143 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Like you'll hear Cerberus supporters say Cerberus does what's best for humanity, but when they sacrifice human lives with absolutely no apparent gain whatsoever, Cerberus supporters will choose to disregard this because it doesn't suit their opinion.

No, we just not get emotional about the misfortune of the sacrificed, and argue that the net gain must be present somewhere, or do you mean Cerberus does it all for the lulz? And the "wealthy contributors" make their hefty contributions to Cerberus' budget for the lulz? That's way too cartoonish to be true even in the now-cartoonish ME universe.

We do not disregard these facts, we interpret them as, well, you said it yourself... It's what best for humanity. To sacrifice a few to gain a lot.

They sacrifice more than they contribute. Any project that doesn't have to do directly with Shepard goes horribly wrong.

But again, you choose to disregard this.

And you chose to disregard that, if that was true, they would have ceased to exist long ago.

But again, it's largely a question of relative value. You, the haters, say: they sacrifice WAY TOO MANY lives. We, the supporters, say: they sacrifice ONLY A FEW lives. And we are talking about the same amount.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
You, the haters....

huh?

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But again, it's largely a question of relative value. You, the haters, say: they sacrifice WAY TOO MANY lives. We, the supporters, say: they sacrifice ONLY A FEW lives. And we are talking about the same amount.

Well, golly. I aren't no hater. Are you a-callin' me a hater. Little old me. Innocent me. Harmless me.

It's simply a matter of stumbling upon so many projects that killed so many people and achieved absolutely nothing.

How many of these projects need to stack up before it starts to mean something? For Cerberus supporters, apparently an infinite number.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And you chose to disregard that, if that was true, they would have ceased to exist long ago.

Now this is just plain wrong. Do you have any idea how many seedy and destructive groups have been able to go on existing despite the fact they were doing something wrong? As long as you can still get funders, you can go on FOREVAH.

[Zulu_DFA]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

No oversight = fail incoming.

This is such a joke. Government oversight = pain in the ass. I bet the CIA has a specific department to deal with the government oversight and keep those pesky congressmen away from what's really important. If anything, they "infiltrate" the oversight committees with their former employees, but there is not such thing as "former" in that world.

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
You, the haters....

huh?

You do hate Cerberus, right?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 22 août 2010 - 03:28 .

[FourSixEight]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

No oversight = fail incoming.

This is such a joke. Government oversight = pain in the ass.

This explains so much.

[McBeath]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

McBeath wrote...

I think that your(Zulu) interpreting that statement the way you want to instead of seeing it as being more neutral.

I thinl it's pretty simple: A bunch of people support destroying the Base, like Miranda, Jacob, Jack, Samara/Morinth (Morinth, lol, is careful to play her mother straight!), and Tali. So they would say something against TIM's PoV. Mordin, Legion. Zaeed, Grunt and Garrus support keeping the Base and say something in support of TIM's PoV. They don't say they love TIM. They say TIM's right on this particular subject. I'd even say the ME2 trumps ME1 here (and that's a really rare statement you can hear from me), because the characters don't suffer from dual personality syndrome depending on who the other companion is.

In short, I think it's you paragon folks trying to interpret an openly renegade statement "keep the base" as a neutral, because it hurts you to hear a squadmate not sucking up to you for once.

Hardy... and the sarcasm is noted.

Instead, I think that the characters just spoke in character.  An "openly renegade statement" would have been "keep the base".  It wasn't.  Legion if nothing else was stating a logical fact, ie "if your doing this to honor the dead it won't bring them back".  Which is no different than Miranda saying "that if you activate it[Legion] you should do it for humanities sake, not your own curiosity".  She wasn't saying don't do it, just make sure you do it for the right reasons.  Some of the characters you mention do this, some don't.

Bioware still offers us some choice in how we interpret things, which is why it's a good game.  Just because you don't see things in the same way I do doesn't mean you have to be rude about it.

[Arijharn]

The government has it's own fair share of secrets, what exactly does governmental 'oversight' mean in terms of the general populace?



I know what it's supposed to mean, but if governmental oversight starts to impede an organisation from doing it's job, then something is probably wrong with the level of its involvement.



You know, I'll be truthfully and brutally honest here. I do not care if my government does torture terrorists. I do not care if they electrocute them, waterboard them or whatever. I want them only to stop the threat upon my loved ones/way of life. I am unsure if this makes me selfish and in the end what does it matter? I entrust my country's security services to do its job and provide security.



