Ce sujet est fermé
I'm pretty sure we also had a gender crisis a few pages back, but I could be misremembering.
Why do people destroy the Collector base?
Débuté par
Cra5y Pineapple
, juin 01 2010 08:31
Retour en haut
#1002
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 04:12
squigian
-
- Members
- 49 messages
Dean_the_Young wrote...
squigian wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
squigian wrote...
LorDC wrote...
This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.
It is relevant: if people have to die to maximise utility from the base, you should decide who it is based on the opportunity cost of losing that person, not on your relationship to them.
Nonsense. Your relationship is an opportunity-cost. It might not be one shared by others, but that's the nature of humand identity and perspective. Simply because we can not easily adhere to a good principle when it applies to us does not mean the principle is flawed or we are liars: it simply means that personal perspective outweighs objectivity. We as a culture understand that and accept that, and expect that of people: we ask jury candidates to excuse themselves if they have a personal connection with a case, we don't like it when two people in an organization heirarchy of lower and higher are in a relationship, and we all but demand that parents love their own children far more than some stranger's child. Personal relationships are a factor of opportunity-cost.
It does make the agent hypocritical, though. It's all fine and good to make grand speeches about how the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but if you drop that as soon as YOU are one of the few, the whole concept falls apart.
It would be malevolent hypocricy if the person thought others shouldn't do it as well at the same moment we believe they should do it to others. Recognizing why we ourselves would not do something, would not follow a general policy under various circumstances, is recognizing the human condition, and its limitations. Knowing your limits is critical to human development.
There are plenty of things we recognize should be done, but often can't make ourselves do. Things that are necessary, but we do not like. There are things we like, but know we should not do, and so on. People are, by their nature, contradictory in ideals and actions, but that contradiction does not invalidate the ideals and principles that are contrasted: someone who tells polite lies can still value honesty, those who do not give their own food and money away to a bare minimum can value charity and oppose greed. Princples contrast. You rank them, following the best you can when they don't contrast and then picking one or another when they do conflict.
We recognize these contradictions occur, and try and build a system in which they can be avoided or resolved without relying on one person to make every decision. This is the concept behind interlocking checks and balances: far more than tools to prevent abuse, but recognizing the difference between a person's priorities now and in the heat of the moment and planning ahead to deal with it.
You say a system based on the greater good, on the many over the few, falls apart the moment I am part of the few. By logical extension, this should apply to any situation in which success depends on universal impartiality. Modern governance and buisness, however, doesn't collapse so easily, and this is why: we can build systems we can't tear down at a whim.
You asked whether I would support a system when I was the few. Depending on the consequences, I might not, but that wouldn't matter: even if/when I virulently oppose it, I most likely won't be able to overrule the system, and the action goes on ahead without my support when I am a compromised actor. I am not so egocentric to force a system that must agree with me at all times, and so I can support a system I can impartially recognize as greater than not, even if it turns on me and I oppose it later for reasons personal and not of thinking of the greater whole.
A very reasonable answer. I cannot say that I believe in such a system, though, as I question the existence of "necessity". This is how I play the Paragon, someone looking to get the best result whilst hamstringing himself; when he is forced to compromise his own morality, it is a result of his failure to innovate an equally effective solution without the moral problems. That's the biggest problem I see with "ends justifying means"; just because murdering that one innocent was the only visible way to save one hundred more does not change the fact that a murder was still committed or that a better solution might have existed. Ethics, as you say, are an ideal, a bit of a luxury, in fact, but not one that should be immediately cast aside.
#1003
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 04:26
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Tighue wrote...
I think this accomplishment was lost in the aftermath of Teltin's fall.
Hardly. Cerberus used their resources and influence to put Jack to good use when they went after the Collectors. It is also possible (but by no means certain) that techniques used to create Jack were refined and then applied to Gillian, another powerful human biotic. The fact is Cerberus created a human biotic who could rival an asari matriarch. They proved it can be done. I judge that a success.
Tighue wrote...
What precautions are in place to prevent breeches of equal or greater consequence from occurring aboard the Collector base?
I don't know what does it matter? Are you arguing the base should be destroyed because somebody might destroy it later anyway? That's foolish. Get what data you can now. You can't control everything that may or may not happen in the future.
Regardless, Shepard was successfully evacuated from the Lazarus facility and put to work against the Collectors. Again, a success.
Tighue wrote...
The Illusive Man sacrificed the lives of civilians on Horizon for an opportunity to repel an invasion that he essentially orchestrated.
The Collectors would have attacked another colony sooner or later anyway. However when they did they'd have done so without warning meaning that Shepard and company could not get there in time. What the Illusive Man did was choose the battlefield. He lured the Collectors to Horizon so that when he attacked he could send forces to intercept them right away. This saved lives, two thirds of the colony infact. It also forced the Collectors to change tactics. It was a brilliant move on his part.
Tighue wrote...
Cerberus provided the resources, but I credit Shepard with getting the job done in each of those scenarios.
Without those resources Shepard isn't doing crap. In ME2 Shepard is a grunt, nothing more. I'm not saying Shepard isn't capable of doing more, but the way ME2 was written all Shepard did was inspire his comrades and run through shooting galleries. All the money and intel, the ship, and the crew were all provided by Cerberus.
Tighue wrote...
I'm not sure I follow.
Cerberus managed to sneak commandoes onboard the Migrant Fleet in a raid. The raid failed due largely to the defection of a Cerberus operative and Cerberus' own success at creating powerful human biotics. Regardless, despite the failure it was quite an achievement to be able to attempt a raid like that.
\\
#1004
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 04:27
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 684 messages
A reasonable reply as well.squigian wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
squigian wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
squigian wrote...
LorDC wrote...
This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.
It is relevant: if people have to die to maximise utility from the base, you should decide who it is based on the opportunity cost of losing that person, not on your relationship to them.
Nonsense. Your relationship is an opportunity-cost. It might not be one shared by others, but that's the nature of humand identity and perspective. Simply because we can not easily adhere to a good principle when it applies to us does not mean the principle is flawed or we are liars: it simply means that personal perspective outweighs objectivity. We as a culture understand that and accept that, and expect that of people: we ask jury candidates to excuse themselves if they have a personal connection with a case, we don't like it when two people in an organization heirarchy of lower and higher are in a relationship, and we all but demand that parents love their own children far more than some stranger's child. Personal relationships are a factor of opportunity-cost.
It does make the agent hypocritical, though. It's all fine and good to make grand speeches about how the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but if you drop that as soon as YOU are one of the few, the whole concept falls apart.
It would be malevolent hypocricy if the person thought others shouldn't do it as well at the same moment we believe they should do it to others. Recognizing why we ourselves would not do something, would not follow a general policy under various circumstances, is recognizing the human condition, and its limitations. Knowing your limits is critical to human development.
