Hi, welcome to the Dragon Age Wiki! Thanks for joining! I hope that you will stick around and continue to help us improve the wiki. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! King Cousland (talk) 20:31, November 13, 2013 (UTC)
Hey, It's Lit'hal. Have to say I love your information. Makes my brain go into overdrive, but in a good way. Listen, If you've got Skype and you're interested, I'd love to talk in a faster form than the forum. Let me know. I'd like to pick your brain some more and see where we can't take this. Thanks for helping me keep up the Forum My friend.
Admin Nomination Edit
Hello there! I've started an Admin Nomination and your input and vote would be greatly appreciated. You know how vital admins are for the smooth work of our wiki so this is definitely not a minor issue. Thank you! 15:01, January 9, 2018 (UTC)
Message from Godzillavk (unsigned) Edit
If you make another comment where you act like you are superior to me, I'll consider it harassment and report you to the devs. This is your warning. Disagree all you want, but don't act like you are superior.
Do We Have a Problem? Edit
Silver Warden, I was just wondering if you had some particular problem with me. I've considered a few options, such as that English might be your second language so you don't realize how you're coming across. I've also considered that you might have Asperger's, which means that you take statements very literally and respond in a very blunt manner. And, I do mean the psychiatric definition of Asperger's, not some idiot's view that tries to equate it with being mentally handicapped in some way. I have a nephew who's on the Spectrum, so that doesn't bother me.
You do come across as very challenging and impatient when you don't understand or misread a post. At this time, I'm thinking specifically of your response to my post in the thread discussing lyrium and the veil. I felt that your response to not understanding my post was aggressive as well as impatient.
I am an extremely patient person, and if there are some extenuating circumstances, I'd like to know so that I can make allowances for them. :)
We're Good Edit
Thank you for explaining. We often agree on things, so I'm sometimes a bit taken aback when you're so blunt. We're good. Don't give the issue a second thought. I look forward to more discussions where you've contributed. Jannifer (talk) 04:04, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
Admin Nomation: Ursuul Edit
Hello there! I have started an Admin nomination and as you can imagine we need as many opinions/votes as possible. Thank you. 10:20, January 8, 2019 (UTC)
RE: About the Anthem thread Edit
I appreciate that you tried to defuse the situation after starting up the “calm down” bit. I’m not holding any one individual wholly responsible for the derailing, but with accusations of saltiness flying around & “nobody wants your input” firing back I had little choice but to step in. Hope you understand.
Mass Effect Edit
I'm continuing here due to moderator intervention, in case you are interested. If not, stop me. ;)
"And about Shepard in ME 2: I think you might be remembering it too harshly. A paragon Shepard has plenty of opportunities to point out that they are working with Cerberus, not for them, and to express their dislike/distrust of Cerberus."
I have seen "With" vs. "For" being used as a popular argument by Cerberus fanboys. To me, it appears as a frail excuse. The ship does not go anywhere without TIM's approval/consent, or to turn it around, it does not go anywhre if TIM does not want it. Shepard is also having slips forced by auto-dialogue, like when saying that Tali (after her recruitment) now works for Cerberus as well, causing Tali to freak out, for very understandable reasons. The alignment of morals with regards to Cerberus appears muddy to me. Sometimes, "Paragon" is questioning TIM's, methods sometimes it is absolving them. I don't know why, but counter to ME2's attempts to make me focus on one side of the morality system due to the way persuasion requirements are scaled, my Sheps often end up as "Paragade", with a ratio of around 70 to 80% blue. :P
"He can literally question Cerberus's past in conversations with Miranda."
Well, Miranda usually does not give more useful info then smug or non-informative on-liners. If I remember right, all she does is saying that "they aren't sooo bad" and that Shep should trust them. Very convincing, given that Miranda is a -walking trust issue-. Do you buy all those "It was just a rogue cell" excuses?
"Of course, there is the option for Shepard to express approval of Cerberus, but you don't -have- to take it. The player is not at all railroaded into liking Cerberus, just working with them."
