2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

My arguement is that while the base is a valuable asset, giving it to TIM could result in the return of the Reapers. So I ask you, how is that a logical risk to take?

Also, the books and comics are canon. You may not have read them, but they are. that means we can reference them all we want, because they are a part of the narrative.

And to be clear, I didn't know before hand that it could result in the return of the reapers, but I knew how Cerberus operated. I played completionist runs of ME1 at least five times, I played ME2 12 times, I read Ascension. I knew that they were careless and reckless, a very bad combination. I didn't know what TIM would use the base for, but I knew it was too big of a risk. He might use it somehow to rile up the rest of the galaxy, and when it would take a united galaxy to beat the reapers, making the other species' hate humanity is a bad strategic move. In my mind this would nullify any gain from the base.

Or he might go all out and try and make a reaper. My shep challenged him with that idea and he didn't deny it. In fact, he provided evidence to support the idea that he might. He probably couldn't, but just trying would result in the above scenario.

Or hell, he might do something totally unexpected, like create a Reaper Avatar that can kill krogan with its bare hands and feet, use biotics to destroy a shielded enemy, and communicate with the reapers data instantaneously. this kind of thing could be used to research weaknesses that need to be verified, orchestrate elaborate plans for the return of the reapers, or make jelly toast (which I think is the worst possible outcome, who needs an avatar toaster).

I didn't do it because I was sentimental, I did it because there were logical reasons why giving it to cerberus was a bad idea. Problem is Shep doesn't reflect this opinion in his dialog. He says something totally illogical, and because Shep said it, that is the canon reason.

Don't confuse the dialog with our reasons.

This post should summarize most of the arguments for destroying the base.

[Phaedon]

Shandepared wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

This post should summarize most of the arguments for destroying the base.

Yeah it summarizes the oppositions continual failure to provide a rational argument for destroying the base.

I think that some people here fail to open up to more opinions and like calling everyone else stupid. 
Next time I see a terrorist, I'll hand them over a nuclear bomb, cause you know, it will help in some way.

Modifié par Phaedon, 10 octobre 2010 - 09:06 .

[Arijharn]

Except when you think about it, we have no existential crisis that isn't just a figment of one's imagination, so your 'analogy' doesn't make any freakin' sense.

[Jagri]

I know this subject may have been approched before but Cerberus has suffered quite a few failures but one case really takes the cake.

Project Overlord: Failure - The berserk VI attempted to leave Aite through the facility's communication dish, but the dish was destroyed by Commander Shepard. If it had escaped, potentially every electronic device in the galaxy accessible by the extranet could be subsumed and used by the VI against an unsuspecting populace. I think people fail to see how grave the situation was but think "Terminator" on a galactic scale. Communincations, security bots, power plants, fuel depots, space stations, starship, etc would all be at the mercy of that VI virus. There would be no defense against it and during the final confrontation it was trying to upload itself to the Normandy. If EDI couldn't defend herself against it then who could? Cerberus nearly left the galaxy in a position unable to defend itself.

This isn't even worse case with such a virus. But I am trying to be... Realistic! But then even some people will see this as extreme. Well besides all that no one has made a clear argument why I should trust Cerberus with the Collecters Base? I feel like I am giving a nuclear weapon to a man with autism and telling him not to push the big round red shiny button! I mean it all seem so harmless...

Modifié par Jagri, 10 octobre 2010 - 09:39 .

[Arijharn]

Overlord was an issue I admit, but I think the issue was that the project lead was feeling immense pressure to get results. I think the core idea of the plan was sound at least (attempting to control the Geth) because when you think about it, the experiment would have to of started well before there was any indication of a schism between the Geth or that there was any ideology to begin with.



I don't think I can blame Cerberus (as a whole) for this any more than you can blame all Salarian's for the creation of the Genophage.



At the end of the day, it's exactly as Ieldra stated; it's a risk analysis situation. Some base blowah's out there have given their rational as essentially being confident of current weapon technologies as being capable of defeating the Reapers.. the base keepah's (like me) disagree due to statements made by EDI, witness accounts of Sovereign annihilating the 5th fleet (and the Citadel guard force) and just general beliefs that any arms race in this situation is good.