There are plenty of things we recognize should be done, but often can't make ourselves do. Things that are necessary, but we do not like. There are things we like, but know we should not do, and so on. People are, by their nature, contradictory in ideals and actions, but that contradiction does not invalidate the ideals and principles that are contrasted: someone who tells polite lies can still value honesty, those who do not give their own food and money away to a bare minimum can value charity and oppose greed. Princples contrast. You rank them, following the best you can when they don't contrast and then picking one or another when they do conflict.
We recognize these contradictions occur, and try and build a system in which they can be avoided or resolved without relying on one person to make every decision. This is the concept behind interlocking checks and balances: far more than tools to prevent abuse, but recognizing the difference between a person's priorities now and in the heat of the moment and planning ahead to deal with it.
You say a system based on the greater good, on the many over the few, falls apart the moment I am part of the few. By logical extension, this should apply to any situation in which success depends on universal impartiality. Modern governance and buisness, however, doesn't collapse so easily, and this is why: we can build systems we can't tear down at a whim.
You asked whether I would support a system when I was the few. Depending on the consequences, I might not, but that wouldn't matter: even if/when I virulently oppose it, I most likely won't be able to overrule the system, and the action goes on ahead without my support when I am a compromised actor. I am not so egocentric to force a system that must agree with me at all times, and so I can support a system I can impartially recognize as greater than not, even if it turns on me and I oppose it later for reasons personal and not of thinking of the greater whole.
A very reasonable answer. I cannot say that I believe in such a system, though, as I question the existence of "necessity". This is how I play the Paragon, someone looking to get the best result whilst hamstringing himself; when he is forced to compromise his own morality, it is a result of his failure to innovate an equally effective solution without the moral problems. That's the biggest problem I see with "ends justifying means"; just because murdering that one innocent was the only visible way to save one hundred more does not change the fact that a murder was still committed or that a better solution might have existed. Ethics, as you say, are an ideal, a bit of a luxury, in fact, but not one that should be immediately cast aside.
Paragons believe in necessity of greater good as well: Shepard is, after all, a career soldier, and Paragons certainly believe in using military force to stop and kill malefactors from killing uninvolved people. The main difference in that respect is degree.
With your main beef with 'ends justify the means', I feel your pain but I don't share your insenstence on handicapping yourself. You can only act on visible methods as a rule, and while there is nothing wrong with looking for another way when it doesn't compromise what's important (hence in part why I enjoy it whenever an investigate option can open up another option), there are plenty of times you are forced to make a choice with limited facts and consequences at hand. When there is a ethically superior way of getting the same results with the same costs, of course one should take it, but those aren't common or guaranteed (at least, not without metagamaming in certain places).
Ethics are important, but Paragons do not have the monopoly on them. Infact, I find that ethics force a Renegade decision: do I risk galactic extinction for the sake of the Council? Do I endanger the lives of others for a pretty face and sympathetic tale of woe and sorrow and nothing concrete? Ethics would often dictate that I not.
You can act in an ethical framework, one that demands you do the most good you can for the most people as best you can, without endangering others needlessly. You can act in an ethical framework that says ideals are more important than lives. One of those may be repugnant to you, but they are both ethical frameworks.
The only thing I would reject is the idea that morals, once thrown away, can never be reclaimed, either by individuals or by groups. I think that with a little thought we can agree that this is not true, so long as the person/group lives. But I think we can also agree that while you can regain a lost morality, you can not regain a lost life (Shepard the exception that proves the rule). One of the two is irretrievable. The other can be regained, so long as you don't lose the first. The weight of the two seems to be apparent to me.
#1005
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 04:49
squigian
-
- Members
- 49 messages
One remaining question: if the 100 are willing to die to protect the 1 innocent, what would you do? Do you go for the "better" outcome of the 1 dead or do you respect their sovereignty?
#1006
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 07:18
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 684 messages
Circumstances dependent. We already accept the overruling of personal sovereignty in a wide range of areas and for many causes that you would not question: law and order, taxes, regulation, universal education and literacy. As always, circumstance would depend.squigian wrote...
One remaining question: if the 100 are willing to die to protect the 1 innocent, what would you do? Do you go for the "better" outcome of the 1 dead or do you respect their sovereignty?
In general, letting someone else sacrifice their own life on their own volition for someone else is not something I would stop stand in the way of: people who harm only themselves are their own responsibility, and I fully support freedom of action that doesn't harm others. There even is a strong rational for encouraging (demanding) such selflessness and acceptence of risk in many cases, such as the military: the certainty people have that they won't be left behind if at all possible is a powerful, incalcuable virtue on many levels.
On the other hand, a senseless mass sacrifice? 100 people trying to run over live powerlines to save one drowning person? An infantry company charging into a machine gun from the front? A scenario in which those 100 people are required for greater survival down the road?
There are certainly times I would do my best to stop it.
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 juin 2010 - 07:21 .
#1007
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 03:25
StodgyFrost98
-
- Members
- 195 messages
Destroying the collector base and saving it both have consequences. If you save it the Illusive Man has more power than ever and turns into a time bomb. If you destroy the base you lose the trust of Cerberus and have a targeted painted on your back. You also lose the only technology that could help turn the tide against the reaper armada. Either way they both are bad.
#1008
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 02:29
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
This is true, they are both bad and good. One choice merely is the lesser of two bads, and thus, more good.StodgyFrost98 wrote...
Destroying the collector base and saving it both have consequences. If you save it the Illusive Man has more power than ever and turns into a time bomb. If you destroy the base you lose the trust of Cerberus and have a targeted painted on your back. You also lose the only technology that could help turn the tide against the reaper armada. Either way they both are bad.
#1009
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 02:40
Vaenier
-
- Members
- 2 815 messages
The galaxy is about to be harvested of all organic life. And you are worried about a branch of the Alliance military? Seriously, who would you rather have to defeat: Machines who have done this cycle for millions of years, or a single organization of a few hundred people? [And I mean realistically, not which would be more fun or epic.]
#1010
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 02:49
Asheer_Khan
-
- Members
- 1 551 messages
"Reapers are TOP priority... for Cerberus we take care later" - current Motto of my Shepard's team.
