3478 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

smudboy wrote...

iakus wrote...

So is TIM a murderous sociopath, or simply incompetent?  Remember, TIM maintains direct oversight over all his projects.  So many cells "going rogue", if true, does not speak well for his management skills.  

I don't believe it either, but that's what every email and situation boils down to: TIM had no idea of what kind of experiments were going on.  TIM is not ethically gray: he simply wasn't told or made aware of what actually happened in those cells.

Also, a producer is different from a manager.

Shepard:  "How many operations is Cerberus running right now?"

EDI: "Never more than a dozen.  The Illusive Man likes to maintain personal oversight.  Too many tasks strains his ability to multitask"

Joker:  "He's a little control-freaky.  Just a layman's opinion"

Incompetent is looking more and more likely

[upsettingshorts]

Or willfully ignorant. 

Or inconsistent writing.

Still not enough for me to logically justify blowing up the Collector Base.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 septembre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Roamingmachine]

Dave of Canada wrote...
But Grayson wouldn't have gotten loose if Anderson and company didn't decide to attack, Grayson would've been killed before ever becoming a threat.

It wouldn't have been that bad if they'd have used a random bum off the streets who knew nothing.Instead TIM decided out of sheer vindictiveness to subject somebody who knew as much as Grayson and had the knowledge to access even more to what was essentially enemy mind control.Lapses of judgement like this seem to be endemic in cerberus projects that could otherwise produce viable results (Like the Overlord project.Not directly TIMs fault but the cerberus way of rushing things created yet another tragedy).

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Or willfully ignorant. 

Or inconsistent writing.

Still not enough for me to logically justify blowing up the Collector Base.

Willfully ignorant is no better than incompetence when you're running such dangerous projects.

Inconsistent writing is a possibility.  But I have to go with the information given me.

Overall, destroying the base, while not ideal, beats the alternative of turning Cerberus loose on it.

[Dean_the_Young]

It's better to use some random person who's done no harm than retaliate against someone who's betrayed you?

That's a strange opinion of judgement. Unless you mean actually what they knew, in which case the role of information lead wasn't something they would have known in advance, and most of that wouldn't have mattered except for outside interference.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 13 septembre 2010 - 07:16 .

[Dave of Canada]

Roamingmachine wrote...


It wouldn't have been that bad if they'd have used a random bum off the streets who knew nothing.Instead TIM decided out of sheer vindictiveness to subject somebody who knew as much as Grayson and had the knowledge to access even more to what was essentially enemy mind control.Lapses of judgement like this seem to be endemic in cerberus projects that could otherwise produce viable results

But it's not like The Illusive Man acts like he did everything right, he admit he was wrong with involving Grayson and his vengeance even himself at risk. Although, I don't exactly remember but I think he mentions that it's part of being human (and it is).

(Like the Overlord project.Not directly TIMs fault but the cerberus way of rushing things created yet another tragedy).

The funny thing is, every single error from Cerberus is still a success.

Rachni = Cerberus now know that the Rachni aren't animals that can be used as shocktroopers, Rachni are signed off their list.
Overlord = Proved that the Geth can be controlled.
Subject Zero = Created the strongest human biotic.
Grayson = How indoctrination works and how Reaper tech mutated Grayson's body and gave him biotic abilities (even though he wasn't a biotic).

In the name of knowledge and understanding, Cerberus has yet to disappoint.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 07:20 .

[didymos1120]

Dave of Canada wrote...
The funny thing is, every single error from Cerberus is still a success.

I don't really like the use of the term "success" for those cases, as it sort of makes the term meaningless and, to me, it's kind of just weaselly rhetoric.  Failure is failure and spin doesn't change that.  Here's the thing though: I agree with the general notion, because in research failure isn't really such a bad thing.

In fact, I actually think it's Cerberus' job to fail.  Why? Because you don't engage in high-risk, high-reward type stuff with the expectation that it's going to work every time.  It's not.  It's almost always going to fail.  Hell, even normal, everyday, non-dangerous scientific research has a ridiculously high rate of failure.  Experimental engineering and invention in general both do too.  What matters is understanding why something failed.

