117 réponses à ce sujet

[Nivenus]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

@Dean.
IF Me 2 is true face of Cerberus then please explain me WHY there is not a single chance to ask Miranda, Jacob or TiM himself about ME 1 events including Akuze (for sole survivors) and murdering of Adm Kahoku?

Because this was NO GO policy for new ME lead writer...
Way too many people on this forum fall in love whit that freaky blue eyes of TiM ONLY because of great (i admit) acting of Mr Sheen... but i live on this world too long and saw too many things to trust guy who will stab me in my back by first opportunity because he will decide that keeping me around become too risky for his operations.

wat r u talking about? if u completed the "hades hounds"  questline (or watever it was called) in ME1, u can question miranda about your previous run ins with cerberus. and then she'll start some beareucratic mambo jambo, about how it was a completely seperate branch of the organization...

Cerberus rogue cells... same mambo jambo as you described  Miranda says when you confronting her about Pragia and what happened there whit all those kids.

And for your sole information, i completed Hades hounds about 10 times and by the way NEVER passed gathered info from cerberus network to Shadow Broker.
Kahoku knowns that Cerberus killers will get him before he will be able to complete his mission and that's why he pass lead to finish the job to Shepard.

Truth is that you CAN'T question anyone from Cerberus about ME 1 events without recive one answer:

"ROGUE CELL DID IT"

So i ask WHAT KIND OF LEADER TiM is if his cells goes rogue whenever they see that such action will be benefit them most?

And honestly i wonder what kind of comments Cerberus/TiM lovers will post if in ME 3 will start surfacing infos (for example from decoded by EDI Cerberus files reclaimed from that dead agent) that TiM personally authorized each "delivery" to Pragia or even he signed death warrant at kahoku...

But i doubt that Walters will go so far and break "good Cerberus/lousy Alliance" picture painted in ME 2.

Because it's completely impossible TIM is lying to you. Duh. What reason would he have to lie to you? He's like, totally trustworthy. And Miranda's opinions aren't at all unbiased.

And like, Ashley/Kaidan doesn't totally call you out on working with them. And like Tali totally trusts them. And Garrus is totally cool with them. And Jack's like, hey, "I love Cerberus." I mean, it's not as if anyone acts negative about Cerberus in ME2 at all or if you don't have the opportunity to tell TIM to shove his "greater good" up his *** at the end of the game.

None of that happens, right? [/sarcasm]

Seriously, if you really think that ME2's position on Cerberus is that they're "teh awesome" than you really failed to comprehend the narrative and aren't giving the writers enough credit. There are negative elements of Cerberus all over the place.

Of course, you're not the only one who's misreading what's self-evident in the story. This thread shows there's also plenty of people who are willing to go the opposite direction and overlook ME1's evidence that Cerberus isn't all that noble. But at least they're not dragging their resentment about other issues into an unrelated debate and smearing the names of the game's writers.

Asheer_Khan wrote...

I remember that someone actually asked Mac Walters why Council and the Alliance in ME 2 act so idiotic, and what was his answer?
"BECAUSE THAT"S WAS MY VISION"
And i think that's explain everything... at least for me.

Tell me... why on Earth would BioWare desire to offend ME1 fans? What possible motive do they have? Sure, they might want to attract shooter fans, but what do they have against us (because I am a fan of the first game) in particular?

Every time I hear about the "Mac Walters hates ME1" argument I have to roll my eyes, because it's inane at just about every level and overlooks the fact that most of the head people involved in ME1 were also heavily involved in ME2. It's fine to criticize him and say that you don't like where he's taken the story, but let's stop pretending there's some kind of vast vendetta towards the customers who've supported BioWare for years.

Asheer_Khan wrote...

I don't remember that Luke Skywalker was FORCED to work whit the Empire in ESTB, or i don't remember that Frodo was FORCED to work whit Saruman in LoTR 2 so this whole "necessary evil" concept is nothing more than develop by Walter's idiocy to promote Cerberus to undeserved glory...

