods - can legitimately be described as evil. 
 

There's a real argument about whether or not there's a difference between "species" and "race" (in the way we use it IRL, i.e., totally superficial phenotype differences). It's still ultimately an idea about racial essentialism - that being human is about some particular series or combinations of traits, not a shared culture or system of values.

Well...essentialism may be wrong in the case of human races, but true if you compare one species with another. Our brains are surprisingly plastic, but there are things we're wired for we can't escape. Even the statement "there is no meaningful difference between human ethnicities" is wrong in this absolute sense. There are no differences that could rationally justify treating ethnicities differently in terms of abilities and political rights, but clinical studies about certain medical conditions have to take ethnicity into consideration, even though even there, the difference is statistical rather than deterministic.
 
In the case of different species, there probably are meaningful differences that affect implementation of values through laws, since I find it implausible that there are no systematic, biology-driven differences in life-history characteristics between species. For instance, I'd expect a species like the krogan - before the genophage - to value the life of an individual child lesser than a human would, based on the fact that they could have several thousand children per mother. To such a culture, our idea of an absolute right to life of any child after it's born would seem, and be, nonsensical.
 
This means that for instance, a statement like "we don't want any krogan in the vicinity", expressed by a human community, sounds rather understandable to me, while "we don't want any <insert human nationality or ethnicity>" doesn't.