#1011
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 06:34
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
The Illusive Man sacrificed the lives of civilians on Horizon for an opportunity to repel an invasion that he essentially orchestrated.[/quote]
The Collectors would have attacked another colony sooner or later anyway. However when they did they'd have done so without warning meaning that Shepard and company could not get there in time. What the Illusive Man did was choose the battlefield. He lured the Collectors to Horizon so that when he attacked he could send forces to intercept them right away. This saved lives, two thirds of the colony infact. It also forced the Collectors to change tactics. It was a brilliant move on his part.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Cerberus provided the resources, but I credit Shepard with getting the job done in each of those scenarios.[/quote]
Without those resources Shepard isn't doing crap. In ME2 Shepard is a grunt, nothing more. I'm not saying Shepard isn't capable of doing more, but the way ME2 was written all Shepard did was inspire his comrades and run through shooting galleries. All the money and intel, the ship, and the crew were all provided by Cerberus.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I'm not sure I follow.[/quote]
Cerberus managed to sneak commandoes onboard the Migrant Fleet in a raid. The raid failed due largely to the defection of a Cerberus operative and Cerberus' own success at creating powerful human biotics. Regardless, despite the failure it was quite an achievement to be able to attempt a raid like that.
[/quote]
Okay, those are well reasoned views and I can't really argue with the logic behind them. I also have to agree that Cerberus and Shepard are in an equal opportunity working relationship throughout Mass Effect 2. They need each other. Thanks for the clarification on that last point as well.
I'm still not satisfied on these two points though:
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I think this accomplishment was lost in the aftermath of Teltin's fall. Jack turned against Cerberus only to lead a life of crime and eventual incarceration. She was a biotic popsicle in some jailhouse warden's icebox when Shepard found her. It's unclear how or whether Cerberus improved the standing of humanity in this case.[/quote]
Hardly. Cerberus used their resources and influence to put Jack to good use when they went after the Collectors. It is also possible (but by no means certain) that techniques used to create Jack were refined and then applied to Gillian, another powerful human biotic. The fact is Cerberus created a human biotic who could rival an asari matriarch. They proved it can be done. I judge that a success.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The bolded text above was not quoted in your response but it's relevant to the discussion.
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy. That kind of management style certainly doesn't gain him any favor when I consider whether Cerberus is disciplined enough to turn the spoils of war against the reapers. It's unfortunate that Cerberus lost control of such a valuable asset, really. Who do they have to blame for that?
Teltin proved that it was possible to produce one powerful human biotic from a pool of young candidates who were routinely subjected to inhumane, deplorable conditions. Cerberus failed to demonstrate that the same results are reproducible in a more sane, controlled environment. It's probably safe to assume that Jack remains Cerberus' one and only "success" given that Shepard is tasked with recruiting her and not someone else. The Illusive Man could always be holding out on Shepard I suppose.
If Cerberus is satisfied with merely proving that something so significant is achievable through any means, then there's no way I'm handing the Collector base to them because their philosophy lacks the discipline I think is required to use the knowledge effectively. Proving that a goal is achievable by any means is not the same as capitalizing on an achievable goal. Don't just get the job done, get the job done right and use that to your advantage. Dead operatives, smoldering ruins, and incarcerated test subjects who hate your guts aren't impressive assets. Pathetic, yes. Impressive, no. Teltin remains a failure in my view.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I'm not ready to chalk this one up as a "win" for Cerberus either. Lazarus was sabotaged by one of the scientists tasked with reanimating Shepard's body. That's an unsettling security failure in my book. What precautions are in place to prevent breeches of equal or greater consequence from occurring aboard the Collector base?[/quote]
I don't know what does it matter? Are you arguing the base should be destroyed because somebody might destroy it later anyway? That's foolish. Get what data you can now. You can't control everything that may or may not happen in the future.
Regardless, Shepard was successfully evacuated from the Lazarus facility and put to work against the Collectors. Again, a success.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The bolded text above was not quoted in your response. The underlined text provides the context for my question. To expand on this:
The Lazarus facility was overrun. The only living personnel aboard were in no position to rescue Shepard from the medical lab. Had Shepard not been capable of picking up a weapon and making way for the shuttle bay, Lazarus would have been a complete failure. The point remains that Lazarus was unraveled by one Cerberus operative who decided to place his interests before Cerberus'. Teltin and other high value projects ended with the unnecessary loss of lives and resources because Cerberus operatives decided they knew better than Illusive Man how to get the job done. This established pattern of security and control failures leads me to doubt whether Cerberus is sufficiently well organized to capitalize on and secure any resources it gains from the Collector base, such that it will be of any use against the reapers.
My point isn't that the base should be destroyed because someone else will if Shepard doesn't, obviously. I did state in a previous post that handing the base to Cerberus would be about as productive as blowing it up, primarily because I don't see anyone but Cerberus personnel gaining anything from it - in their own sloppy way. Their intentions may be perfectly genuine, but I honestly think they're better off sticking to the kinds of projects that don't blow up in their faces.
Also, please respond to my posts in their entirety. I'm making an effort to express my thoughts because I enjoy the exchange. I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pick one sentence and then respond out of context.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
The Illusive Man sacrificed the lives of civilians on Horizon for an opportunity to repel an invasion that he essentially orchestrated.[/quote]
The Collectors would have attacked another colony sooner or later anyway. However when they did they'd have done so without warning meaning that Shepard and company could not get there in time. What the Illusive Man did was choose the battlefield. He lured the Collectors to Horizon so that when he attacked he could send forces to intercept them right away. This saved lives, two thirds of the colony infact. It also forced the Collectors to change tactics. It was a brilliant move on his part.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Cerberus provided the resources, but I credit Shepard with getting the job done in each of those scenarios.[/quote]
Without those resources Shepard isn't doing crap. In ME2 Shepard is a grunt, nothing more. I'm not saying Shepard isn't capable of doing more, but the way ME2 was written all Shepard did was inspire his comrades and run through shooting galleries. All the money and intel, the ship, and the crew were all provided by Cerberus.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I'm not sure I follow.[/quote]
Cerberus managed to sneak commandoes onboard the Migrant Fleet in a raid. The raid failed due largely to the defection of a Cerberus operative and Cerberus' own success at creating powerful human biotics. Regardless, despite the failure it was quite an achievement to be able to attempt a raid like that.
[/quote]
Okay, those are well reasoned views and I can't really argue with the logic behind them. I also have to agree that Cerberus and Shepard are in an equal opportunity working relationship throughout Mass Effect 2. They need each other. Thanks for the clarification on that last point as well.
I'm still not satisfied on these two points though:
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I think this accomplishment was lost in the aftermath of Teltin's fall. Jack turned against Cerberus only to lead a life of crime and eventual incarceration. She was a biotic popsicle in some jailhouse warden's icebox when Shepard found her. It's unclear how or whether Cerberus improved the standing of humanity in this case.[/quote]
Hardly. Cerberus used their resources and influence to put Jack to good use when they went after the Collectors. It is also possible (but by no means certain) that techniques used to create Jack were refined and then applied to Gillian, another powerful human biotic. The fact is Cerberus created a human biotic who could rival an asari matriarch. They proved it can be done. I judge that a success.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The bolded text above was not quoted in your response but it's relevant to the discussion.