Cerberus is basically knowingly playing the scientific "lottery".  I just don't even see the need to defend them on the grounds of their supposedly too numerous failures.  The fact that those failures involve distressingly high body counts and the lack of ethical restraints is another story, but the mere fact of failure itself simply isn't a mark against them.

[Dave of Canada]

didymos1120 wrote...

I don't really like the use of the term "success" for those cases, as it sort of makes the term meaningless and, to me, it's kind of just weaselly rhetoric.  Failure is failure and spin doesn't change that.  Here's the thing though: I agree with the general notion, because in research failure isn't really such a bad thing.

Success was a poor word choice, what I mean is they more or less accomplish what they were sent out to do or learn more information that can be used for future projects. They've yet to have a project that resulted in complete failure. Unlike say... the Alliance and the moon VI.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The funny thing is, every single error from Cerberus is still a success.

Rachni = Cerberus now know that the Rachni aren't animals that can be used as shocktroopers, Rachni are signed off their list.
Overlord = Proved that the Geth can be controlled.
Subject Zero = Created the strongest human biotic.
Grayson = How indoctrination works and how Reaper tech mutated Grayson's body and gave him biotic abilities (even though he wasn't a biotic).

In the name of knowledge and understanding, Cerberus has yet to disappoint.

Their means seem to almost always disappoint.  They seem drawn to dubious, abusive, inhuman, monsterous, and just plain sloppy means to achieve their ends. 

Torturing and disecting children, merging autistic savants into machines against their will, turning people into techno-freaks, experimenting on aliens, etc, etc, etc.  It's almost like some writer somewhere is chosing their methodology for shock value...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 13 septembre 2010 - 09:04 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

didymos1120 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
The funny thing is, every single error from Cerberus is still a success.

I don't really like the use of the term "success" for those cases, as it sort of makes the term meaningless and, to me, it's kind of just weaselly rhetoric.  Failure is failure and spin doesn't change that.  Here's the thing though: I agree with the general notion, because in research failure isn't really such a bad thing.

In fact, I actually think it's Cerberus' job to fail.  Why? Because you don't engage in high-risk, high-reward type stuff with the expectation that it's going to work every time.  It's not.  It's almost always going to fail.  Hell, even normal, everyday, non-dangerous scientific research has a ridiculously high rate of failure.  Experimental engineering and invention in general both do too.  What matters is understanding why something failed.

Cerberus is basically knowingly playing the scientific "lottery".  I just don't even see the need to defend them on the grounds of their supposedly too numerous failures.  The fact that those failures involve distressingly high body counts and the lack of ethical restraints is another story, but the mere fact of failure itself simply isn't a mark against them.

It's not that they're playing the lottery, it's that they're buying the tickets with other people's blood.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave of Canada wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

I don't really like the use of the term "success" for those cases, as it sort of makes the term meaningless and, to me, it's kind of just weaselly rhetoric.  Failure is failure and spin doesn't change that.  Here's the thing though: I agree with the general notion, because in research failure isn't really such a bad thing.

Success was a poor word choice, what I mean is they more or less accomplish what they were sent out to do or learn more information that can be used for future projects. They've yet to have a project that resulted in complete failure. Unlike say... the Alliance and the moon VI.

I don't know, Dave: Shepard sure got a good training workout out of it (and a snazzy class upgrade).

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The funny thing is, every single error from Cerberus is still a success.

Rachni = Cerberus now know that the Rachni aren't animals that can be used as shocktroopers, Rachni are signed off their list.
Overlord = Proved that the Geth can be controlled.
Subject Zero = Created the strongest human biotic.
Grayson = How indoctrination works and how Reaper tech mutated Grayson's body and gave him biotic abilities (even though he wasn't a biotic).

In the name of knowledge and understanding, Cerberus has yet to disappoint.

Their means seem to almost always disappoint.  They seem drawn to dubious, abusive, inhuman, monsterous, and just plain sloppy means to achieve their ends. 

Torturing and disecting children, merging autistic savants into machines against their will, turning people into techno-freaks, experimenting on aliens, etc, etc, etc.  It's almost like some writer somewhere is chosing their methodology for shock value...

Forgetting, say, half of the examples, being examples of not Cerberus policy? Yes, shock value is a large part of it.

