182 réponses à ce sujet

[The Ascendant]

Considering the issue of exploration and colonization is the core of Andromeda, if human history is anything to go on, then morality and ethics will be a key factor of this game. But I would prefer a more balanced and realistic system. Nothing as black and white as good/evil. But more along the lines of freedom vs security, idealism vs pragmatism and other issues that make the game the more engaging but also discussion worthy. 

[KaiAdamori]

Considering the issue of exploration and colonization is the core of Andromeda, if human history is anything to go on, then morality and ethics will be a key factor of this game. But I would prefer a more balanced and realistic system. Nothing as black and white as good/evil. But more along the lines of freedom vs security, idealism vs pragmatism and other issues that make the game the more engaging but also discussion worthy. 

 

Yeah. ME did ok with some of those dilemmas. ME2 & 3 really did have me wondering if i was doing the right thing curing the genophage. I was so certain after ME1 that it was the right thing to do. But my first visit to Tuchanka in 2, hearing many of the Krogan talk about killing turians and subjugating the galaxy, had me second guessing myself. Mordin also put forward strong arguements against and is a case in point of the morality being built within the story/game world. I just wish the maturity of dialogue matched that.

 

A fist to the face or suckerpunch "just because I can" or "renegade as racist" was just so simplistic.

[The Ascendant]

Indeed. Hopefully no more Lovecraftian horrors. Not that they are bad or anything, but people can be far more relatable and far more terrible adversaries than any giant robot space cuttlefish.

[KaiAdamori]

Indeed. Hopefully no more Lovecraftian horrors. Not that they are bad or anything, but people can be far more relatable and far more terrible adversaries than any giant robot space cuttlefish.

 

Hehe, I liked the reapers myself, as a looming threat. but it worked better on a per game basis with a relateable enemy such as Saren or TIM. Didn't like the cerberus angle much but Tim was a compelling character and an excelent antagonist because, atleast some of the time, he made sense. He was persuasive. Saren was I kinda hated but pitied in equal measure. Shell of a man.

[The Ascendant]

Hehe, I liked the reapers myself, as a looming threat. but it worked better on a per game basis with a relateable enemy such as Saren or TIM. Didn't like the cerberus angle much but Tim was a compelling character and an excelent antagonist because, atleast some of the time, he made sense. He was persuasive. Saren was I kinda hated but pitied in equal measure. Shell of a man.

In my opinion, Cerberus and The Illusive Man were the best parts of the Mass Effect series. It really demonstrates that even the greatest and noblest intentions, can give way to evil. TIM was a magnificent character portrayed expertly by Martin Sheen, whose motives and actions always made you guess and wonder if he was right. He was the perfect antithesis and adversary to Shepard. Hopefully we see Bioware repeat the feat for Andromeda. 

[KaiAdamori]

Don't get me wrong, my problem with cerberus was perhaps more in the way BW used them. IMO the goal for the ME trilogy should have been preventing the reapers return, as opposed to outright destorying them. Lovecraftien horrors shouldn't be defeatable, it's part of what makes them what they are. I think BW realised that but had made the whole reaper thing so big that they had no choice but to bring it to the conclusion that they did. Cerberus then felt like a tacked on adversary because, how do you portray cthulu-esque godlike machines, with all that power being taken down left and right? They needed a more relateble and realistically engaged threat to the backdrop of the reapers.

 

Cerberus could have been the ME story with the reapers in the background. That said I loved every interaction with the the reapers, particularly the Rannoch encounter. Totally agree with you about TIM. Was surprised that Micheal Sheen nailed it so well. So many tv/movie actors actually fail in game voice acting roles (William Shatner anybody?)

 

Hehe. I guess i'm abit conflicted on the subject of the reapers!

[In Exile]

In my opinion, Cerberus and The Illusive Man were the best parts of the Mass Effect series. It really demonstrates that even the greatest and noblest intentions, can give way to evil. TIM was a magnificent character portrayed expertly by Martin Sheen, whose motives and actions always made you guess and wonder if he was right. He was the perfect antithesis and adversary to Shepard. Hopefully we see Bioware repeat the feat for Andromeda. 