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy. That kind of management style certainly doesn't gain him any favor when I consider whether Cerberus is disciplined enough to turn the spoils of war against the reapers. It's unfortunate that Cerberus lost control of such a valuable asset, really. Who do they have to blame for that?
Teltin proved that it was possible to produce one powerful human biotic from a pool of young candidates who were routinely subjected to inhumane, deplorable conditions. Cerberus failed to demonstrate that the same results are reproducible in a more sane, controlled environment. It's probably safe to assume that Jack remains Cerberus' one and only "success" given that Shepard is tasked with recruiting her and not someone else. The Illusive Man could always be holding out on Shepard I suppose.
If Cerberus is satisfied with merely proving that something so significant is achievable through any means, then there's no way I'm handing the Collector base to them because their philosophy lacks the discipline I think is required to use the knowledge effectively. Proving that a goal is achievable by any means is not the same as capitalizing on an achievable goal. Don't just get the job done, get the job done right and use that to your advantage. Dead operatives, smoldering ruins, and incarcerated test subjects who hate your guts aren't impressive assets. Pathetic, yes. Impressive, no. Teltin remains a failure in my view.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I'm not ready to chalk this one up as a "win" for Cerberus either. Lazarus was sabotaged by one of the scientists tasked with reanimating Shepard's body. That's an unsettling security failure in my book. What precautions are in place to prevent breeches of equal or greater consequence from occurring aboard the Collector base?[/quote]
I don't know what does it matter? Are you arguing the base should be destroyed because somebody might destroy it later anyway? That's foolish. Get what data you can now. You can't control everything that may or may not happen in the future.
Regardless, Shepard was successfully evacuated from the Lazarus facility and put to work against the Collectors. Again, a success.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The bolded text above was not quoted in your response. The underlined text provides the context for my question. To expand on this:
The Lazarus facility was overrun. The only living personnel aboard were in no position to rescue Shepard from the medical lab. Had Shepard not been capable of picking up a weapon and making way for the shuttle bay, Lazarus would have been a complete failure. The point remains that Lazarus was unraveled by one Cerberus operative who decided to place his interests before Cerberus'. Teltin and other high value projects ended with the unnecessary loss of lives and resources because Cerberus operatives decided they knew better than Illusive Man how to get the job done. This established pattern of security and control failures leads me to doubt whether Cerberus is sufficiently well organized to capitalize on and secure any resources it gains from the Collector base, such that it will be of any use against the reapers.
My point isn't that the base should be destroyed because someone else will if Shepard doesn't, obviously. I did state in a previous post that handing the base to Cerberus would be about as productive as blowing it up, primarily because I don't see anyone but Cerberus personnel gaining anything from it - in their own sloppy way. Their intentions may be perfectly genuine, but I honestly think they're better off sticking to the kinds of projects that don't blow up in their faces.
Also, please respond to my posts in their entirety. I'm making an effort to express my thoughts because I enjoy the exchange. I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pick one sentence and then respond out of context.
Modifié par Tighue, 26 juin 2010 - 06:40 .
#1012
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 07:10
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Tighue wrote...
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy.
I doubt he's worried. After all in all this time has Jack managed to do any damage to the organization? Apparently not. Despite Jack's hostility she was still willing to work with the organization and its operatives, so I don't see what you are so worried about.
Tighue wrote...
Teltin proved that it was possible to produce one powerful human biotic from a pool of young candidates who were routinely subjected to inhumane, deplorable conditions. Cerberus failed to demonstrate that the same results are reproducible in a more sane, controlled environment.
You don't know that. I take it you haven't read the second book. Well I already spoiled part of it for you so I'll spoil even more. Cerberus eventually created a second very powerful human biotic. This one is at least as strong as Jack, perhaps stronger. She is only a six year-old around the time of ME2. The thing is, Cerberus managed to unlock her biotic ability without torturing her. I don't know if what they learned with Jack was applied to her (her name is Gillian) but it is at least possible. That's not the point anyway though. Cerberus wanted to test if it was possible for humans to produce powerful biotics capable of matching asari in ability and they succeeded. It is possible that the methods used with Jack were a dead-end which Cerberus had to scrap completely. That's irrelevent though because you can't know if a technique will work or not unless you try it. Certainly negative reinforcement isn't a total loss; it worked with Alenko after all.
You can't capitalize on something before you've proven it's possible.
Tighue wrote...
The Lazarus facility was overrun. The only living personnel aboard were in no position to rescue Shepard from the medical lab.
Incorrect. Miranda woke Shepard from another location and was able to direct him part of the way to the shuttles until he ran into Jacob.
Tighue wrote...
Had Shepard not been capable of picking up a weapon and making way for the shuttle bay, Lazarus would have been a complete failure.
If if's and but's were candy and nuts.
Tighue wrote...
Teltin and other high value projects ended with the unnecessary loss of lives and resources because Cerberus operatives decided they knew better than Illusive Man how to get the job done. This established pattern of security and control failures leads me to doubt whether Cerberus is sufficiently well organized to capitalize on and secure any resources it gains from the Collector base, such that it will be of any use against the reapers.
What other high value projects? Other than Teltin the only one I can think of is the plot of the second book which involves the defection of two Cerberus operatives. They're only human after all. Regardless, that is not a good excuse to blow up the base. It's true that as you begin trying to unravel its secrets that someone may sabotage it, but at least you'll have had a chance to learn something. If you blow the base up you will never gain anything from it.
Tighue wrote...
My point isn't that the base should be destroyed because someone else will if Shepard doesn't, obviously. I did state in a previous post that handing the base to Cerberus would be about as productive as blowing it up, primarily because I don't see anyone but Cerberus personnel gaining anything from it - in their own sloppy way.
Which I think is a flawed position because as long as Cerberus fields that technology against the enemy humanity and in fact the rest of the galaxy will benefit. Anything Cerberus does that shortens the war will save lives, human and alien alike. They'll save more lives than you will when you blow up the base.
Tighue wrote...
I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pick one sentence and then respond out of context.
Where have I done that?
#1013
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 07:16
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
Ieldra2 wrote...
You would have *agonized* about it then? If I'd had that chance, there wouldn't have been a single second of hesitation about it - I'd have kept the base. Anything else would have been stupid. Only consideration of TIM's motives made me think about alternatives. Ultimately, though, getting intel on the enemy is more important than keeping the base out of TIM's hands. As bad as it sounds, he *is* the lesser evil.Tighue wrote...
Honestly, I would have agonized over the desicion had I been given the option to secure the base for the Alliance Navy.
