87 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Haunter]

Which is entirely unlike how it works in ME2. Just try to be civil toward TIM at the beginning of ME2. The Paragon options certainly don't do that.

One of my least favorite things in ME3 was the railroading of Cereberus into an evil organization. I loved that in ME2 they could be either good or bad, depending on your point of view. In ME3 they go straight to the Dark Side.

 

More on topic: It looks like the general consensus is more people would prefer the meters stay, albeit with a less obvious good/evil dichotomy. More complex choices.

I also saw a few good ideas about switching in an influence mechanic instead.

 

Looking forward to seeing what BioWare does with Andromeda.

[Sylvius the Mad]

One of my least favorite things in ME3 was the railroading of Cereberus into an evil organization. I loved that in ME2 they could be either good or bad, depending on your point of view. In ME3 they go straight to the Dark Side.

I would actually disagree with that. At the start of ME3, Cerberus was the only group with a credible plan to actually deal with the Reaper threat.

I was beyond irritated that Shepard had to oppose them.

[ZipZap2000]

I would actually dosagree with that. At the start of ME3, Cerberus was the only group with a credible plan to actually deal with the Reaper threat.

I was beyond irritated that Shepard had to oppose them.

Except that their plan would have involved implanting everyone with reaper tech, that's not a good plan.

[Sartoz]

I would actually dosagree with that. At the start of ME3, Cerberus was the only group with a credible plan to actually deal with the Reaper threat.

I was beyond irritated that Shepard had to oppose them.

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Like you, I was cheering the fact that Cerberus was actively doing something to fight the Reapers.  Though, Not  the method.  In the end, it was a bad plan to implant Reaper Tech to the unsuspecting and the foolish. Why? That tech permitted the Reapers to take direct control. The Reapers, then, has a second column within civilization.

 

It's my opinion that the Reapers revealed themselves once civilization(s) breached a certain technical threshold and also became ubiquitous. The Star Brat in the Citadel was in the perfect position to monitor the advances and tech use. 

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except that their plan would have involved implanting everyone with reaper tech, that's not a good plan.

We don't know that at the start of the game. We just have TIM arguing for Control, and Shepard is not allowed to agree. The methods were only revealed later.

[ZipZap2000]

We don't know that at the start of the game. We just have TIM arguing for Control, and Shepard is not allowed to agree. The methods were only revealed later.

 

 

Right, right. 

 

So the cut scene previous showing a cerberus trooper half turned into husk under his helmet wasn't a big enough clue as to where "Lets not kill the reapers." was headed?

[Cyonan]

Right, right. 

 

So the cut scene previous showing a cerberus trooper half turned into husk under his helmet wasn't a big enough clue as to where "Lets not kill the reapers." was headed?

 

Maybe the guy was just a meth addict?

 

I mean, it's space meth. That stuff will mess you up 10 times worse.

[ZipZap2000]

Maybe the guy was just a meth addict?

 

I mean, it's space meth. That stuff will mess you up 10 times worse.

 

Paragon drug of choice obviously. 

Red sand is for renegades.



































Shiala was on space weed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, right.

So the cut scene previous showing a cerberus trooper half turned into husk under his helmet wasn't a big enough clue as to where "Lets not kill the reapers." was headed?

We didn't know for sure that was Reaper tech, nor did we know that this was part of the plan to defeat the Reapers.

Your extrapolation was not fully supported by the available evidence. Only by assuming that Cerberus was villainous could we see villainy in their actions, and I had consistently (including throughout ME2) refused to make that assumption.

I still don't see Cerberus as the bad guys.

[Natureguy85]

It needs to go back to Idealist vs Pragmatist, not good vs bad. That initial idea made it unique.

[9TailsFox]

It needs to go back to Idealist vs Pragmatist, not good vs bad. That initial idea made it unique.

Stupid evil sith warrior . Lets kill everything muhahaha.

Good sith warrior. If we don't save people where will be no one to fear us.

[ZipZap2000]

We didn't know for sure that was Reaper tech, nor did we know that this was part of the plan to defeat the Reapers.