 

Really? Because to me Cerberus and TIM were pretty simplistically villainous, and basically there was no reason to ever even remotely doubt that he was right, because he wasn't everything he wanted to accomplish was morally repugnant, apart from I guess wanting to overcome death, and even that is completely squandered on an insane and megalomaniac-esque plan rather than having the knowledge disseminated for the good of humanity.

 

The only reason Cerberus comes across as even mildly likable is 1) the ME2 ship crew and 2) that the Alliance and Council are so laughably incompetent, Cerberus wins by default by literally bankrupting itself to let Shepard do whatever the **** Shepard wants. 

[KaiAdamori]

Really? Because to me Cerberus and TIM were pretty simplistically villainous, and basically there was no reason to ever even remotely doubt that he was right, because he wasn't everything he wanted to accomplish was morally repugnant, apart from I guess wanting to overcome death, and even that is completely squandered on an insane and megalomaniac-esque plan rather than having the knowledge disseminated for the good of humanity.

 

The only reason Cerberus comes across as even mildly likable is 1) the ME2 ship crew and 2) that the Alliance and Council are so laughably incompetent, Cerberus wins by default by literally bankrupting itself to let Shepard do whatever the **** Shepard wants. 

 

I thought the same thing when I played the trilogy as and when it came out, but in my current playthrough, I don't know. I find myself wondering. Sure cerberus methods were repugnant. ME1 established for me a deep rooted hate for cerb and TIM. Knowing the whole story, yeah, they are just that but, TIM, perhaps because of Sheen's performance, perhaps in part due to the writing of his character and dialogue. Inspite of all that I know, I can kind of see his point of view. It's that quality that makes him a great antagonist. He is persuasive and charismatic. Despite all that I know, he makes me (hence my shep) doubt!

 

To be honest, I'd have liked renegade shep to have been more like TIM, calculating, charismatic, cunning and measured. Less brute force and more magnificent B*****d.

[In Exile]

I thought the same thing when I played the trilogy as and when it came out, but in my current playthrough, I don't know. I find myself wondering. Sure cerberus methods were repugnant. ME1 established for me a deep rooted hate for cerb and TIM. Knowing the whole story, yeah, they are just that but, TIM, perhaps because of Sheen's performance, perhaps in part due to the writing of his character and dialogue. Inspite of all that I know, I can kind of see his point of view. It's that quality that makes him a great antagonist. He is persuasive and charismatic. Despite all that I know, he makes me (hence my shep) doubt!

 

To be honest, I'd have liked renegade shep to have been more like TIM, calculating, charismatic, cunning and measured. Less brute force and more magnificent B*****d.

 

The thing is, when you ignore Shepard - which is to say subtract the things Cerberus does that succeed because of Shepard, like everything in ME2 or the Normandy - just what does Cerberus accomplish? I mean, apart from doing this in the most comically evil way, for absolutely no measurable gain? 

 

The problem with being calculating or cunning in an game is that this requires you to be an agent - you have to have some sort of plan to implement to be cunning about. And video game protagonists are all about reaction. Unless you make a game with a set protagonist. 

[ZipZap2000]

If you don't like the system find a new game to play.

Whiny Pyjacks are everywhere on this forum. Then they wonder why nobody ever listens to them.

[KaiAdamori]

The thing is, when you ignore Shepard - which is to say subtract the things Cerberus does that succeed because of Shepard, like everything in ME2 or the Normandy - just what does Cerberus accomplish? I mean, apart from doing this in the most comically evil way, for absolutely no measurable gain? 

 

The problem with being calculating or cunning in an game is that this requires you to be an agent - you have to have some sort of plan to implement to be cunning about. And video game protagonists are all about reaction. Unless you make a game with a set protagonist. 

 

As I was saying. BW's utilization of cerberus was, tbh was banal. They could very easily have been the subject of thier own installment within the franchise. Not just a speed bump/distraction for the reapers. Fleshed out and given more depth and less, stupid. They would have been really cool. Horrible Horrible people, but cool. Especially with TIM (Voiced by Sheen) As they were, they served a purpose, but an oppurtunity missed I think.