His eyes make me consider unpleasant scenarios, though. What if he's indoctrinated, and this was all just a roundabout way to get his hands on Reaper tech to turn humanity into one in his own way. Reaper ideology sees the creation of a new Reaper from an intelligent species as "ascension". That's uncomfortably compatible with Cerberus "advancement of humanity". I can see Cerberus' original goals of human domination become corrupted by Reaper ideology through indoctrination this way.
That doesn't make a difference when deciding about the base, though. I can only decide from what I know then.
Yeah, I probably would have given the base to the Alliance during my first play-though had it been an option. My main gripe isn't really with Illusive Man, it has more to do with just how ineffectively Cerberus manages high risk scenarios. The group handles projects that pose minimal risks just fine.
#1014
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 07:18
Fiery Phoenix
-
- Members
- 18 970 messages
I agree. If there was an option to keep the base for the Alliance, I'd have totally gone with it.
#1015
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 07:23
MadCat221
-
- Members
- 2 330 messages
Why is it better to blow it up? Because it completely denies the Reapers any of it.
Think about it: It's all Reaper tech. The Reapers do their culling specifically because they make their victim species all dependent on their technology. Even if the tech in the facility unintentionally ends up in their victims' hands, it's still their tech, tech they have millennia more experience with than humans. Whatever solution to the Reaper threat comes around must be largely of things 'outside their plans'. The Battle of The Citadel was a narrow victory because of the Prothean sabotage, and nearly was in vain had Shepard not manage to strike a nerve in Sovereign's arrogant god complex.
And then there's the old Nietzche quote...
"He who fights monsters must take care lest he become a monster."
I have no doubt Cerberus would become something horrible with that kind of power in their hands. They already have total irresponsibility in regards to their own actions. Illusive Man said it himself in his intro, when saying that 'alliances are good but unreliable when the rest of the galaxy already considers you a threat' or somesuch. I so wanted a "And whose fault is that now?" response to that.
Think of it as a safeguard for the future post-Reaper Defeat from the atrocities Cerberus will inevitably commit against the galaxy if they had that tech. Timmay won't care about your threats to go after him should he abuse the technology if you spare the base. You gotta speak his language... by blowing up the Collector base.
Now if you're playing as a Human supremist, then keeping the base is logical from that point of view. Anything else is foolish and threats against Cerberus abusing the tech it gathers is empty and impotent. Destroying the base is the only message that Tim will heed.
As I see it, Paragon Shepard is dealing with two threats in one blow by destroying the base: He's ending the Collectors' reign of terror over fringe colonies, and he's also thwarting Cerberus's attempts of extending their campaign of human supremacy 'by any means expedient' that would result after the Reaper threat is dealt with. If I side with the lesser of two evils and am presented with an opportunity that thwarts both the greater and lesser evil, I'd certainly take it.
Think about it: It's all Reaper tech. The Reapers do their culling specifically because they make their victim species all dependent on their technology. Even if the tech in the facility unintentionally ends up in their victims' hands, it's still their tech, tech they have millennia more experience with than humans. Whatever solution to the Reaper threat comes around must be largely of things 'outside their plans'. The Battle of The Citadel was a narrow victory because of the Prothean sabotage, and nearly was in vain had Shepard not manage to strike a nerve in Sovereign's arrogant god complex.
And then there's the old Nietzche quote...
"He who fights monsters must take care lest he become a monster."
I have no doubt Cerberus would become something horrible with that kind of power in their hands. They already have total irresponsibility in regards to their own actions. Illusive Man said it himself in his intro, when saying that 'alliances are good but unreliable when the rest of the galaxy already considers you a threat' or somesuch. I so wanted a "And whose fault is that now?" response to that.
Think of it as a safeguard for the future post-Reaper Defeat from the atrocities Cerberus will inevitably commit against the galaxy if they had that tech. Timmay won't care about your threats to go after him should he abuse the technology if you spare the base. You gotta speak his language... by blowing up the Collector base.
Now if you're playing as a Human supremist, then keeping the base is logical from that point of view. Anything else is foolish and threats against Cerberus abusing the tech it gathers is empty and impotent. Destroying the base is the only message that Tim will heed.
As I see it, Paragon Shepard is dealing with two threats in one blow by destroying the base: He's ending the Collectors' reign of terror over fringe colonies, and he's also thwarting Cerberus's attempts of extending their campaign of human supremacy 'by any means expedient' that would result after the Reaper threat is dealt with. If I side with the lesser of two evils and am presented with an opportunity that thwarts both the greater and lesser evil, I'd certainly take it.
Modifié par MadCat221, 26 juin 2010 - 07:37 .
#1016
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 07:24
statefn8603
-
- Members
- 89 messages
For my ultimate renegade character I did keep the base seeing as how my Shep loves terror, mayhem and has a pro-human 1st attitude. Though for my other four characters admittedly I have not.
#1017
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 07:51
Costin_Razvan
-
- Members
- 7 010 messages
I kept it so it would give humanity an edge on the Galactic Scale...unlike others here I don't have the illusion that keeping it will make Cerberus the strongest faction in the Galaxy. It's just a bonus, nothing more then that.
It's invaluable against the Reapers however.
It's invaluable against the Reapers however.
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 juin 2010 - 07:52 .
#1018
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 08:00
Vaenier
-
- Members
- 2 815 messages
How do you argue that the base is useless against the Reapers, and would make a small faction of a few hundred into the dominant power of the Galaxy at the same time?
#1019
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 08:04
Costin_Razvan
-
- Members
- 7 010 messages
People also argue that Cerberus is inept as an organization...( not that I believe that ), so the question must be asked how would it make Cerberus a grave threat to the Galaxy if you do think that?
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 juin 2010 - 08:04 .
#1020
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 08:11
hamtyl07
-
- Members
- 724 messages
i have a full paragon shepard i left the base there is that feeling that it might have its benefits in ME3
#1021
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 08:40
CroGamer002
-
- Members
- 20 673 messages
Because I know it will bite in the ass in ME3 if I leave base.
But I did left him base in 1 of my 3 characters for now.
But I did left him base in 1 of my 3 characters for now.
Modifié par Mesina2, 26 juin 2010 - 08:40 .
#1022
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 08:41
Costin_Razvan
-
- Members
- 7 010 messages
Give one good solid reason why would it bite in the ass, rather then just mistrust regarding TIM.
#1023
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 09:28
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 684 messages
How does any of that fit with your first claim, that destroying the base denies it to the Reapers?MadCat221 wrote...
Why is it better to blow it up? Because it completely denies the Reapers any of it.
