Post by SwobyJ on Nov 18, 2023 0:17:26 GMT
I just got into an argument elsewhere about something to do with Cerberus, so I wanted some opinions.
In my view, Cerberus was a whatever group that didn't matter much but filled out a sidequest in ME1, a short story of a part of the Alliance breaking off and doing weird experiments with misc. enemy models in misc. sidequest environments.
Then they were retconned, not just expanded, to make the whole ME2 happen. It wasn't really so much 'Alliance', as it was an outside, previously civilian merc Jack Harper, factor that had the Alliance as only one pie he had his finger in. The 'call wasn't from inside the house' as it was from inside the whole town. So that's an utter recontextualization and change from what was earlier written, not only an expansion where we learn something new. An example of a non-retcon to me, is EDI going from that sidequest AI to the Normandy. Nothing changed, from ME1 truths, it was only added to.
Was Cerberus a retcon? What is a retcon? To me, typically, when you expand the story of something a lot, you're gonna have to break out a few retcons, and its not that big of a deal in itself (its a tool). And when you retcon, its usually for the sake of expanding the story for something in a way you think it ultimately useful. It can be done terribly bad, but ultimately, you need to do it sometimes. And in this case, the intended (and throwaway, by Drew K.'s words) position was that Cerberus was a part of the Alliance that had a few friends and was only breaking off, but this was outright changed into that only being a very limited perspective of what was happening. That it wasn't 'Alliance' as it was 'human supremacists that have power all over' from the start, from the very inception.. in the ME2 writing.
I'm not really bothered if I'm wrong, but am I? Am I just a dum dum about ME writing? (probably to some extent LOL)
In my view, Cerberus was a whatever group that didn't matter much but filled out a sidequest in ME1, a short story of a part of the Alliance breaking off and doing weird experiments with misc. enemy models in misc. sidequest environments.
Then they were retconned, not just expanded, to make the whole ME2 happen. It wasn't really so much 'Alliance', as it was an outside, previously civilian merc Jack Harper, factor that had the Alliance as only one pie he had his finger in. The 'call wasn't from inside the house' as it was from inside the whole town. So that's an utter recontextualization and change from what was earlier written, not only an expansion where we learn something new. An example of a non-retcon to me, is EDI going from that sidequest AI to the Normandy. Nothing changed, from ME1 truths, it was only added to.
Was Cerberus a retcon? What is a retcon? To me, typically, when you expand the story of something a lot, you're gonna have to break out a few retcons, and its not that big of a deal in itself (its a tool). And when you retcon, its usually for the sake of expanding the story for something in a way you think it ultimately useful. It can be done terribly bad, but ultimately, you need to do it sometimes. And in this case, the intended (and throwaway, by Drew K.'s words) position was that Cerberus was a part of the Alliance that had a few friends and was only breaking off, but this was outright changed into that only being a very limited perspective of what was happening. That it wasn't 'Alliance' as it was 'human supremacists that have power all over' from the start, from the very inception.. in the ME2 writing.
I'm not really bothered if I'm wrong, but am I? Am I just a dum dum about ME writing? (probably to some extent LOL)