As others have said, Cerberus isn't the chief antagonist of the story. At most, they're a secondary villain but in truth they're more of a "lesser evil" the hero has to work with. This pops up in stories all the time. Unless, of course, your story's just a blanket good vs. evil, black and white story with no moral grays. Which, given that playing renegade is considered as heroic and acceptable as playing paragon, Mass Effect never has been.

Modifié par Nivenus, 12 mai 2010 - 07:36 .

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

screwoffreg wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Well, racists and terrorists are not really "gray" for me...

Considering the Citadel races are made up of people who approve of genocide (genophage), slavery, narcotic sales, and the sex trade (asari) as well as various other faults, I don't think anyone has much room to criticize Cerberus.

The genophage isn't the problem, because it wasn't made to kill the Krogan (but stabilize their numbers).  Wrex himself says the krogan are dying because they are not united (and kill each other...).

Illium is no council space

Genocide as in killing off the Rachni (At least they thought so). Giving the krogan advanced weapons they weren't socially ready for. Massive sterilization to weaken the krogan as a result of that decision to uplift them before their time resulting in socialtal breakdown. Seriously, the only aliens I'm sympathetic to are the aliens the council pushed to the fringes, Krogan, Rachni and Quarians.

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

Genocide as in killing off the Rachni (At least they thought so). Giving the krogan advanced weapons they weren't socially ready for. Massive sterilization to weaken the krogan as a result of that decision to uplift them before their time resulting in socialtal breakdown. Seriously, the only aliens I'm sympathetic to are the aliens the council pushed to the fringes, Krogan, Rachni and Quarians.

- I think the rachni are innocent (it seems the reapers manipulated the rachni into starting the war).
But they didn't negotiate...
"The krogan pursued the rachni to their home worlds, descended deep underground to find the rachni queens, and systematically destroyed both the queens and their eggs. The Citadel Council would normally have objected to such total destruction, but after centuries of relentless war, complete eradication of the rachni seemed the only possible solution."

- Giving the krogan advanced weapons they weren't socially ready for
the alternative? let the rachni win?
Asari/Salarians fought a losing war against the rachni for nearly a century until they uplifted the krogan.
again...negotiation was impossible (rachni were probably indoctrinated)

Krogan and Quarians can only blame themselves.

The council did these things because they had no choice, Cerberus has no such excuse.

Modifié par Barquiel, 12 mai 2010 - 07:57 .

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

mosor wrote...

Genocide as in killing off the Rachni (At least they thought so). Giving the krogan advanced weapons they weren't socially ready for. Massive sterilization to weaken the krogan as a result of that decision to uplift them before their time resulting in socialtal breakdown. Seriously, the only aliens I'm sympathetic to are the aliens the council pushed to the fringes, Krogan, Rachni and Quarians.

- I think the rachni are innocent (it seems the reapers manipulated the rachni into starting the war).
But they didn't negotiate...
"The krogan pursued the rachni to their home worlds, descended deep underground to find the rachni queens, and systematically destroyed both the queens and their eggs. The Citadel Council would normally have objected to such total destruction, but after centuries of relentless war, complete eradication of the rachni seemed the only possible solution."

- Giving the krogan advanced weapons they weren't socially ready for
the alternative? let the rachni win?
Asari/Salarians fought a losing war against the rachni for nearly a century until they uplifted the krogan.
again...negotiation was impossible (rachni were probably indoctrinated)

Krogan and Quarians can only blame themselves.

The council did these things because they had no choice, Cerberus has no such excuse.

So what you're saying is the ends justify the means with the Rachni and Krogans? They could have looked for other methods for victory, just like paragon sheppard isn't willing to use the collector base to beat the reapers. They sounds a lot like Cerberus to me. As for the quarians, how heartless do you have to be to watch a near genocide of a people and not lift a finger to help, regardless if they created the geth?

[Barquiel]

They looked for other methods to win the rachni war...nearly a century. I think that's enough^_^

The council had 2 options
- use the krogans (not very noble)
or
- let the rachni kill every asari and salarian

"the ends justify the means"
if the paragon method doesn't work (diplomacy)...yes

the quarians created AIs (AI research is banned by council law)
the quarians started the war
their problem

Modifié par Barquiel, 12 mai 2010 - 08:20 .