Think about it: It's all Reaper tech. The Reapers do their culling specifically because they make their victim species all dependent on their technology. Even if the tech in the facility unintentionally ends up in their victims' hands, it's still their tech, tech they have millennia more experience with than humans. Whatever solution to the Reaper threat comes around must be largely of things 'outside their plans'. The Battle of The Citadel was a narrow victory because of the Prothean sabotage, and nearly was in vain had Shepard not manage to strike a nerve in Sovereign's arrogant god complex.
And then there's the old Nietzche quote...
"He who fights monsters must take care lest he become a monster."
I have no doubt Cerberus would become something horrible with that kind of power in their hands. They already have total irresponsibility in regards to their own actions. Illusive Man said it himself in his intro, when saying that 'alliances are good but unreliable when the rest of the galaxy already considers you a threat' or somesuch. I so wanted a "And whose fault is that now?" response to that.
Think of it as a safeguard for the future post-Reaper Defeat from the atrocities Cerberus will inevitably commit against the galaxy if they had that tech. Timmay won't care about your threats to go after him should he abuse the technology if you spare the base. You gotta speak his language... by blowing up the Collector base.
Now if you're playing as a Human supremist, then keeping the base is logical from that point of view. Anything else is foolish and threats against Cerberus abusing the tech it gathers is empty and impotent. Destroying the base is the only message that Tim will heed.
As I see it, Paragon Shepard is dealing with two threats in one blow by destroying the base: He's ending the Collectors' reign of terror over fringe colonies, and he's also thwarting Cerberus's attempts of extending their campaign of human supremacy 'by any means expedient' that would result after the Reaper threat is dealt with. If I side with the lesser of two evils and am presented with an opportunity that thwarts both the greater and lesser evil, I'd certainly take it.
If the Reapers win, regardless of what you do, they can rebuild the base. They already have the knowledge of how to remake the base and the technology within, even though the galaxy doesn't.
If the Reapers lose, they were denied the base regardless of whether you kept it or not. To be in any position to take advantage of their function of the base (to make another Reaper), they have to have access to milions of humans/Earth, a situation which would predicate that they have already virtually won the war in order to make just one (one!) addition to the Reaper hoard. At which point they could just rebuild the base regardless.
Moreover, destroying the base doesn't mean Cerberus has no technology to abuse. We know they get some already, and you scanned plenty of tech for them as is. And when the Reapers are destroyed, everyone will have the tech and race to master it first. You aren't preventing Cerberus from getting the tech at all: you're simply delaying it, and making them more desparate to race to the front at all costs at the same time everyone else is.
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 juin 2010 - 09:34 .
#1024
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 09:41
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy.[/quote]
I doubt he's worried. After all in all this time has Jack managed to do any damage to the organization? Apparently not. Despite Jack's hostility she was still willing to work with the organization and its operatives, so I don't see what you are so worried about.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I'm not particularly concerned as to whether Illusive Man should be worried that Jack will wreak havoc on Cerberus. More specifically, I think the fact that Illusive Man has no recourse but to rely on the services of such a mismanaged and grossly neglected asset is telling of Cerberus' ability to secure and maintain its resources.
Granted, Jack did do her fair share of damage to everyone that wasn't Cerberus.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Teltin proved that it was possible to produce one powerful human biotic from a pool of young candidates who were routinely subjected to inhumane, deplorable conditions. Cerberus failed to demonstrate that the same results are reproducible in a more sane, controlled environment.[/quote]
You don't know that. I take it you haven't read the second book. Well I already spoiled part of it for you so I'll spoil even more. Cerberus eventually created a second very powerful human biotic. This one is at least as strong as Jack, perhaps stronger. She is only a six year-old around the time of ME2. The thing is, Cerberus managed to unlock her biotic ability without torturing her. I don't know if what they learned with Jack was applied to her (her name is Gillian) but it is at least possible. That's not the point anyway though. Cerberus wanted to test if it was possible for humans to produce powerful biotics capable of matching asari in ability and they succeeded. It is possible that the methods used with Jack were a dead-end which Cerberus had to scrap completely. That's irrelevent though because you can't know if a technique will work or not unless you try it. Certainly negative reinforcement isn't a total loss; it worked with Alenko after all.
You can't capitalize on something before you've proven it's possible.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Here is where I have to admit that I haven't read any of the Mass Effect the books. You have me at disadvantage regarding Gillian and how Cerberus chose to handle her. Thanks for the information nonetheless.
Teltin was no small expense of time and resources if we're to assume that its sole purpose was to explore a possibility. Valuable personnel died on-site during Jack's escape or were "dealt with" later after the head of the organization finally learned what was going on. I don't see why Illusive Man didn't at least try to enforce a better oversight policy as a preventative measure. Cerberus might have achieved more, sooner, had Teltin been managed more responsibly.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
The Lazarus facility was overrun. The only living personnel aboard were in no position to rescue Shepard from the medical lab.[/quote]
Incorrect. Miranda woke Shepard from another location and was able to direct him part of the way to the shuttles until he ran into Jacob.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Had Shepard not been capable of picking up a weapon and making way for the shuttle bay, Lazarus would have been a complete failure.[/quote]
If if's and but's were candy and nuts.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Still, the situation should never have been allowed to spiral that far out of control to begin with. "Shepard, wake up and save yourself while I guard the escape shuttle" does little to instill confidence in Cerberus' security protocols. Granted, Miranda's helplessness aboard the Lazarus station is fodder for some fun bar stool banter back on the Citadel. That's assuming my Shepard can safely visit a public bar without drawing the attention of Cerberus assassins now.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Teltin and other high value projects ended with the unnecessary loss of lives and resources because Cerberus operatives decided they knew better than Illusive Man how to get the job done. This established pattern of security and control failures leads me to doubt whether Cerberus is sufficiently well organized to capitalize on and secure any resources it gains from the Collector base, such that it will be of any use against the reapers.[/quote]
What other high value projects? Other than Teltin the only one I can think of is the plot of the second book which involves the defection of two Cerberus operatives. They're only human after all. Regardless, that is not a good excuse to blow up the base. It's true that as you begin trying to unravel its secrets that someone may sabotage it, but at least you'll have had a chance to learn something. If you blow the base up you will never gain anything from it.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was thinking specifically about Project Overlord, but that might not be fair given that it didn't factor into my first play-through. Otherwise, fair enough.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
My point isn't that the base should be destroyed because someone else will if Shepard doesn't, obviously. I did state in a previous post that handing the base to Cerberus would be about as productive as blowing it up, primarily because I don't see anyone but Cerberus personnel gaining anything from it - in their own sloppy way.[/quote]
Which I think is a flawed position because as long as Cerberus fields that technology against the enemy humanity and in fact the rest of the galaxy will benefit. Anything Cerberus does that shortens the war will save lives, human and alien alike. They'll save more lives than you will when you blow up the base.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Also: fair enough. Granted, that assumes they'll have time to utilize what they learn before:
a. The reapers find a way to escalate their advance and pose a threat sooner than anticipated
b. The research project gets sabotaged
I'm at least a little less confident in my decision now. Congratulations.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pick one sentence and then respond out of context.[/quote]
Where have I done that?