I feel that even though some people have attempted good rationalism for blowing the base, at the end of the day it just feels like more of a blind leap of faith based on assumptions compared to the risk inherent of handing the base over to Cerberus, because at the end of the day, should the Reapers somehow manage to gain control of the CB in any case, you can blow it, and you could probably leak defense technologies gained from the base to the other species to maintain the galactic 'status quo' anyway.... at least, that's what I'd do.

[Jagri]

Given Cerberus record I think it be blind faith to trust them to do something with the technology other then become a victim to it and create a mess that Shepard will have to deal with when the time comes. This is purely from my Shepards point of view... No meta gaming I merely seen how they have screwed up so many times and they just keep making the same mistakes.

But there will always be excuses that Cerberus should not be held accountable for the actions of its members.

Modifié par Jagri, 10 octobre 2010 - 10:30 .

[Arijharn]

It is blind faith, but it's our opinion it's the better side to err on, as strange as that seems. Cerberus is also the only organisation capable of (at the moment at least) putting their money where their mouth is and have actively helped me.



As to Cerberus' record; well.. the games would have been very boring if we were only hearing about their success stories

[Purge the heathens]

I don't think you can blame anyone for experiments going awry. It seems to be an intrinsic property of the ME universe that all risky experiments will inevitably go wrong. Cerberus had its failures, of course, but then again so did the people on Peak 15 and Rael'Zorah on the Alarei. Cerberus simply gets hit harder because it is more active in this regard.

[Jagri]

Failure for example to control Rachni?
Failure for example to control Geth?
Failure for example to control Jack?
Failure for example to control David?
Failure for example to control Greyson?
Failure for example to control Dead Reaper?
Failure for example to control Husks?
Failure for example to control Thorian Creepers?
Failure for example to control Wilson?
Failure for example to control Corporal Toombs?

This list can keep going >.< Now why should I trust them with the Collecters Base again?

Modifié par Jagri, 10 octobre 2010 - 10:58 .

[Jagri]

I remember almost everyone having died horriably on the project and the galaxy nearly crippled by a VI virus. Hell if thats there defination of success and is repeated with the Collecters Base well the Reapers may come to find the galaxy cleaned of all life when they arrive.

Modifié par Jagri, 10 octobre 2010 - 11:05 .

[Phaedon]

Uh, why are we still discussing if Cerberus is evil or not ? We have been wasted 10 pages on this matter. They are evil. That's it. What we should debate about is if we can trust them with the base.

[Jagri]

Not much use for it if no one would benefit from it? If not for Shepard's intervention David VI Virus would be going from ship to ship and planet to planet crippling economies and turning machines against people. Shoot by the time anyone knew the virus was spreading through the extranet it would be too late. That Reaper genocide would have been accomplist by Cerberus and there "Succuessful experiment". This would be the worse case otherwise Reapers merely come to find us crippled and unable to even put up a feeble resistance.

Again where is this sound arguement I should turned the Collecters Base over to them? Beginning to think David would do a better job.

Modifié par Jagri, 10 octobre 2010 - 11:16 .

[Arijharn]

Phaedon wrote...

Uh, why are we still discussing if Cerberus is evil or not ? We have been wasted 10 pages on this matter. They are evil. That's it. What we should debate about is if we can trust them with the base.

Unfortunately it can't be a case of 'that's it' because 'evil' is a judgement call based on the eye of the beholder.Evil is a pretty strong word to throw about with an almost casual air. It's as serious as calling Cerberus 'terrorists'

[Phaedon]

Arijharn wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Uh, why are we still discussing if Cerberus is evil or not ? We have been wasted 10 pages on this matter. They are evil. That's it. What we should debate about is if we can trust them with the base.

Unfortunately it can't be a case of 'that's it' because 'evil' is a judgement call based on the eye of the beholder.Evil is a pretty strong word to throw about with an almost casual air. It's as serious as calling Cerberus 'terrorists'

Well, call them as you wish, but they are certainly not the 'good guys'. Again, their moral ideals don't really matter. It's about trusting them with the base.

Personally, I don't. If I had to only use a single argument to justify destroying the base, it would be that TIM openly admitted that he wouldn't  mind using it beyond the Reapers.

In conclusion, there are valid arguments for both sides, and noone is being 'stupid'.

[GGRush]

Jagri wrote...

Failure for example to control Rachni?
Failure for example to control Geth?
Failure for example to control Jack?
Failure for example to control David?
Failure for example to control Greyson?
Failure for example to control Dead Reaper?
Failure for example to control Husks?
Failure for example to control Thorian Creepers?
Failure for example to control Wilson?
Failure for example to control Corporal Toombs?