Which is bad enough, for two points: First, all we have is some vague blathering from TIM about "them bugs killin' humanz!11" and Shepard passively already signs up during the intro, i.e. why is there no option to tell Jacob and Miranda to go f*ck themselves and steal the shuttle? Secondly, we also get no opportunity inboth ME2 and 3 to question TIM's "uplifting humanity"/"humanity #1" BS. We can question his methods a tad bit, yes. But where's the option to point ot that he's a frickin' spazi nazi commanding an army of Mengeles?
Also, there is one further problem: Why is Cerberus there at all? Why is Shepard just killed off for no apparent reason? Well, the game tries to give me a reason, but it appears circular to me: We have to work for/with/whatever Cerberus because everybody else is suddenly either stupid or apathetic. Why is everyone else stupid or apathetic? So Cerbeus appears sane by comparison, while still being space nazis. I don't know, but for me this qualifies as an "idiot plot" as TVtropes defines it. Especially so in regards to the Systems Alliance, who have actually been benefitting from the upcoming Reaper threat, being there to sweep in and save the day and wahtnot - proving that humanity is not just a bunch of imperialist upstarts. Anyway, there is a blog  out there which manages to explain these plot holes better than I can, in case you are interested.
"To bring it back on topic (well, kinda), the same is true of Inky in Inquisition. The Inquisitor is not forced to like the Chantry, just to work with them. The player is given several of opportunities question both the Chantry in particular and Andrastianism in general. Just because he doesn't go around screaming "I hate the Chantry!" 24/7 doesn't mean he's pro-Chantry. It just means he knows enough to bite his tongue sometimes when working with an organization he dislikes."
Well, I do think that DAI pulls this off far better. It is still a bit shaky, like, the old question of "Why should a(n) elf/qunari care to -uphold- a system that hates them?". But at least, we are allowed to ask questions and even "believer" NPC are also having different opinions about it. ME2's Cerberus crew by comparison appears like a bunch of either oblivious or braindead cheerleaders. They just blurt meaningless one-liners of Cerberus "not being soo bad" and usually cutting off the player where questions would be warranted. We also never see anything positive that Cerberus could have done. Kelly Chambers' comparison to her sister running a dog shelter but still liking cats falls flat on its face in this regard, as her sister does not strive to make dogs rule the galaxy and does not conduct horrible experiments on them (and the cats) to achieve that. Some people apparently whine that Cerberus was turned into clowns in ME3, yet for me they never appaered as much else than Stupid Evil, with stupid part being more or less prominent. Only difference is that, by ME3, TIM managed to pull a fleet and a clone army out of his butt. Buckeldemon (talk) 01:38, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
"The ship appears to be under the control of Joker & EDI, neither of whom answer directly to TIM. So he definitely does not need to give consent for each and every destination. As for it not going anywhere TIM doesn't want it to, we're never given a chance to test this. The only place TIM wouldn't want the Normandy to go is Cronus Station. Otherwise any destination the Normandy may have either benefits Cerberus or at least doesn't harm it."
And that's it. Besides, EDI is shackled and any "requests" from TIM override whatever command Shepard may give. The Council in ME does not get that luxury. Udina tries, though, until meeting Anderson's fist. :D
"I believe that she believes it. Obviously Miranda is a Cerberus apologist, but that's kind of the point of her character. And it doesn't change the fact that Shepard -can- express concern to her and others about Cerberus."
Yeah, I guess I hate her, at least a bit. *lol* I did play ME2 before DAO and was honestly surprised how well they did Morrigan as far as "token untrustworthy bitch teammate" goes. But I guess you know that. :P I found Miranda's end-game twist to be quite a WTF moment. I mean, she's constantly cheerleading beforehand and all of a sudden she recognises that she might be thrown under the bus as well and wants to leave? I don't know how many months ago it was, but I remember that you said Velanna's change of heart in Awakening was unrealistic. Miranda isn't much better in this regard, though I don't know if it comes more naturally if MaleShep romances her. Oh, I never played a male Shepard past Chora's Den.