[/quote]
I was mildly irked because some of the questions you asked in response to my previous post were redundant in that I had already provided my reasoning. I'll chalk it up to me not being either specific or clear enough.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy.[/quote]
I doubt he's worried. After all in all this time has Jack managed to do any damage to the organization? Apparently not. Despite Jack's hostility she was still willing to work with the organization and its operatives, so I don't see what you are so worried about.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I'm not particularly concerned as to whether Illusive Man should be worried that Jack will wreak havoc on Cerberus. More specifically, I think the fact that Illusive Man has no recourse but to rely on the services of such a mismanaged and grossly neglected asset is telling of Cerberus' ability to secure and maintain its resources.
Granted, Jack did do her fair share of damage to everyone that wasn't Cerberus.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Teltin proved that it was possible to produce one powerful human biotic from a pool of young candidates who were routinely subjected to inhumane, deplorable conditions. Cerberus failed to demonstrate that the same results are reproducible in a more sane, controlled environment.[/quote]
You don't know that. I take it you haven't read the second book. Well I already spoiled part of it for you so I'll spoil even more. Cerberus eventually created a second very powerful human biotic. This one is at least as strong as Jack, perhaps stronger. She is only a six year-old around the time of ME2. The thing is, Cerberus managed to unlock her biotic ability without torturing her. I don't know if what they learned with Jack was applied to her (her name is Gillian) but it is at least possible. That's not the point anyway though. Cerberus wanted to test if it was possible for humans to produce powerful biotics capable of matching asari in ability and they succeeded. It is possible that the methods used with Jack were a dead-end which Cerberus had to scrap completely. That's irrelevent though because you can't know if a technique will work or not unless you try it. Certainly negative reinforcement isn't a total loss; it worked with Alenko after all.
You can't capitalize on something before you've proven it's possible.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Here is where I have to admit that I haven't read any of the Mass Effect the books. You have me at disadvantage regarding Gillian and how Cerberus chose to handle her. Thanks for the information nonetheless.
Teltin was no small expense of time and resources if we're to assume that its sole purpose was to explore a possibility. Valuable personnel died on-site during Jack's escape or were "dealt with" later after the head of the organization finally learned what was going on. I don't see why Illusive Man didn't at least try to enforce a better oversight policy as a preventative measure. Cerberus might have achieved more, sooner, had Teltin been managed more responsibly.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
The Lazarus facility was overrun. The only living personnel aboard were in no position to rescue Shepard from the medical lab.[/quote]
Incorrect. Miranda woke Shepard from another location and was able to direct him part of the way to the shuttles until he ran into Jacob.
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Had Shepard not been capable of picking up a weapon and making way for the shuttle bay, Lazarus would have been a complete failure.[/quote]
If if's and but's were candy and nuts.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Still, the situation should never have been allowed to spiral that far out of control to begin with. "Shepard, wake up and save yourself while I guard the escape shuttle" does little to instill confidence in Cerberus' security protocols. Granted, Miranda's helplessness aboard the Lazarus station is fodder for some fun bar stool banter back on the Citadel. That's assuming my Shepard can safely visit a public bar without drawing the attention of Cerberus assassins now.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Teltin and other high value projects ended with the unnecessary loss of lives and resources because Cerberus operatives decided they knew better than Illusive Man how to get the job done. This established pattern of security and control failures leads me to doubt whether Cerberus is sufficiently well organized to capitalize on and secure any resources it gains from the Collector base, such that it will be of any use against the reapers.[/quote]
What other high value projects? Other than Teltin the only one I can think of is the plot of the second book which involves the defection of two Cerberus operatives. They're only human after all. Regardless, that is not a good excuse to blow up the base. It's true that as you begin trying to unravel its secrets that someone may sabotage it, but at least you'll have had a chance to learn something. If you blow the base up you will never gain anything from it.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was thinking specifically about Project Overlord, but that might not be fair given that it didn't factor into my first play-through. Otherwise, fair enough.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
My point isn't that the base should be destroyed because someone else will if Shepard doesn't, obviously. I did state in a previous post that handing the base to Cerberus would be about as productive as blowing it up, primarily because I don't see anyone but Cerberus personnel gaining anything from it - in their own sloppy way.[/quote]
Which I think is a flawed position because as long as Cerberus fields that technology against the enemy humanity and in fact the rest of the galaxy will benefit. Anything Cerberus does that shortens the war will save lives, human and alien alike. They'll save more lives than you will when you blow up the base.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Also: fair enough. Granted, that assumes they'll have time to utilize what they learn before:
a. The reapers find a way to escalate their advance and pose a threat sooner than anticipated
b. The research project gets sabotaged
I'm at least a little less confident in my decision now. Congratulations.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pick one sentence and then respond out of context.[/quote]
Where have I done that?
[/quote]
I was mildly irked because some of the questions you asked in response to my previous post were redundant in that I had already provided my reasoning. I'll chalk it up to me not being either specific or clear enough.
Modifié par Tighue, 27 juin 2010 - 01:32 .
#1025
Posté 26 juin 2010 - 10:01
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 684 messages
[quote]Tighue wrote...
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy.[/quote]
I doubt he's worried. After all in all this time has Jack managed to do any damage to the organization? Apparently not. Despite Jack's hostility she was still willing to work with the organization and its operatives, so I don't see what you are so worried about.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I'm not particularly concerned as to whether Illusive Man should be worried that Jack will wreack havoc on Cerberus. More specifically, I think the fact that Illusive Man has no recourse but to rely on the services of such a mismanaged and grossly neglected asset is telling of Cerberus' ability to secure and maintain its resources.
Granted, Jack did do her fair share of damage to everyone that wasn't Cerberus.[/quote]In theory, most of the game recruitments aren't 'forced to rely on', but 'options' for Shepard to consider as he wants. About the only mandatory dossier is Mordin, and the rest you can selectively choose not to pick up if you're picky enough with the DLC.
Jack never seemed to be a 'the mission will fail if we do not recruit her' as much as a 'Hey, Shep, we know this really powerful biotic. She hates us, though, so it's up to you to convince her.'
[quote]
Here is where I have to admit that I haven't read any of the Mass Effect the books. You have me at disadvantage regarding Gillian and how Cerberus chose to handle her. Thanks for the information nonetheless.