I see Cerberus in much the same way, because as far as I can see, the Alliance Intelligence Service doesn't exist short of military intelligence boffins sitting around on Earth pouring over maps of Palaven and highlighting effective missile strike locations.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

FourSixEight wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

No oversight = fail incoming.

This is such a joke. Government oversight = pain in the ass.

This explains so much.

Zulu, the realities for comparison really are there in real life. Probably the best analysis that will arise is that shadow organisations must have intermediated oversight and those who lead them up must be of at least semi-sound mind because it is not possible to completely oversee them, so trust must be tenable as a baseline.

TIM, really, does not fall into that category... it simply is true, he is not of semi-sound mind.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But again, it's largely a question of relative value. You, the haters, say: they sacrifice WAY TOO MANY lives. We, the supporters, say: they sacrifice ONLY A FEW lives. And we are talking about the same amount.

Well, golly. I aren't no hater. Are you a-callin' me a hater. Little old me. Innocent me. Harmless me.

Hating Cerberus makes you a hater of Cerberus. A hater. You'll have to live with that for the rest of your life.

It's simply a matter of stumbling upon so many projects that killed so many people and achieved absolutely nothing.

How many of these projects need to stack up before it starts to mean something? For Cerberus supporters, apparently an infinite number.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And you chose to disregard that, if that was true, they would have ceased to exist long ago.

Now this is just plain wrong. Do you have any idea how many seedy and destructive groups have been able to go on existing despite the fact they were doing something wrong? As long as you can still get funders, you can go on FOREVAH.

I have a perfect idea, that some utterly efficient groups can go on forevah despite the fact that some outsiders think they are doing something wrong.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Arijharn wrote...

The government has it's own fair share of secrets, what exactly does governmental 'oversight' mean in terms of the general populace?

I know what it's supposed to mean, but if governmental oversight starts to impede an organisation from doing it's job, then something is probably wrong with the level of its involvement.

You know, I'll be truthfully and brutally honest here. I do not care if my government does torture terrorists. I do not care if they electrocute them, waterboard them or whatever. I want them only to stop the threat upon my loved ones/way of life. I am unsure if this makes me selfish and in the end what does it matter? I entrust my country's security services to do its job and provide security.

I see Cerberus in much the same way, because as far as I can see, the Alliance Intelligence Service doesn't exist short of military intelligence boffins sitting around on Earth pouring over maps of Palaven and highlighting effective missile strike locations.

For the most part "the West" agrees with protection for our way of life (me too btw)... what I recognise is that you need good people who can "fight the fights that matter". That's the difference. Those of unsound mind will inevitably chose badly.

[Shadow_broker]

NVM

Modifié par Shadow_broker, 22 août 2010 - 03:39 .

[McBeath]

Arijharn wrote...

The government has it's own fair share of secrets, what exactly does governmental 'oversight' mean in terms of the general populace?

I know what it's supposed to mean, but if governmental oversight starts to impede an organisation from doing it's job, then something is probably wrong with the level of its involvement.

You know, I'll be truthfully and brutally honest here. I do not care if my government does torture terrorists. I do not care if they electrocute them, waterboard them or whatever. I want them only to stop the threat upon my loved ones/way of life. I am unsure if this makes me selfish and in the end what does it matter? I entrust my country's security services to do its job and provide security.

I see Cerberus in much the same way, because as far as I can see, the Alliance Intelligence Service doesn't exist short of military intelligence boffins sitting around on Earth pouring over maps of Palaven and highlighting effective missile strike locations.

The problem with this is simple... If Australia(your country?) did what you said  to provide security the international community would be angry, but probibly it would end there.  Worst case scenario you get some sanctions.

If Australia started assassinating foreign nationals, committing acts of terrorism and all that other nasty, **** style experiments that Cerberus has knowingly done I'd expect an international military response.  They're perhaps working for what they think is in humanities best interests, but they're terrorists.  It's understandable why the Alliance would distance themselves from them, and likely the average person would condemn thier actions.

[Arijharn]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
For the most part "the West" agrees with protection for our way of life (me too btw)... what I recognise is that you need good people who can "fight the fights that matter". That's the difference. Those of unsound mind will inevitably chose badly.

Care to elaborate on 'fight the fights that matter?' Or are you merely offering platitudes?

The nature of unknown threats are that they're unknown, how do you account for that with someone of 'sound mind'? Leaving everything to 'blind chance and luck' just seems criminally negligent. For worse, in my mind (sound?) than anything that TIM has done.