Your extrapolation was not fully supported by the available evidence. Only by assuming that Cerberus was villainous could we see villainy in their actions, and I had consistently (including throughout ME2) refused to make that assumption.

I still don't see Cerberus as the bad guys.

 

That's because cerberus fanboys are delusional. 

Ashley: He looks like a husk! 

Shepard: They did something to him alright. 

Ashley: If this is what they do to their own people...

Yeah, nothing wrong with that at all.....

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's because cerberus fanboys are delusional.

Ashley: He looks like a husk!

Shepard: They did something to him alright.

Ashley: If this is what they do to their own people...

Yeah, nothing wrong with that at all.....

We already know that Ashley has terrible judgement. She can't be trusted.

And I didn't say there was nothing wrong with it (though I note that you've advanced no argument that there is) - I just rejected that one specific conclusion based on it.

[9TailsFox]

We already know that Ashley has terrible judgement. She can't be trusted.

And I didn't say there was nothing wrong with it (though I note that you've advanced no argument that there is) - I just rejected that one specific conclusion based on it.

Ah yes, cerberus husk we have dismissed those claims.

[Laughing_Man]

Sure Cerberus was vilified in Mass Effect, and was handed the idiot ball on more than one occasion so that the writers can hammer

the point home that: Pragmatism = Evil = Stupidity.

 

But if you ignore all that, the basic idea of trying to use the Reapers greatest strength against them, has merit.

 

It was proven possible by the Leviathan, and the Reapers seemingly panicked enough to launch an immediate attack on sanctuary,

it also didn't seem like they had sufficient countermeasures against such an audacious attack against them.

 

So yeah, they should have found a better way to do that, both more careful and more humane, but in the madness of ME3 ("no strategy, we fight or we die...") they seemed like the only ones with an actual plan.

 

The actual execution and failure of the idea, is on the writers and railroading, not because of lack of merit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ah yes, cerberus husk we have dismissed those claims.

Since when is cosmetic similarity definitive?

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

We already know that Ashley has terrible judgement. She can't be trusted.

And I didn't say there was nothing wrong with it (though I note that you've advanced no argument that there is) - I just rejected that one specific conclusion based on it.

Kaidan too?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kaidan too?

He says "If this is what they do their own people..."

There isn't even any information contained in that sentence fragment. Drawing conclusions based on it is patently irrational.

[AlanC9]

You sure there's no information in that fragment? I can think of a few plausible conclusions to that sentence, but none of them are complimentary to Cerberus.

[Natureguy85]

Since when is cosmetic similarity definitive?

 

It's not, but it is indicative and the intent is clear when considered with other elements.

 

 

 

Maybe the guy was just a meth addict?

 

I mean, it's space meth. That stuff will mess you up 10 times worse.

 

It's raw lyrium. Doesn't he look like Vengeance?

 

 

We didn't know for sure that was Reaper tech, nor did we know that this was part of the plan to defeat the Reapers.

Your extrapolation was not fully supported by the available evidence. Only by assuming that Cerberus was villainous could we see villainy in their actions, and I had consistently (including throughout ME2) refused to make that assumption.

I still don't see Cerberus as the bad guys.

 

The helmet scene was done far too early, but it's meant to show that Cerberus had put Reaper tech into their troops. Calling them "husks" isn't quite correct but it's easy and is close enough for purposes of conversation.

 

A short time later, we have a conversation with TIM on how we shouldn't destroy the Reapers. On the one hand, wanting power is not out of character for TIM. Had this been later and we'd had an earlier "normal" conversation with him, he might have appeared like himself. However, putting 2 and 2 together, it's clear immediately that he's Indoctrinated, just as everyone else who has ever questioned destroying the Reapers has been. They should not have made this obvious so early.

 

You can try and make the case in ME2, but after Mars, there's no room to not see Cerberus as the bad guys.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not, but it is indicative and the intent is clear when considered with other elements.

What intent? Viewed from an in-character perspective (the only acceptable perspective whej roleplaying), there's no intent. Those are simply events unfolding. Consideration of narrative direction is absurd.