 

As for what you say with the set protagonist bit. Perhaps so, I'm not entirely convinced, I think if written well, we could atleast get the illusion of such with smart dialogue and story content. But I will admit it might be abit beyond the scope of ME.

 

If you don't like the system find a new game to play.

Whiny Pyjacks are everywhere on this forum. Then they wonder why nobody ever listens to them.

 

Who, me? I'm hardly whining, I'm engaging in conversation on game mechanics, expressing what I'd like to see developed for future games (both in the ME universe and in other games) Seems atleast some other folks have had their own views on the subject which I'm always thrilled to hear. Feel free to add your thoughts on subject. Or don't.

 

If I have given the impression that I didn't enjoy my time with ME, I can re-assure you, that isn't the case. I wouldn't be here if it was.

[ZipZap2000]

Feel free to add your thoughts on subject. Or don't.

 

 

 

If you don't like the system find a new game to play.

 

Whiny Pyjacks are everywhere.....

[KaiAdamori]

 

 Feel free to add your thoughts on subject. Or don't.

 

 

 

If you don't like the system find a new game to play.

Whiny Pyjacks are everywhere on this forum. Then they wonder why nobody ever listens to them.

 

Which I shall take to mean, either, your happy with the morality system in ME as it it is, which is fine or, your don't care either way. Which is also fine. It's hard for me to tell since your comment is more about telling me to get lost. Hardly welcoming.

 

Other people, however, might have thoughts on the subject that they too would like to share and explore further with other like-minded people. As I have said, I've enjoyed hearing those opinions and thoughts and I've enjoyed the discussion thus far. There have been some nice ideas and talk that have helped shape my own opinions on the matter.

[ZipZap2000]

Other people, however, might have thoughts on the subject that they too would like to share and explore further with other like-minded people.

Breeding request, accepted!!

[KaiAdamori]

Breeding request, accepted!!

 

Love it when shep gets one of those in ME2! +grunts response. Out of curiosity, who was ya fav krogan companion? Wrex or Grunt? I have to go with Wrex, especially after the warm welcome on Tuchanka. I gushed almost as much as he did. lol

 

OT: i guess to sum up, what I'm really looking for here is a superior companion infulence system and slightly less OTT renegade responses in dialogue. BW does do a fairly good job with the morality play in it's story, even if it is abit simple and doing my trilogy run Im seeing things I didn't notice asmuch in my initial playthroughs. Some of the more subtle, background bits.

 

I still crave a game that lets me play as the "bad guy" so to speak. Less hammer more... scalpal!

[Shechinah]

The thing is, when you ignore Shepard - which is to say subtract the things Cerberus does that succeed because of Shepard, like everything in ME2 or the Normandy - just what does Cerberus accomplish? I mean, apart from doing this in the most comically evil way, for absolutely no measurable gain? 
 
The problem with being calculating or cunning in an game is that this requires you to be an agent - you have to have some sort of plan to implement to be cunning about. And video game protagonists are all about reaction. Unless you make a game with a set protagonist.

 
The thing some people seem to forget is that Ceberus were conducting their morally abhorrent experiments years before they knew the Reapers were a thing meaning that the latter cannot be used as the justification for some of their experimentation.  
 
Note that Jack was abducted in 2165 and the events of Mass Effect began in 2183. Additionally, the unit of Alliance marines massacred on Akuze because of deliberate Ceberus engineering happened in 2177. In 2170, Cerberus deliberately caused element zero exposure to no less than three colonies. 
 
Now if all of Cerberus' experiments were done without the consent of the Illusive Man or their supposed downspiral escaped his supervision then that does not speak so well of his competence especially considering there are only suppose be as many cells as the Illusive Man himself can supervise according to Edi. 
 
Note that the premise alone of the Pragia experiment was morally abhorrent from the beginning and also note that some of the children forced into the experiments were apparently bought from batarian slavers. Way to take a stand and protect humanity from aliens, Cerberus.     
 