A thing people forget (or, at least, prefer not to believe) is that Cerberus does have experiment standards. These standards are in and of themselves cruel and extreme and inhumane ((successful!) biotic suppression experiments on Asari, Thresher Maw acid, etc.), but there are things they, as an organization, do not set out to do (Teltin, Overlord), and have rules against trying.

Mind you again, if something proves successful (Overlord), they'll go with a proven inhumane route to success. But inhumanity for the sake of just trying it to see if it works (Teltin, Overlord) isn't actually their modus operandi.

[Jagri]

A question to piggy back off the original topic. Morgin's viewed krogan inability to adapt to the galactic community was the fault salarians for uplifting them or rather rapidly introducting technologies the krogan didn't develop themselves. Thus they didn't have the proper respect or a sense of responsibility to use them correctly.

So the question is if humanity would be capable to use Collecter's technology responsibly? I have a feeling without regulation or guidance from the galactic community they arn't.

One thing I like to point out about Project: Overlord is that if Shepard did not destroy the communication dish in time that VA would have spread through out the galaxy from ship to ship. If the VA could beat your ships AI then what firewall or defense does anyone have that would have stopped its spread? Heh Cerberus almost created "Terminator Effect" and we have another corny skynet who's ambition is to kill ever living thing in the universe. Oh well rather just a mentally challanged person attempting to make every one "Quiet".

Modifié par Jagri, 13 septembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[smudboy]

iakus wrote...

Shepard:  "How many operations is Cerberus running right now?"

EDI: "Never more than a dozen.  The Illusive Man likes to maintain personal oversight.  Too many tasks strains his ability to multitask"

Joker:  "He's a little control-freaky.  Just a layman's opinion"

Incompetent is looking more and more likely

Look at the actual programs, like Pragia and Overlord.  Was he aware of all the facts?  No.  Did he hook up Jack and David to machines or endanger their lives?  No.  Does that make him incompetent?  No.  That means the project directors/operatives on those projects weren't giving good enough reports, and took extreme measures due to stress or TIM would've cut the projects.

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Cerberus is basically knowingly playing the scientific "lottery".  I just don't even see the need to defend them on the grounds of their supposedly too numerous failures.  The fact that those failures involve distressingly high body counts and the lack of ethical restraints is another story, but the mere fact of failure itself simply isn't a mark against them.

It's not that they're playing the lottery, it's that they're buying the tickets with other people's blood.

I guess you just ignored the bolded bit then, eh?  I'm saying there are two different issues here:

a) failing to get desired results from research

and:

the methods used in their research. 

a) isn't an actual issue. It's not even a meaningful criticism. They're generally not trying to achieve incremental gains over current tech/knowledge.  They're trying inherently risky (in the 'probability of success' sense) things.  Failure is exactly what should happen most of the time. 

You can certainly question the wisdom of that policy, or the choice to pursue particular research topics, but pointing out that they have a lot of failures is kind of missing the point.  And it has nothing to do with pro- or anti- and definitely not you personally.  It's just a pointless debate, and people on both sides waste a lot of time trying to either spin the failures into triumphs (something I mistakenly thought DaveOfCanada was doing) or find as many things as possible that they can cast as screw-ups, as if somehow these accounting exercises actually prove something.

is, as stated, a different story, and I do have a problem with that. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 13 septembre 2010 - 10:08 .

[Gabey5]

cerberus would misuse it...





if it was in shepards hands... that is a different story

[Jagri]

Leadership has to accept responsibility for the actions of there subordinates. These "rogue projects" are quite common it seems under Tim's leadership despite his direct involvement. So that can lead to a few conclusions in my mind. One is that Tim is quite aware of the project put if things go south can deny it. Second Tim is unaware of the verious projects going behind his back thus he is a ineffective leader. Third Tim simply does not have any control and is someones puppet.



In the end too many projects seem to have gone "rogue" to be a coincidence.

[Dean_the_Young]

Two known rogue projects make it quite common? The Council has had two rogue spectres in a period of two years, maybe three depending your views on the Shadow Broker DLC.