[Zulu_DFA]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

No oversight = fail incoming.

This is such a joke. Government oversight = pain in the ass.

This explains so much.

Zulu, the realities for comparison really are there in real life. Probably the best analysis that will arise is that shadow organisations must have intermediated oversight and those who lead them up must be of at least semi-sound mind because it is not possible to completely oversee them, so trust must be tenable as a baseline.

TIM, really, does not fall into that category... it simply is true, he is not of semi-sound mind.

The realities in real life really show that when such shadow organizations lose all passion about what they do, they become utterly inefficient and corrupt. So TIM's fanatical streak is something that guarantees him from falling into the mire of mediocrity and using his power just for personal gain. And to me, all things he says in ME2 and especially the way he treats Shepard on the need to know basis, tell that he's got the soundest mind of all there is among ME characters.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 22 août 2010 - 03:53 .

[Arijharn]

McBeath wrote...
The problem with this is simple... If Australia(your country?) did what you said  to provide security the international community would be angry, but probibly it would end there.  Worst case scenario you get some sanctions.

If Australia started assassinating foreign nationals, committing acts of terrorism and all that other nasty, **** style experiments that Cerberus has knowingly done I'd expect an international military response.  They're perhaps working for what they think is in humanities best interests, but they're terrorists.  It's understandable why the Alliance would distance themselves from them, and likely the average person would condemn thier actions.

True, but Australia wouldn't put itself in a position to be so clearly linked with the activities of it's services (in an ideal world) if it's activities were Cerberus-esque.

I'd like to recall your attention of the recent(ish) hit in Abu Dubai (I believe) of a terrorist by Mossad agents who used a combination of English/American (I think) and Australian passport fraud.

Yes okay, the Mossad agents were caught, Israel was incredibly unrepentant on its actions and may of even gotten some lip service against it by the greater international community but I do believe the head of Mossad said something of the lines of:
"You can say what you want, but the truth of the matter is that the rest of the world should thank Israel for getting rid of human garbage."
I would have to say that in my view, that man is correct. Probably unlike the west who are trying to understand (and therefore undermine) the issues that lead to terrorism, it seems that terrorists merely want to bludgeon its enemy's with such shocking war that should dishearten its opposition. I don't think it is working as well for them as they want, we're probably hardening our hearts and becoming more intent on stopping the attacks.

Getting back on point though; the Systems Alliance, despite seemingly knowing about Cerberus activities (in some part) still haven't taken steps to destroy this 'rogue organisation' so maybe the truth is less palatable; maybe either Cerberus isn't as rogue as we're led to believe, or perhaps they are knowingly complicent. This doesn't void the acts Cerberus has committed of course, but leaving things to complete chance just seems stupid.

[McBeath]

How does keeping a base like that have any use at all against the Reapers. We just assume that they left the blueprints will the deathstar like weakness there for us to exploit.

The last thing Cerberus needs is more data they can use to create human/reaper hybrids or whatever else they have planned for it.

Now, if the Reaper base featured a massive mass accelerator cannon I could use, then yeah I'd consider keeping it regardless of the deaths involved.

Finally, how the hell does Cerberus even get there? Wouldn't the Normandy be the only ship capible of passing through Omega 4 relay?

Modifié par McBeath, 22 août 2010 - 03:56 .

[McBeath]

Arijharn wrote...

McBeath wrote...
The problem with this is simple... If Australia(your country?) did what you said  to provide security the international community would be angry, but probibly it would end there.  Worst case scenario you get some sanctions.

If Australia started assassinating foreign nationals, committing acts of terrorism and all that other nasty, **** style experiments that Cerberus has knowingly done I'd expect an international military response.  They're perhaps working for what they think is in humanities best interests, but they're terrorists.  It's understandable why the Alliance would distance themselves from them, and likely the average person would condemn thier actions.

True, but Australia wouldn't put itself in a position to be so clearly linked with the activities of it's services (in an ideal world) if it's activities were Cerberus-esque.

I'd like to recall your attention of the recent(ish) hit in Abu Dubai (I believe) of a terrorist by Mossad agents who used a combination of English/American (I think) and Australian passport fraud.