[Nivenus]

Barquiel wrote...

the quarians created AIs (AI research is banned by council law)
the quarians started the war
their problem

Pretty heartless if you ask me. I agree that the quarians started the war and are to blame for that, but are you really saying that justifies the massacre of billions by the geth and their forced exile which has resulted in the deterioration of their immune systems? That's like saying that, because white American colonists bought, used, and mistreated African slaves that genocide against whites would have been entirely justified.

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

They looked for other methods to win the rachni war...nearly a century. I think that's enough^_^

The council had 2 options
- use the krogans (not very noble)
or
- let the rachni kill every asari and salarian

"the ends justify the means"
if the paragon method doesn't work (diplomacy)...yes

the quarians created AIs (AI research is banned by council law)
the quarians started the war
their problem

You're putting only 2 options and creating a false delema in regard to the rachni. There are always more options. Besides it took another 200 years to exterminate the Rachni.  It wasn't a quick war even with the krogan.

In regards to the quarians. Quarians created AI that individually have the intellegnce of a varren. They had no way of knowing they would network and become smarter. It doesn't matter if they started the war. They were machines. Standing silent while genocide is happening and calling it their problem is pretty damn brutal and cold.

[Barquiel]

I admit...I don't know if the council thinks synthetic life = "life"

yes
their position is logical = the quarians tried to commit a colony wide genocide
It would be criminal to help them.

no
their position doesn't make sense

Modifié par Barquiel, 12 mai 2010 - 08:32 .

[Dean_the_Young]

If the Council does believes AI are 'life', then they are guilty of slavery and worse for their own policies regarding AIs.

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

You're putting only 2 options and creating a false delema in regard to the rachni. There are always more options. Besides it took another 200 years to exterminate the Rachni.  It wasn't a quick war even with the krogan.

for example?
all attempts to negotiate were futile...

btw..
council 2000 ago =/ council "today"
Caesar Augustus ruled at the same time^_^

[Nivenus]

I think the rachni thing wasn't exactly justified, but the fact of the matter is they failed to form any kind of direct link of communication with the hive queens. It's sort of like (intentionally I imagine) the Formic Wars in the Enderverse... xenocide wasn't justified, but given what little the International Fleet knew (that the Formics had brutally attacked humanity twice and may again in the future), it seemed like the best option.

What evidence is shown seems to indicate that the rachni attacked without provocation and that they then proceeded to kill everything they could without pausing to negotiate. If the rachni had tried to negotiate, I'm sure the Council would have been willing to at least listen, even if they still ended up pursuing xenocide (which, given the Council's usual tendencies, I'd say probably wouldn't have been the case). 

Barquiel wrote...

I admit...I don't know if the council thinks synthetic life = "life"

yes
their position is logical = the quarians tried to commit a colony wide genocide
It would be criminal to help them.

no
their position doesn't make sense

Not my point. My point is that even if the Council doesn't think of synthetic life as "life" and even given the quarians' own attempt at genocide, genocide in retaliation is not justified. The Rwanda Genocide was, in fact, based upon that very precept - the Hutus striking back against the hated Tutsi minority who the Belgians had put in control of the colonial government (in fact, in nearby Burundi the genocide was completely reversed - Tutsis massacring Hutus). Current sectarian violence in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis is also very much based on the "let's get back against the bastards" violence.

Blood for blood helps no one and one wrong doesn't justify another, just as grave, wrong.

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

I admit...I don't know if the council thinks synthetic life = "life"

yes
their position is logical = the quarians tried to commit a colony wide genocide
It would be criminal to help them.

no
their position doesn't make sense

Lets entertain the notion that the council sees AI as life. Letting every quarian suffer the consequences, most probably had nothing to do with creating the geth or even waging that war, is morally wrong. There were no offers of assistance even for the refugees. Even evicting them out of planets they tried to colonize after the massacre. Treating them like dirt.

So going back to my original point. The council isn't some noble structure. It's just a group of aliens promoating their own self interests. They aren't so different from cerberus in that respect. Both are willing to do what it takes to win, even if that means going the morally gray route.