Here is a short list of some of the people Ceberus has had assassinated and the reason behind said assassinations;

• The Pope Clement XVI was assassinated by Ceberus so that he could be replaced by Leo XIV because the latter had eschatological beliefs that corresponded more to Ceberus' goal of militarizing humanity.      

• Claude Menneau, a candidate for the leadership of the Terra Firm party, was assasinated so that Charles Saracino would instead come into the party's leadership.

•Enrique Aguilar, the president of the United States was assassinated by Michael Moser Lang who was funded by Cerberus.

•Ying Xiong, the premier

•Rear Admiral Kahouku was assassinated due to his investigations into Cerberus and the discoveries he made.
 
That's the thing about Cerberus: they see themselves as the sole arbiter of what humanity should be and to them, that self-appointed authority means that they are justified in whatever means they'll take even if it means disregarding the basic rights of a human individual for the sake of their experiments or disregarding the decisions of a human collective by murdering their elected for the sake of forcing in their own.           
 
TL:DR - Cerberus is as morally grey as this cat's fur;
https://d13yacurqjga..._800x600_v1.gif

[Shechinah]

Now that I think about it; why did Ceberus decide to recreate a ship that bore a close resemblence to an Alliance prototype vessel. The stealth engines don't render the ship invisible so it would draw attention from certain people and why did they decide to plaster their colors and logo on it? Jack recognised the symbol so that suggests it is connected to them and not a front of theirs.
 
I suppose it was a good thing that the Alliance weren't too worried about a ship resembling one of theirs traversing about on the business of a known terrorist organization.
 
Yes, I know the meta reason for why the Normandy was rebuilt but in-universe, was there ever given a reason as to why it was the Normandy because I cannot seem to recall one ever being provided?

[Shechinah]

I guess what I intended to convey before I begun my well-based rant was that I do not consider Cerberus to be an example of an organization that was morally grey and if they were intended to be presented as such, I consider it to have failed. I saw them as being consistently morally abhorrent throughout the trilogy which was despite them somehow managing to also be inconsistent throughout the trilogy.

[Ieldra]

In my opinion, Cerberus and The Illusive Man were the best parts of the Mass Effect series. It really demonstrates that even the greatest and noblest intentions, can give way to evil. TIM was a magnificent character portrayed expertly by Martin Sheen, whose motives and actions always made you guess and wonder if he was right. He was the perfect antithesis and adversary to Shepard. Hopefully we see Bioware repeat the feat for Andromeda. 

They could've been had they been handled differently. Rather more than a repeat I'd like to see TIM's idea of radical advancement though human enhancement actually work, and work as a controversial element in itself with good and bad sides, not associated with evil as it was in large parts of the trilogy. There's enough dangerous stuff in human enhancement. Associating it with evil just makes it a non-issue within the story and turns those who like the idea (like me) away.   

 

Cerberus had potential, but it was responsible for much of the "life sciences are bad" vibe I got from the trilogy. I really hated that.

 

@Shechinah:

According to ME:Evolution, TIM came to know about the Reapers in 2157. I think that's when the events of ME:Evolution took place. That's also when the Reapers started to influence him - he knew of them because he acquired a mental connection through a Reaper artifact. That's why I said I admire how he held out against the Reaper influence in his mind for decades before finally succumbing. For the same reason, the story is open to the interpretation that much of his disregard for human life comes from slow indoctrination. Not that this changes anything with regard to how simplistic and gratuitously evil Cerberus was presented in the games, but it is possible to see TIM as a tragic figure.

[The Ascendant]

I agree, but rather more than a repeat I'd like to see TIM's idea of radical advancement though human enhancement actually work, and work as a controversial element in itself with good and bad sides, not associated with evil as it was in large parts of the trilogy. There's enough dangerous stuff in human enhancement. Associating it with evil just makes it a non-issue within the story and turns those who like the idea (like me) away.   