"The plot of the game is what is it. Besides, does Shepard even know how to fly the shuttle? And even if he did, where would he go? I don't think those things can travel very far through interstellar space. Unless Shepard could reach a relay, he'd just run out of fuel and die in the middle of nowhere. It's not clear where the Lazarus Station is, but I doubt that it's right next to a populated colony. In fact, it was probably deliberately built far away from any colony or relay."
What I meant with "idiot plot" is that this plot requires someone to be/act stupid to work, in this case the Alliance and Shepard especially. I guess arguing that Shepard cannot fly a shuttle is just as valid as saying they could. Also, do you remember that shuttle ride into nowhere just before the crew gets abducted due to the Reaper IFF? That's kind of an issue. What are the rules for shuttle range then... except convenient contrivance perhaps.
"Note that the first place they go to after the Lazarus Station is Freedom's Progress, where Shepard does in fact see visual proof of the Collectors abducting colonists. We are told that -hundreds of thousands- of humans have been abducted. The Collectors are literally an existential threat. In the face of that, working with (or even for) Cerberus is clearly the lesser evil."
Yes, we are -told-. By TIM. And we don't get real proof that this in any way connected to the Reapers until the Collector Ship mission or, if you are generous, Horizon.
"I actually don't think it's BS. He appears to truly want what's best for humanity. At the expense other species, sure, but still."
What he "thinks" is best. He does not appear to listen to anyone. He's always right (TM). But how isn't that BS anyway, given what Cerberus already does in the first game? All he "earns" the humans with his antics is oppostion. Past ME3-ending, if they are still in some shape to do something, I would not wonder if the other species would crack down on the humans for not caring to get rid of Cerberus in a sufficient timeframe. There seem to be an awful lot of human around who apparently don't care much about Cerberus' antics. Also, to me it appears as if TIM and some humans in general make a case of strawmanning. They complain how they are ignored by the Council government though they got recognition and their citadel embassy in record time (compare that to the volus, which were instrumental in setting up galatic finance and are still sharing a room with the elcor) and are spreading all over the galaxy, getting involved in everything.
"But where's the option to point ot that he's a frickin' spazi nazi commanding an army of Mengeles?"
"I think the organization became much worse after TIM implanted Reaper tech in himself, thereby becoming indoctrinated. That doesn't happen until after the Suicide Mission, and by then Shepard doesn't work for or with Cerberus. Prior to that it appeared to be a black ops shadow organization with a human supremacist ideology. Bad news yes, but not space nazis."
From my own experience, I fail to see a change between ME2/3. They did dial up the "obviousness" of the stupid evil part, perhaps so everyone who did not see past the bubble TIM tries to put us into in ME2 now recognizes the issues. But the whole indoctrination part is kept deliberately vague anyway. ME shows (mentinoned by Vigil in regard to Saren, if I remember right) that indoctrination applied too harsh and too quick deprives the victim of mental capabilities. And shock trooper husks cannot solve all problems. I remember that a friend of mine, when playing ME2 for the first time (with me watching) immediately thought the guy was indoctrinated. Also, given what the Cerberus side-mission chain shows in ME, they did not manage to get anything out of their "mwahahaha"-experiments. Basically the only Cerberus project that did not went FUBAR is Lazarus, but that depends on how you play your Shepard, I guess
"There's also a scene at the end of ME 3 that shows that TIM deliberately filled the Normandy 2 with sympathetic faces. Despite this, there are characters in ME 2 who do point out the problems with Cerberus." <<From the crew? Most of them apparently don't know or don't care. Party members are inconsistent, except for Jack, of course. There is this one scene (first dialogue with Garrus after recruitment) when he points out what a kind of horrible mess Cerberus is - if you did the missions in ME.
"Why is Shepard just killed off for no apparent reason?"