[Nivenus]

mosor wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I admit...I don't know if the council thinks synthetic life = "life"

yes
their position is logical = the quarians tried to commit a colony wide genocide
It would be criminal to help them.

no
their position doesn't make sense

Lets entertain the notion that the council sees AI as life. Letting every quarian suffer the consequences, most probably had nothing to do with creating the geth or even waging that war, is morally wrong. There were no offers of assistance even for the refugees. Even evicting them out of planets they tried to colonize after the massacre. Treating them like dirt.

So going back to my original point. The council isn't some noble structure. It's just a group of aliens promoating their own self interests. They aren't so different from cerberus in that respect. Both are willing to do what it takes to win, even if that means going the morally gray route.

While I partially agree regarding the Council sometimes acting selfishly, I think it's more just that they're prone to look for the easy way out of a situation. Equating them with Cerberus, in my mind, is a pretty big stretch, considering the vast differences in each organization's tactics and nature (as well as the fact that Cerberus seems to lean renegade and the Council paragon).

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

So going back to my original point. The council isn't some noble structure. It's just a group of aliens promoating their own self interests. They aren't so different from cerberus in that respect. Both are willing to do what it takes to win, even if that means going the morally gray route.

and my point was...

- the council did these things because they had no choice (at least rachni, krogan)
- Cerberus has no excuse...they want to ensure human dominance, that's all

I guess we just disagree then:)

[Dean_the_Young]

The Council had a choice with the Rachni: they could have left the Rachni stuck on their home worlds and never let them off. They're perfectly willing to do that to the Krogan.

[Jonathan Shepard]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Seriously you guys need to go back to ME 1 and play that quest line. Kahoku promised classified ALliance Intelligence to Agents of the Shadow Broker.

VERY DEFINITION OF A TRAITOR

Why did he do that? Because a rogue Alliance intelligence agency killed his men and were trying to kill him. At worst, he's a whistleblower.

My theory is when they were coming up with the broad structure for the trilogy they envisioned the Shadow Broker in the position of the Illusive Man, i.e. saving Shepard and helping him fight the Collectors. It would explain why they made it seem like the Shadow Broker supported Galactic stability in ME but made him kick a puppy in ME2 (got Thane's wife killed, tried to sell Shepard to the Collectors, screwed over Liara), and why Cerberus start out as unambiguosly evil in ME but was presented more positively in ME2. Plus, the Shadow Broker and the Illusive Man essentially have the same jobs, intelligence gathering.

To me, Cerberus will always be the people who killed Kahoku, Chasca, and the unit on Akuze. I think using them as Shepard's support structure was a misstep, especially since you can't even raise those things with Cerberus personnel. From an in-game perspective, you can't trust them to do anything except get people killed and make matter worse.

After this comment, the question begs to be asked: 
So why didn't the writing team just switch the current story position of Cerberus and The Shadow Broker's agency? I mean, especially with that one side-quest- whether or not you give the Shadow Broker the information could determine how well or how rocky the relationship started. Maybe fight Cerberus rather than mercs. Have a light side/dark side conflict where in the endgame you could choose who to give the base to. Cerberus, Broker, or Alliance/Council.

...why does the story, when written and speculated upon by fans, make much more sense now? We need Karpyshyn back for ME3.

[Nivenus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Council had a choice with the Rachni: they could have left the Rachni stuck on their home worlds and never let them off. They're perfectly willing to do that to the Krogan.

Possibly because they know that individual krogan can be reasonable. They didn't know that with the rachni.

I'm not trying to justify the Council's actions in the Rachni War - I spared the rachni queen several times. But it's not a simple black and white issue.

EDIT:

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Seriously you guys need to go back to ME 1 and play that quest line. Kahoku promised classified ALliance Intelligence to Agents of the Shadow Broker.

VERY DEFINITION OF A TRAITOR

Why did he do that? Because a rogue Alliance intelligence agency killed his men and were trying to kill him. At worst, he's a whistleblower.