An early idea for Mass Effect 3 was Shepard augmenting himself with Reaper tech. The concept of transhumanism or posthumanism, through either technology, biotics or a combination of both is a big part of the Mass Effect series. With the voyage to Andromeda, we might discover new means of advancing our evolution to a more desirable end. Which brings the question as what it means to be human, an especially poignant question now that we are a long way from home, giving us a chance to reinvent and make a better future for ourselves, free from outside interference from either Protheans and Reapers.

[Shechinah]

@Shechinah:
According to ME:Evolution, TIM came to know about the Reapers in 2157. I think that's when the events of ME:Evolution took place. That's also when the Reapers started to influence him - he knew of them because he a mental connection.

Since I do not own the material in question, I have to check that by detailed summaries. I did remember something about that but as far as I could tell when I checked the short summaries of the events the Illusive Man did not learn of the Reapers from it but that may have been the paraphrasing of the summaries. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Ieldra]

Since I do not own the material in question, I have to check that by detailed summaries. I did remember something about that but as far as I could tell when I checked the short summaries of the events the Illusive Man did not learn of the Reapers from it but that may have been the paraphrasing of the summaries. I'll see if I can dig it up.

It's more implied than outright said, but that Monolith is definitely a Reaper artifact from the description, and the turian Desolas said he was in contact with something through it. Jack Harper - who became the Illusive Man - was also in contact with the artifact for a short time and remained apparently unaffected. Apparently. Then, later in ME2, we see the Illusive Man with his strange eyes. I think it's rather obvious there is a connection.

[Laughing_Man]

An early idea for Mass Effect 3 was Shepard augmenting himself with Reaper tech. The concept of transhumanism or posthumanism, through either technology, biotics or a combination of both is a big part of the Mass Effect series. With the voyage to Andromeda, we might discover new means of advancing our evolution to a more desirable end. Which brings the question as what it means to be human, an especially poignant question now that we are a long way from home, giving us a chance to reinvent and make a better future for ourselves, free from outside interference from either Protheans and Reapers.

 

Only it really isn't.

 

I mean, the elements and potential are there if you look for them, but the story itself rarely deals with them.

 

Shepard should have had some feelings one way or the other, about the whole "resurrection" thing and the fact that he became a cyborg essentially.

Unfortunately it was more or less ignored, both from gameplay and cinematic perspectives (cyborg abilities, and impressive feats in cutscenes that fit a cyborg), and also from emotional perspective.

 

I mean, the way I see it, Shepard was not really "resurrected", he was more like a clone of himself, in a sense that the used the few not ruined cells he had left to somehow revitalize or rather clone into existence the rest of his his body (probably through heavy use of Reaper tech, something which was also ignored and gives some credence to the Indoctrination Theory).

 

But the story completely skipped the difficult question regarding the actual truth of this project, and who or what exactly this new Shepard was...

[Ieldra]

An early idea for Mass Effect 3 was Shepard augmenting himself with Reaper tech. The concept of transhumanism or posthumanism, through either technology, biotics or a combination of both is a big part of the Mass Effect series.

It was in ME1, but it became discarded later, in spite of Shepard becoming heavily augmented in ME2, and ME3 outright rejected it in several different ways, and it never touched the story again.

With the voyage to Andromeda, we might discover new means of advancing our evolution to a more desirable end. Which brings the question as what it means to be human, an especially poignant question now that we are a long way from home, giving us a chance to reinvent and make a better future for ourselves, free from outside interference from either Protheans and Reapers.

I'd rather not speak of "evolution" if it's implants and synthetic enhancements - evolution is about biology - but yes, there is potential in making the idea of taking control of our own biology and enhance our natural capabilities in other ways a theme.

[Laughing_Man]

I'd rather not speak of "evolution" if it's implants and synthetic enhancements - evolution is about biology - but yes, there is potential in making the idea of taking control of our own biology and enhance our natural capabilities in other ways a theme.

 

Well yeah, that's why in Deus Ex:HR David Sarif's position was my favorite despite everything, he offered a potential for change, the idea of self-controlled evolution. (which probably shouldn't be even called evolution if it's self controlled...)