Responsibility is a different thing from cause. When your subordinates outright decieve you on their own volition, it's very, very hard to stop such a thing. This is true regardless of the context, and especially true on hands-off management... which is something every worker and group really, really likes, because no one likes (or works best) with someone right there watching over the shoulder.

[wulf3n]

Jagri wrote...

Leadership has to accept responsibility for the actions of there subordinates. These "rogue projects" are quite common it seems under Tim's leadership despite his direct involvement. So that can lead to a few conclusions in my mind. One is that Tim is quite aware of the project put if things go south can deny it. Second Tim is unaware of the verious projects going behind his back thus he is a ineffective leader. Third Tim simply does not have any control and is someones puppet.

In the end too many projects seem to have gone "rogue" to be a coincidence.

There was a time when i would have agreed with you on this one, But now i feel like its just bad writing. Bioware realised that they were making cerberus look too "good" and people wouldn't feel conflicted working for them, so they thought, lets put in more f****d up experiments to make them look bad.

[Dave of Canada]

I spent an hour making a long post but it got deleted when Firefox decided to reload itself. I'm very, very disappointed and pissed off right now that I won't repost because it'll be filled with anger filled words. I'll just leave these two questions:

For those few who seem to want to "blow it up" no matter the cost, what are your opinions on guns? 
In Project Overlord, do you free David or leave him there?

[Dave of Canada]

wulf3n wrote...

There was a time when i would have agreed with you on this one, But now i feel like its just bad writing. Bioware realised that they were making cerberus look too "good" and people wouldn't feel conflicted working for them, so they thought, lets put in more f****d up experiments to make them look bad.

But the Alliance also had a lot of screw ups in both ME1 and ME2, yet you don't see people coming in and yelling "THE ALLIANCE ARE INCOMPETENT!" or "THE ALLIANCE CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT!" because the Alliance isn't of questionable morality. A Paragon is extremely self-righteous, anything that isn't automatically "good" is considered "evil" (even though this "evil" saves more lives).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 10:23 .

[Jagri]

Council should be held accountable for the actions of there rogue spectres dont you think so? Two rogue spectres in two years would realisticly draw a public out cry and a review of there current roles. To crack down on them as it were but with a organization like Cerberus well Tim can just sweep it under his rug and have a smoke having told Shepard "But I didn't know about it!". *Wink Wink*

[didymos1120]

Dave of Canada wrote...

But the Alliance also had a lot of screw ups in both ME1 and ME2, yet you don't see people coming in and yelling "THE ALLIANCE ARE INCOMPETENT!" or "THE ALLIANCE CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT!" because the Alliance isn't of questionable morality.

Here's a good example, if highly specific.  Okeer.  His methods were not very kind, to say the least, but you never hear people complaining that because he had so many failures before achieving success with Grunt that he was a crap scientist (maybe someone has, but not that I've ever seen).  What he was trying to do was difficult and novel and he had very strict requirements he was trying to meet.

Shocker: he had to try over and over and over and over, each time adjusting his methods, employing some guesswork, and occasionally adding a dash of "Let's see what happens if I do this."  Did Okeer fail a lot?  Hell yes.  Was he himself a failure?  @#$& no.  Dude made a pure krogan.  You should be in awe, even if he was kind of a d!ck.

A Paragon is extremely self-righteous, anything that isn't automatically "good" is considered "evil" (even though this "evil" saves more lives).

I don't know.  There's a lot of sanctimonious and tedious Renegades roaming about too.  They're just sanctimonious and tedious about different things.

Modifié par didymos1120, 13 septembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[Dave of Canada]

didymos1120 wrote...

I don't know.  There's a lot of sanctimonious and tedious Renegades roaming about too.  They're just sanctimonious and tedious about different things.

I'm not talking about only the playerbase, ingame Paragons are extremely self-righteous. For example, Mordin's loyalty mission. The paragon dialogue options has Shepard talk down to Mordin like if Mordin was a monster and how he should feel bad for what he's done. BDTS also has this, you save like 3 people because Shepard didn't want to be like Balak, even Balak could just take a gun and shoot three people in a crowd and have done equal damage but (now focusing on the playerbase) people would defend the decision to the death saying that Renegade = Evil.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 septembre 2010 - 10:53 .