My theory is when they were coming up with the broad structure for the trilogy they envisioned the Shadow Broker in the position of the Illusive Man, i.e. saving Shepard and helping him fight the Collectors. It would explain why they made it seem like the Shadow Broker supported Galactic stability in ME but made him kick a puppy in ME2 (got Thane's wife killed, tried to sell Shepard to the Collectors, screwed over Liara), and why Cerberus start out as unambiguosly evil in ME but was presented more positively in ME2. Plus, the Shadow Broker and the Illusive Man essentially have the same jobs, intelligence gathering.

To me, Cerberus will always be the people who killed Kahoku, Chasca, and the unit on Akuze. I think using them as Shepard's support structure was a misstep, especially since you can't even raise those things with Cerberus personnel. From an in-game perspective, you can't trust them to do anything except get people killed and make matter worse.

After this comment, the question begs to be asked: 
So why didn't the writing team just switch the current story position of Cerberus and The Shadow Broker's agency? I mean, especially with that one side-quest- whether or not you give the Shadow Broker the information could determine how well or how rocky the relationship started. Maybe fight Cerberus rather than mercs. Have a light side/dark side conflict where in the endgame you could choose who to give the base to. Cerberus, Broker, or Alliance/Council.

...why does the story, when written and speculated upon by fans, make much more sense now? We need Karpyshyn back for ME3.

He never did leave. I don't know why people keep on insisting he did.

Modifié par Nivenus, 12 mai 2010 - 09:11 .

[Jonathan Shepard]

Nivenus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Council had a choice with the Rachni: they could have left the Rachni stuck on their home worlds and never let them off. They're perfectly willing to do that to the Krogan.

Possibly because they know that individual krogan can be reasonable. They didn't know that with the rachni.

I'm not trying to justify the Council's actions in the Rachni War - I spared the rachni queen several times. But it's not a simple black and white issue.

EDIT:

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Seriously you guys need to go back to ME 1 and play that quest line. Kahoku promised classified ALliance Intelligence to Agents of the Shadow Broker.

VERY DEFINITION OF A TRAITOR

Why did he do that? Because a rogue Alliance intelligence agency killed his men and were trying to kill him. At worst, he's a whistleblower.

My theory is when they were coming up with the broad structure for the trilogy they envisioned the Shadow Broker in the position of the Illusive Man, i.e. saving Shepard and helping him fight the Collectors. It would explain why they made it seem like the Shadow Broker supported Galactic stability in ME but made him kick a puppy in ME2 (got Thane's wife killed, tried to sell Shepard to the Collectors, screwed over Liara), and why Cerberus start out as unambiguosly evil in ME but was presented more positively in ME2. Plus, the Shadow Broker and the Illusive Man essentially have the same jobs, intelligence gathering.

To me, Cerberus will always be the people who killed Kahoku, Chasca, and the unit on Akuze. I think using them as Shepard's support structure was a misstep, especially since you can't even raise those things with Cerberus personnel. From an in-game perspective, you can't trust them to do anything except get people killed and make matter worse.

After this comment, the question begs to be asked: 
So why didn't the writing team just switch the current story position of Cerberus and The Shadow Broker's agency? I mean, especially with that one side-quest- whether or not you give the Shadow Broker the information could determine how well or how rocky the relationship started. Maybe fight Cerberus rather than mercs. Have a light side/dark side conflict where in the endgame you could choose who to give the base to. Cerberus, Broker, or Alliance/Council.

...why does the story, when written and speculated upon by fans, make much more sense now? We need Karpyshyn back for ME3.

He never did leave. I don't know why people keep on insisting he did.

Didn't he leave to focus on The Old Republic, though? I mean, not for all of ME2, I know he was involved in a lot of it, but didn't the lead writer position get transferred to Walters later on? I dunno- I'm not 100% sure. More like 98%.

[Nivenus]

Mac Walters did take over, but Kapryshyn still played a major role on the show. It's like saying that, just because he wasn't the show runner, that Ronald D. Moore (for sci-fi TV buffs out there) didn't play a major role in Deep Space Nine or that he isn't playing a large role in Caprica.