Yes okay, the Mossad agents were caught, Israel was incredibly unrepentant on its actions and may of even gotten some lip service against it by the greater international community but I do believe the head of Mossad said something of the lines of:
"You can say what you want, but the truth of the matter is that the rest of the world should thank Israel for getting rid of human garbage."
I would have to say that in my view, that man is correct. Probably unlike the west who are trying to understand (and therefore undermine) the issues that lead to terrorism, it seems that terrorists merely want to bludgeon its enemy's with such shocking war that should dishearten its opposition. I don't think it is working as well for them as they want, we're probably hardening our hearts and becoming more intent on stopping the attacks.

Getting back on point though; the Systems Alliance, despite seemingly knowing about Cerberus activities (in some part) still haven't taken steps to destroy this 'rogue organisation' so maybe the truth is less palatable; maybe either Cerberus isn't as rogue as we're led to believe, or perhaps they are knowingly complicent. This doesn't void the acts Cerberus has committed of course, but leaving things to complete chance just seems stupid.

You should really read the newest book.... *Spoiler Alert*

My understanding is that Anderson as councillor allows the Turians to enter Alliance space and apprehend known Cerberus agents.  Since Cerberus has infiltrated the Alliance it was next to impossible for the Alliance to achieve anything.  The Turians didn't have this problem, and Anderson didn't tell anybody about it.

IF this occurs pre-ME3 then it goes to explain why Udina is the default council member... Anderson is likely to be in some hot water for his actions.  He's far to valuable(and a hero) to be fired, but having him retire/step down in the public eye will happen.   So even if you picked him he may get himself fired... and if you didn't he maybe had enough pull to give the Turians the intel they needed to cripple Cerberus for the Council.

[mosor]

McBeath wrote...

How does keeping a base like that have any use at all against the Reapers. We just assume that they left the blueprints will the deathstar like weakness there for us to exploit.

Destroying the base guarantees you wont find anythng useful. Keeping the base allows a chance that this may be the case. It's a pretty good chance this is the case since they were building a reaper. I'm sure if you captured an automobile factory, you'd learn a lot about automobiles without even building one.

The last thing Cerberus needs is more data they can use to create human/reaper hybrids or whatever else they have planned for it.

Yet understanding our enemy is the most important thing we need to defeat them.

Now, if the Reaper base featured a massive mass accelerator cannon I could use, then yeah I'd consider keeping it regardless of the deaths involved.

How would you know what useful items the base has without investigating it? There may well be something equally as useful as a massive mass accelerator cannon, but you'll never know since you blew it up.

Finally, how the hell does Cerberus even get there? Wouldn't the Normandy be the only ship capible of passing through Omega 4 relay?

The Normandy just used an IFF (identify friend foe} beacon to get past the defenses. Since there is no one manning the defenses, there is no need for that IFF. Anyone can get through that relay now.

Modifié par mosor, 22 août 2010 - 04:35 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Arijharn wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
For the most part "the West" agrees with protection for our way of life (me too btw)... what I recognise is that you need good people who can "fight the fights that matter". That's the difference. Those of unsound mind will inevitably chose badly.

Care to elaborate on 'fight the fights that matter?' Or are you merely offering platitudes?

The nature of unknown threats are that they're unknown, how do you account for that with someone of 'sound mind'? Leaving everything to 'blind chance and luck' just seems criminally negligent. For worse, in my mind (sound?) than anything that TIM has done.

We'd probably need to assign a consensus line about what magnitude of economic warfare is suitable and allowable under different circumstances amoungst western habitants.

I believe it right to say that once a set of rules are established regarding this issue it will have 2 effects:
1. Your internal integrity, cohesion and morality must be able to absorb your position on a national scale of what you advocate for legitimate, reputable and a public knowable position.
2. The revelation of a national position for economic warfare inevitably opens the flood gates of where the loopholes and work arounds for that position are.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Hating Cerberus makes you a hater of Cerberus. A hater. You'll have to live with that for the rest of your life.

But I don't hate Cerberus.

I strongly disagree with the Illusive Man and his seedier projects. Cerberus itself is such a complex organization it seems a bit unreasonable to make generalized statements about it as if what applies to one part applies to them all.

Any hate you may get from anti-Cerberus people is solely directed at Cerberus supporters themselves, who consistently condescend those who don't support Cerberus and generally do nothing for the cause.

Yes, I WENT THERE.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I have a perfect idea, that some utterly efficient groups can go on forevah despite the fact that some outsiders think they are doing something wrong.