"In order to justify the gameplay changes between ME 1 and 2. An experienced Spectre shouldn't be level 1...unless he was just reborn as a cyborg. Also, the cyborg aspect plays into the whole man vs. machine theme and the ending of ME 3."
Oh, come on, that's a a lame excuse and a lame way to do it. I would argue it was still not -needed- gemaplay-wise (Shepard had to learn how to shoot straigth in ME and can now use most "allowed" weapons with some competence *lol*) and especially not plot wise. There are TIM's clumsy attempts at guilt-tripping Shepard that might play into, but they never worked for me. :P If the man vs machine aspect did play a role in ME2, it was barely brought up. aka wasted potential.
"If by everybody else you mean the Council and the Alliance, the Council was shown to be stupid and apathetic in ME 1. They're even stupider in ME 3. That has nothing to do with Cerberus. It did bother be how dumb the Alliance suddenly became though. Luckily they grow their brains back by ME 3."
The stupid part for the council is somewhat debatable regarding ME. Of course the Council is more likely to believe their "top agent" then a PTSD-afflicted spec ops soldier of a species who are regarded as galatic upstarts. They also point out that they don't have any authority in the Terminus systems. That they don't rally their fleets to "save earth" in ME3 is somewhat understandeable as well. Why should they do that if their own world are attacked, because humans are special? If the privates at the war room door are any indication, Humanity would just do the same.
Nowadays, giving ME2 crappy and inconsistent "default" worldstate, I'll make sure that the Council survives, even if they are pricks, just to spite groups like Cerberus. :P Some players apparently have them killed out of spite. Oh, and I never had Udina chosen as councilor - his willingnes to betray Shepard for political opportunity and worse, endangering the whole mission with that, just does not fly.
"Were we ever supposed to? At no point does the game paint them as good guys. They're just the less bad guys. This seems to be an issue with you. Just because the PCs are forced to work for/with horrible groups doesn't mean they support those groups. In both ME 2 and Inquisition, the PC is stuck choosing between pure evil and only 95% evil (Ceberus doesn't go pure evil until ME 3). It's a shitty choice, but the answer is obvious."
Why do NPCs try to convince Shepard about them being "not sooo bad" then? I cannot see a choice between groups. It is more of a "choice" as the Arishok would put it: either accept or die. *lol* Sometimes, the writing appears to be really fond of letting anyone who -dares- not to like Cerberus have it, big time. Did you play LotSB? I've had some discussion with some Cerberus fanboy about that DLC. His ranting about basically everything Liara does prompted me to play it earlier than I planned, as I only got it recently. Yet, the most annyoing part for me was not Liara's somewhat inconsistent characterisation or her obsession with Shepard (she's not the only one anyway, looking at you, Harbringer, Kai Leng and arguably TIM as well), but Tela Vasir's last words, i.e. berating Shepard for a choice that the -player- does not make. Feels like a kick in the teeth to me, honestly.
I'm not so sure about the non-support part. In both cases, the player helps that organisation achieving a debatable goal - restoring the Chantry for non-humans/non-believing humans and letting TIM get his hands on Reaper tech, i.e. the Collector Base. The colonists are an odd piece, as TIM clearly does not care about lives lost as long as he gets his plans done. I suspect it is more of a PR motive.
I'm usually not particularly fond of the Chantry, but for Cerberus, the Qun probably would be a better comparison, and even then it does not quite end up, mostly due to all the inconsistencies on the Cerberus part. The Qun's goals are clear. Cerberus widdles around between being clandestine vs. hyper-obvious (all those logos, especially the part with the Citadel not trying to blow up a ship with the sign of declared terrorist group is irritating), somewhat competent vs. destroying averything they touch, and "pro-human" (What's the reason for being pro-something if there is no polar opposite?) vs. murdering humans.
"He pulled it out of the Collector Base." I'm genuinely not sure if you are serious here. But I guess you are aware of the phrase "ass pull"? But, the Collector Base is probably a Star Forge. *lol* Still does not explain how it manages to build all that stuff if I blew it to pieces. :P Besides the "But Cerberus got Reaper tech (TM)!" excuse that some people field to hand-wave everything is getting lame after some time. That base might yield some insight, but sorry TIM, I don't trust you. *boom* Have fun with that new blue lighting.