[mosor]

Nivenus wrote...

mosor wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I admit...I don't know if the council thinks synthetic life = "life"

yes
their position is logical = the quarians tried to commit a colony wide genocide
It would be criminal to help them.

no
their position doesn't make sense

Lets entertain the notion that the council sees AI as life. Letting every quarian suffer the consequences, most probably had nothing to do with creating the geth or even waging that war, is morally wrong. There were no offers of assistance even for the refugees. Even evicting them out of planets they tried to colonize after the massacre. Treating them like dirt.

So going back to my original point. The council isn't some noble structure. It's just a group of aliens promoating their own self interests. They aren't so different from cerberus in that respect. Both are willing to do what it takes to win, even if that means going the morally gray route.

While I partially agree regarding the Council sometimes acting selfishly, I think it's more just that they're prone to look for the easy way out of a situation. Equating them with Cerberus, in my mind, is a pretty big stretch, considering the vast differences in each organization's tactics and nature (as well as the fact that Cerberus seems to lean renegade and the Council paragon).

Not sure about that. Spectres generally act pretty renegade, especially Saren and Nihlus. They're not so much paragon as they are self interested. Hell lots of human colonies dissappear and all they can say is that it's a human problem and humans should solve it? Whats the point of a council if you can't band together and help when one race needs it. Even the real life dithering UN security council, whch this council seems to be based on, would intervene if a major disaster struck another country and that country asked for help rather than say your problem, deal with it.

[Nivenus]

mosor wrote...

Not sure about that. Spectres generally act pretty renegade, especially Saren and Nihlus. They're not so much paragon as they are self interested. Hell lots of human colonies dissappear and all they can say is that it's a human problem and humans should solve it? Whats the point of a council if you can't band together and help when one race needs it. Even the real life dithering UN security council, whch this council seems to be based on, would intervene if a major disaster struck another country and that country asked for help rather than say your problem, deal with it.

The council seems to largely disapprove of your renegade choices (they disapprove of your paragon choices too, but to a lesser extent) and their main goal seems to be maintaining galactic harmony, which is very paragon in nature. As for the UN, there's been plenty of examples of human disasters that they sat out, due to internal squabblings and interstate politics. I'm sure the Council intervenes on most occasions, so long as they think the political fallout will be limited.

They're mostly portrayed as dithering and somewhat incompetent in ME2, not so much as selfish. They're inaction regarding the human colonies doesn't seem to be the asari, turians, and salarians quashing humans (they did, after all, give humanity a seat and I believe the all-human council acts much the same way) as it is just the Council's own isolation from the reality of the situation.

[Barquiel]

The collectors didn't attack colonies inside Citadel space.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

mosor wrote...

Not sure about that. Spectres generally act pretty renegade, especially Saren and Nihlus. They're not so much paragon as they are self interested. Hell lots of human colonies dissappear and all they can say is that it's a human problem and humans should solve it? Whats the point of a council if you can't band together and help when one race needs it. Even the real life dithering UN security council, whch this council seems to be based on, would intervene if a major disaster struck another country and that country asked for help rather than say your problem, deal with it.

I am no fan of the council, but in their defense they must be pragmatic and not principled in order for a coalition of multiple species across the galaxy to work. Bismarck called this "real politk"; do whatever works. Imagine if there was a news announcement "oh yeah, by the way, uh, Reapers are coming to kill us all and the end is near. Also there are a bunch of collectors going around picking people up. But no worries,  we're uh, on it. Honest."

I think this is the whole reasoning behind having Spectres; taking care of things behind closed doors so that the public can go to sleep at night and not worry about being collected. It's a double-edged sword though; on one hand you have the ability for a single agent to clean up an entire mess, while on the other if said agent starts utilizing tactics that you don't particularly like (Saren being a rampant sadist) going public with what he has done also lets people know what is actually going on in the galaxy.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 12 mai 2010 - 09:40 .

[Nivenus]

Barquiel wrote...

The collectors didn't attack colonies inside Citadel space.

That's important too and it's also the chief reason why they refuse to support Shepard at the end of ME1.