The helmet scene was done far too early, but it's meant to show that Cerberus had put Reaper tech into their troops. Calling them "husks" isn't quite correct but it's easy and is close enough for purposes of conversation.

A short time later, we have a conversation with TIM on how we shouldn't destroy the Reapers. On the one hand, wanting power is not out of character for TIM. Had this been later and we'd had an earlier "normal" conversation with him, he might have appeared like himself. However, putting 2 and 2 together, it's clear immediately that he's Indoctrinated, just as everyone else who has ever questioned destroying the Reapers has been. They should not have made this obvious so early.

You can try and make the case in ME2, but after Mars, there's no room to not see Cerberus as the bad guys.

I always wanted to control the Reapers rather than destroy them. I was overjoyed when TIM suggested it. And it makes sense that doing that would require a lot of experimentation with Reaper tech. How can you control something you don't understand?

Even in hindsight, I don't see obvious villainy in TIM or Cerberus.

[Natureguy85]

What intent? Viewed from an in-character perspective (the only acceptable perspective whej roleplaying), there's no intent. Those are simply events unfolding. Consideration of narrative direction is absurd.

 

The intent of the writer and the intent of the scenes. They are there to convey information, not only to the character, but also to the player, who is the video game version of a movie or TV audience. I'm not trapping myself in your role play bubble. Apparently you're not all the time either. In the second post I quoted, you said you don't see Cerberus as bad guys, not that Shepard didn't.

 

And viewed from an in-character perspective, it was a reasonable conclusion that Cerberus had implanted their soldiers with Reaper tech. Even if you destroy the Collector base, Cerberus somehow gets a piece of Reaper Jr. and nobody notes this as problematic, IIRC.

 

 

 

I always wanted to control the Reapers rather than destroy them. I was overjoyed when TIM suggested it. And it makes sense that doing that would require a lot of experimentation with Reaper tech. How can you control something you don't understand?

Even in hindsight, I don't see obvious villainy in TIM or Cerberus.

 

Well if a pile of corpses doesn't do it, nothing will.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The intent of the writer and the intent of the scenes. They are there to convey information, not only to the character, but also to the player, who is the video game version of a movie or TV audience. I'm not trapping myself in your role play bubble. Apparently you're not all the time either. In the second post I quoted, you said you don't see Cerberus as bad guys, not that Shepard didn't.

I don't. Neither did my Shepard.

As far as the in-game events are concerned, the player doesn't even exist. I try to make decisions on behalf of my character in accordance with that.

I do sometimes notice the game trying to talk to me, the player, directly. I consciously choose to ignore it.

And viewed from an in-character perspective, it was a reasonable conclusion that Cerberus had implanted their soldiers with Reaper tech. Even if you destroy the Collector base, Cerberus somehow gets a piece of Reaper Jr. and nobody notes this as problematic, IIRC.

The only reasonable conclusion is the one that is guaranteed to be true, given the evidence available. In this case, no conclusion was reasonable.

Well if a pile of corpses doesn't do it, nothing will.

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

[ZipZap2000]

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

All well and good for breakfast. But enslaving the organic races to avoid killing the biggest threat to them was Sovereigns plan.

[Natureguy85]

As far as the in-game events are concerned, the player doesn't even exist. I try to make decisions on behalf of my character in accordance with that.

I do sometimes notice the game trying to talk to me, the player, directly. I consciously choose to ignore it.

 

That's perfectly fine for your playthrough but that causes problems when you talk to other people outside the game in the real world. You took my statement made from one perspective and whine that it doesn't work from your different perspective.

 

 

The only reasonable conclusion is the one that is guaranteed to be true, given the evidence available. In this case, no conclusion was reasonable.

 

That's totally false. There are almost never guarantees like that. Remember the conversation about the Collector Cruiser? I made the reasonable conclusion that there was only one, which you seemed to agree with. It was reasonable based on the evidence, but it was not guaranteed to be true.

 

 

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

 

That's easy to say when you're not one of the eggs and are the one who gets to eat the omelet.