I wonder why so many people are constantly harping about ME2 being "the bestest game evar" while overlooking all the inconsistencies with the first installment and ME2 rather poor main plot. Then they like to complain about newer games, bring up MEA (which does have its flaws) and post silly memes of Foster "My face is tired" Addison, who, besides being bitchy, incompetent and unable to be dislodged from her post, cannot do a basic conversation without changing the subject constantly. TIM is equally guilty the last two things, in spades, and is instead heralded as a "brilliant, charming (ahem...) antagonist". Which is odd thing to say, if one assumes that players are not meant to go "yessir" to an antagonist, or did I miss something?
In terms of introspection, I guess what annoys me so much about Cerberus is the unsurpassed focus they/it get(s). I do not know much about ME's supplemental material, but a lot of the comics/books appear to feature a heavy degree of Cerberus involvement, like TIM, in his earlier days, meeting and manipulating Saren to get hold of some Reaper artifact. It sometimes appears to me that Cerberus/TIM caused or were at least involved in all major plot points of the ME universe past human first contact. They also appear to have an awful lot of plot armor - ever tried to have Miranda die during the Sucide Mission? She cannot be sent into the vents (despite being arguably a bit better suited for this than Jccob), nor escort the freed crew back (both would mean death to non-loyal party members). If you use an ill-suited biotic to sustain the anti-seeker bubble, she's never taken by the bugs. The only way to get her killed reliably is having her non-loyal "butt" in Shepard's squad during the final part at the baby Reaper. Another issue is the apparent "cutscene stupidity" that Shepard (and party) are often struck with as soon as Cerberus/TIM enter the stage. You might argue about the multiple instances "holo dialogues" in ME2 (Why I cannot simply hang up on him?), but ME3 has a few pieces that appaer to be so dumb it hurts watching them. First, on Mars, dutyfully listening to TIM with no option to just "hang up" (as one could do with the council), while the Eva-Bot merrily hacks the data and Ashley/Kaidan getting way to close to "her" instead of shooting. Then we have a minor example in Priority:Sur'kesh, with the Salarians, who should have -centuries- more experience with galaxy-wide dirty black ops, being totally surprised by the Cerberus assault. The Citadel Coup has Thane melee Kai Leng instead of trying to shoot his head off. Thessia has Shepard and party again dutyfully listening to TIMs blathering instead of trying to shoot Leng's head off (At least after the Coup, it should be abundantly clear that TIM is nuts and talking with him serves no purpose). Cronos station has wounded but not-dead-yet Leng crawling across the floor, groaning audibly with every move, yet Shepard does not notice - to be fair, one could argue that Shepard pretends not to notice, so interrupting Space Ninja, breaking his Ninja-to and introducing the omni-blade to his entrails is more satisfying. Lastly, we have TIM's final rant on the Citadel, where we are again forced to talk to him, with no way to just shoot him or instigate a fight if we don't feel like arguing with him anymore(Saren's final encounter allowed the latter). And then, totally out-of-the-blue and completely unexplained, TIM pulls some sort of blood magic body control on Shepard. At times, it really feels that ME2/3 are about Cerberus and TIM doing awesome things instead of Shepard and Co. Long story short, why would someone bother to create such a rich sci-fi universe with all its details if the majority of the screentime then goes to a bunch of boring human space-racists with a bad case of Mary Sue?
On another note, I'm not quite sure about your reasoning at times. Most of time, you are going by an apparently mathematical or even utilitarian train of thought, citing necessary sacrifices, but in case of what I would call the "mage treatment discussion" - where most people who argue in favour of Templars/imprisonment also put foward "the needs of the many" or "greater good", you tend to disagree with that notion.Buckeldemon (talk) 03:02, October 6, 2019 (UTC)