You see, I don't understand how you can call a group efficient when its reports look like this:

Project # 1 fail - lost $600,000
Project # 2 fail - lost $800,000 and 2 facilities
Project # 3 fail - lost $2,000,000 and 100 workers
Project # 4 fail - lost $1,750,000, 3 labs and 200 patients
Project # 5 fail - lost $700,000 and killed a bunch of people
Project # 6 fail - lost $1,000,000, found out brainwashing monsters is bad
Project # 7 fail - lost $9,780,400, must kill everyone in that cell
Project Shepard - success

TIM: Our rewards outweigh our sacrifices!! Soon the galaxy will be ours!!

Modifié par Nightwriter, 22 août 2010 - 04:42 .

[Zulu_DFA]

McBeath wrote...
You should really read the newest book.... *Spoiler Alert*

My understanding is that Anderson as councillor

What?
You should re-read the book yourself. It clearly states that the Human Councillor is Udina, and Anderson is his aide. It's either due to BioWare&Karpyshyn's outright canonizing the default setup of ME2, or due to the Anderson's term in office having expired after the events of ME2, and Udina being appointed for the next term, during which the events of Retribution take place.

And in the end Anderson quits the Alliance altogether, because he understands too well, that what he has done is either treason, or the very next thing to it. So it's probably best for him to seek political refuge in the Turian Hierarchy now.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 22 août 2010 - 05:24 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Nightwriter wrote...
You see, I don't understand how you can call a group efficient when its reports look like this:
Project # 1 fail - lost $600,000
Project # 2 fail - lost $800,000 and 2 facilities
Project # 3 fail - lost $2,000,000 and 100 workers
Project # 4 fail - lost $1,750,000, 3 labs and 200 patients
Project # 5 fail - lost $700,000 and killed a bunch of people
Project # 6 fail - lost $1,000,000, found out brainwashing monsters is bad
Project # 7 fail - lost $9,780,400, must kill everyone in that cell
Project Shepard - success
TIM: Our rewards outweigh our sacrifices!! Soon the galaxy will be ours!!

guffaw.. haw haw

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Hating Cerberus makes you a hater of Cerberus. A hater. You'll have to live with that for the rest of your life.

But I don't hate Cerberus.

I strongly disagree with the Illusive Man and his seedier projects. Cerberus itself is such a complex organization it seems a bit unreasonable to make generalized statements about it as if what applies to one part applies to them all.

Any hate you may get from anti-Cerberus people is solely directed at Cerberus supporters themselves, who consistently condescend those who don't support Cerberus and generally do nothing for the cause.

Yes, I WENT THERE.

Then I apologize for that. Still, I have to label you as hater, just because you fall into the same category with the rest who disagree with TIM's methods, motives personality, or whatever and enough of them admit that they "hate Cerberus".

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I have a perfect idea, that some utterly efficient groups can go on forevah despite the fact that some outsiders think they are doing something wrong.

You see, I don't understand how you can call a group efficient when its reports look like this:

Project # 1 fail - lost $600,000
Project # 2 fail - lost $800,000 and 2 facilities
Project # 3 fail - lost $2,000,000 and 100 workers
Project # 4 fail - lost $1,750,000, 3 labs and 200 patients
Project # 5 fail - lost $700,000 and killed a bunch of people
Project # 6 fail - lost $1,000,000, found out brainwashing monsters is bad
Project # 7 fail - lost $9,780,400, must kill everyone in that cell
Project Shepard - success

TIM: Our rewards outweigh our sacrifices!! Soon the galaxy will be ours!!

You forgot about the Kittens. That success was the hugest.
Seriously, I'm not going to repeat for the millionth time that Cerberus definitely has a lot more successes, but they are not known about or are not attributed to Cerberus... Oh, wait, I am repeating it...

[Giggles_Manically]

Just to ask a question here:

TIM in the rest of the game is laid back, relaxed, charismatic, and very well done by MR Sheen. I actually liked him, and was on his side.



Then when the base descion pops up, he just sounds different, he goes on and on about HUMAN POWER NOW AND BEYOND!, does POWER fist thumps, and sounds like an entirely different bloke to me.



Did the sudden thought of power excite him, was this bad writing, Bioware forshadowing, or just TIM being TIM again?

[Zulu_DFA]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Did the sudden thought of power excite him, was this bad writing, Bioware forshadowing, or just TIM being TIM again?

TIM has a lot of temper, but keeps it suppressed for the most part by nicotine. If you defy his demand to keep the base, he lets it out. If you obey his orders, there is no reason to, so he keeps calm.