Teltin was no small expense of time and resources if we're to assume that its sole purpose was to explore a possibility. Valuable personnel died on-site during Jack's escape or were "dealt with" later after the head of the organization finally learned what was going on. I don't see why Illusive Man didn't at least try to enforce a better oversight policy as a preventative measure. Cerberus might have achieved more, sooner, had Teltin been managed more responsibly.[/quote]The Illusive Man was demanding record logs, though: the Teltin people were delaying and falsifying to him. One of the inherent drawbacks of hands-off managing (something generally desired in the practical world) is the reliance of the actors at hand to be honest.
Regardless of just how much of Teltin's findings went into the Ascension Project (we know the Ascension Project does not need torture treatment), we do know that some of the Teltin data is relevant and usable even at the current year: Shepard can get a biotic upgrade scan, after all.
[quote]
Still, the situation should never have been allowed to spiral that far out of control to begin with. "Shepard, wake up and save yourself while I guard the escape shuttle" does little to instill confidence in Cerberus' security protocols. Granted, Miranda's helplessness aboard the Lazarus station is fodder for some fun bar stool banter back on the Citadel. That's assuming my Shepard can safely visit a public bar without drawing the attention of Cerberus assassins now.[/quote]'Been allowed' is a rather meaningless phrase when someone breaks a rule: without forewarning, how do you intend to stop them? It's like making suicide a crime punishable by death.
Treachery is one of those things that can almost always screw things up badly. By it's very nature, premediated traitors want to strike and act in the most effective way.
[quote]
Also: fair enough. Granted, that assumes they'll have time to utilize what the learn before:
a. The reapers find a escalate their advance and manage to pose a threat sooner than anticipated
b. The research project gets sabotaged
I'm at least a little less confident in my decision now. Congratulations.
[/quote]
Consider it this way, even if you don't want to recal the general ridiculous rate of reverse engineering in the Mass Effect universe.
If there isn't enough time to learn anything before the Reapers arrive, then Cerberus won't have the ability to abuse the technology before hand and will be at much less of an advantage after on account that the entire galaxy will have Reaper remains to study (if we survive). So keeping the Collector Base is comparatively a no-cost, no-gain
If the project gets sabatoged, the only people really capable of doing so at this point now that the Reapers back-up hand in the galaxy is gone are the Council and other alien races, meaning that Cerberus has been severely penetrated and therefore wouldn't have been able to get very far anyways. And if it's just a general screw up, the consequences are mostly born by Cerberus, at relatively little cost to the rest of the galaxy. Again, little loss.
And as an aside, it's rather nice we can all be calm and reasonable in these discussions now.
[quote]Shandepared wrote...
[quote]Tighue wrote...
Jack made her feelings about Cerberus clear. She's completely at odds with the organization. In fact, Shepard is the only person holding her back from going off on a total revenge kick. The Illusive Man would be foolish to think that retaining Jack's loyalty by proxy is a smart, well planned strategy.[/quote]
I doubt he's worried. After all in all this time has Jack managed to do any damage to the organization? Apparently not. Despite Jack's hostility she was still willing to work with the organization and its operatives, so I don't see what you are so worried about.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I'm not particularly concerned as to whether Illusive Man should be worried that Jack will wreack havoc on Cerberus. More specifically, I think the fact that Illusive Man has no recourse but to rely on the services of such a mismanaged and grossly neglected asset is telling of Cerberus' ability to secure and maintain its resources.
Granted, Jack did do her fair share of damage to everyone that wasn't Cerberus.[/quote]In theory, most of the game recruitments aren't 'forced to rely on', but 'options' for Shepard to consider as he wants. About the only mandatory dossier is Mordin, and the rest you can selectively choose not to pick up if you're picky enough with the DLC.
Jack never seemed to be a 'the mission will fail if we do not recruit her' as much as a 'Hey, Shep, we know this really powerful biotic. She hates us, though, so it's up to you to convince her.'
[quote]
Here is where I have to admit that I haven't read any of the Mass Effect the books. You have me at disadvantage regarding Gillian and how Cerberus chose to handle her. Thanks for the information nonetheless.
Teltin was no small expense of time and resources if we're to assume that its sole purpose was to explore a possibility. Valuable personnel died on-site during Jack's escape or were "dealt with" later after the head of the organization finally learned what was going on. I don't see why Illusive Man didn't at least try to enforce a better oversight policy as a preventative measure. Cerberus might have achieved more, sooner, had Teltin been managed more responsibly.[/quote]The Illusive Man was demanding record logs, though: the Teltin people were delaying and falsifying to him. One of the inherent drawbacks of hands-off managing (something generally desired in the practical world) is the reliance of the actors at hand to be honest.
Regardless of just how much of Teltin's findings went into the Ascension Project (we know the Ascension Project does not need torture treatment), we do know that some of the Teltin data is relevant and usable even at the current year: Shepard can get a biotic upgrade scan, after all.
[quote]
Still, the situation should never have been allowed to spiral that far out of control to begin with. "Shepard, wake up and save yourself while I guard the escape shuttle" does little to instill confidence in Cerberus' security protocols. Granted, Miranda's helplessness aboard the Lazarus station is fodder for some fun bar stool banter back on the Citadel. That's assuming my Shepard can safely visit a public bar without drawing the attention of Cerberus assassins now.
[/quote]'Been allowed' is a rather meaningless phrase when someone breaks a rule: without forewarning, how do you intend to stop them? It's like making suicide a crime punishable by death.Treachery is one of those things that can almost always screw things up badly. By it's very nature, premediated traitors want to strike and act in the most effective way.
[quote]
Also: fair enough. Granted, that assumes they'll have time to utilize what the learn before:
a. The reapers find a escalate their advance and manage to pose a threat sooner than anticipated
b. The research project gets sabotaged
I'm at least a little less confident in my decision now. Congratulations.
[/quote]
Consider it this way, even if you don't want to recal the general ridiculous rate of reverse engineering in the Mass Effect universe.
If there isn't enough time to learn anything before the Reapers arrive, then Cerberus won't have the ability to abuse the technology before hand and will be at much less of an advantage after on account that the entire galaxy will have Reaper remains to study (if we survive). So keeping the Collector Base is comparatively a no-cost, no-gain
If the project gets sabatoged, the only people really capable of doing so at this point now that the Reapers back-up hand in the galaxy is gone are the Council and other alien races, meaning that Cerberus has been severely penetrated and therefore wouldn't have been able to get very far anyways. And if it's just a general screw up, the consequences are mostly born by Cerberus, at relatively little cost to the rest of the galaxy. Again, little loss.
And as an aside, it's rather nice we can all be calm and reasonable in these discussions now.
