So... who is telling the truth?

Post » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:13 am

Yeah, so after playing through the campaign and multiplayer a countless bunches of times, I always noticed that in Container City, the thing that the security has to extract and get its a "bioweapon," yet if I end up on the resistance, they will say it's a "cure" to sickness in the slums or what not. So it always got me confused, was Captain Mokoena telling them that it was a bioweapon so the people on the security would be more motivated to steal it (because they'd probably less eager to if it was a cure), or is the the opposite way around and Chen told the resistance it was a cure. Was it just because the campaign plot lines are different, or was it intentional to make us wonder who is at fault and who is "good" or not? Thoughts?
User avatar
Khamaji Taylor
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:15 am

Post » Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:35 am

Yeah, so after playing through the campaign and multiplayer a countless bunches of times, I always noticed that in Container City, the thing that the security has to extract and get its a "bioweapon," yet if I end up on the resistance, they will say it's a "cure" to sickness in the slums or what not. So it always got me confused, was Captain Mokoena telling them that it was a bioweapon so the people on the security would be more motivated to steal it (because they'd probably less eager to if it was a cure), or is the the opposite way around and Chen told the resistance it was a cure. Was it just because the campaign plot lines are different, or was it intentional to make us wonder who is at fault and who is "good" or not? Thoughts?

I think this is exactly what the people who wrote the story for Brink were going for. It makes for great drama when the antagonist/protagonist arent distinctly defined.
User avatar
Samantha Wood
 
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:03 am

Post » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:15 am

neither is right neither is wrong, both have their reasons, and both believe they are fighting for what is best for the ark
User avatar
Hairul Hafis
 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:22 am

Post » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:58 am

I think this is exactly what the people who wrote the story for Brink were going for. It makes for great drama when the antagonist/protagonist arent distinctly defined.



neither is right neither is wrong, both have their reasons, and both believe they are fighting for what is best for the ark



Ah, would make sense, real war doesn't have good guys and bad guys.
User avatar
Manuela Ribeiro Pereira
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:24 pm

Post » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:03 am

I think most of this comes from crappy intelligence and miscommunication.

I mean heck just look at the resistance, they didn't even know they were bluffing. (reactor)
User avatar
Adam Kriner
 
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:30 am

Post » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:15 pm

I think most of this comes from crappy intelligence and miscommunication.

I mean heck just look at the resistance, they didn't even know they were bluffing. (reactor)

Yeah, I loved that moment in the last mission of the campaign, it felt the most dramatic of all the mission endings.
It'd be interesting if they ever make what-if missions of the war in the Ark after the reactor got blown up.
User avatar
Czar Kahchi
 
Posts: 3306
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:56 am

Post » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:11 am

Yeah, I loved that moment in the last mission of the campaign, it felt the most dramatic of all the mission endings.
It'd be interesting if they ever make what-if missions of the war in the Ark after the reactor got blown up.


Reactor What-If part 2: Fight against Leukemia

Yeah that would be depressing.
User avatar
Ella Loapaga
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:45 pm

Post » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:48 pm

Reactor What-If part 2: Fight against Leukemia

Yeah that would be depressing.

Yeah, that would be indeed
User avatar
Bryanna Vacchiano
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:54 pm

Post » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:48 pm

The Security. (In my opinion.)
It's proven time and time again that they're willing to go to far. It may seem like a cure, but it could be trying to weaponize the problem so they can 'share' with the Founders.

As for Resistance, it could be legitimate, but I take everything they say or do with a grain of salt.
User avatar
bimsy
 
Posts: 3541
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:04 pm

Post » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:33 pm

Despite my loyalty to the Resistance (and their awesome clothing), Chen seems to be telling lies, and is also a bit loco. Heck, both Chen and Mokoena are a bit crazy, but at least Mokoena tells his troops whats up. A good example of this is on refuel, when he finally tells them that there is a hostile outside world, and if the Resistance revealed their position, they would all be doomed. Or on Shipyard, when Chen says that the Ark has nobody inside, and is just a big showcase. If Security fails, Mokoena will repeatedly ask if the tower was evacuated, meaning that there are in fact people inside.

Here's a bit of wisdom from Fallout 3 for you:

"War is not about who is right- only who is left."
User avatar
jaideep singh
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:45 pm

Post » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:02 pm

Despite my loyalty to the Resistance (and their awesome clothing), Chen seems to be telling lies, and is also a bit loco. Heck, both Chen and Mokoena are a bit crazy, but at least Mokoena tells his troops whats up. A good example of this is on refuel, when he finally tells them that there is a hostile outside world, and if the Resistance revealed their position, they would all be doomed. Or on Shipyard, when Chen says that the Ark has nobody inside, and is just a big showcase. If Security fails, Mokoena will repeatedly ask if the tower was evacuated, meaning that there are in fact people inside.

Here's a bit of wisdom from Fallout 3 for you:

"War is not about who is right- only who is left."


You make some damn good points...and love the FO3 quote lol
User avatar
DarkGypsy
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:32 am


Return to Othor Games

cron