This list can keep going >.< Now why should I trust them with the Collecters Base again?

This has been argued before. Most covert or shady organizations do not report their successes.
Mordin avoided reporting the redistribution of genophage--which is, of course, a mission success--to public. While failures are good subjects for newspapers, and even political weapons.

Most reported operations by CIA, FBI and KGB are failures, but they still have over 80% success rate (I remeber KGB was 85%, lowest of the three).

[Gibb_Shepard]

Phaedon wrote...


Well, call them as you wish, but they are certainly not the 'good guys'. Again, their moral ideals don't really matter. It's about trusting them with the base.

Personally, I don't. If I had to only use a single argument to justify destroying the base, it would be that TIM openly admitted that he wouldn't  mind using it beyond the Reapers.

In conclusion, there are valid arguments for both sides, and noone is being 'stupid'.

This, the continual accusations that blowing up the base is logically unsound is simply not true.

There are many valid arguments on both sides.

[smudboy]

Phaedon wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

This post should summarize most of the arguments for destroying the base.

Yeah it summarizes the oppositions continual failure to provide a rational argument for destroying the base.

I think that some people here fail to open up to more opinions and like calling everyone else stupid. 
Next time I see a terrorist, I'll hand them over a nuclear bomb, cause you know, it will help in some way.

If that terrorist was going to save all life?  Yeah, I'd hand him two.  Thousand.

It's not that we want to.  Every argument from the "Destroyers" ends up being "Wah.  TIM."

Every one.

[smudboy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


Well, call them as you wish, but they are certainly not the 'good guys'. Again, their moral ideals don't really matter. It's about trusting them with the base.

Personally, I don't. If I had to only use a single argument to justify destroying the base, it would be that TIM openly admitted that he wouldn't  mind using it beyond the Reapers.

In conclusion, there are valid arguments for both sides, and noone is being 'stupid'.

This, the continual accusations that blowing up the base is logically unsound is simply not true.

There are many valid arguments on both sides.

Really?  Like the "Wah.  TIM" ones?  Yes.  Let's not get any advantages on our enemy because I care about politics, or some small group somehow dominating the galaxy whenever we can defeat the big bad enemy AI spacebots who kill life, forever, always.  Again.

[General User]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Who wants to not accomplish anything though? TIM would naturally be more pragmatic than that.

Only very, very special people are able to overcome their own ego to the extent that they are willing to die without accomplishment or legacy. You could say TIM is more pragmatic, and I wouldn’t disagree to an extent, but the man has a huge ego and a self-righteous streak a mile wide. Perhaps “pragmatic” would be a more diplomatic way of putting it, but I feel it ignores several important realities.
 
Pragmatism in general is an admirable quality, combined with TIM’s obvious experience, and (in many fields) obvious capability, it makes TIM a real asset against the Reapers. But, as his pragmatism (for the sake of argument) may be what stops him from committing totally to the cause, it disqualifies him from a leadership role and relegates him to an advisory one. Hence the paragon “[y]ou’re on my team now” dialogue option.
 
Do you think TIM would be willing to see himself and Cerberus, and/or the goals of himself and Cerberus, become (worse than crushed) forgotten, if doing so was the only way to stop the Reapers? I don’t.

[Gibb_Shepard]

smudboy wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


Well, call them as you wish, but they are certainly not the 'good guys'. Again, their moral ideals don't really matter. It's about trusting them with the base.

Personally, I don't. If I had to only use a single argument to justify destroying the base, it would be that TIM openly admitted that he wouldn't  mind using it beyond the Reapers.

In conclusion, there are valid arguments for both sides, and noone is being 'stupid'.

This, the continual accusations that blowing up the base is logically unsound is simply not true.

There are many valid arguments on both sides.

Really?  Like the "Wah.  TIM" ones?  Yes.  Let's not get any advantages on our enemy because I care about politics, or some small group somehow dominating the galaxy whenever we can defeat the big bad enemy AI spacebots who kill life, forever, always.  Again.

Yes, the "Wah TIM" ones. I prefer to not let that arrogant, mental bastard **** up yet another experiment, and consequently harm the galaxy.

Christ you guys are condescending.

[smudboy]

[quote]Jagri wrote...

Failure for example to control Rachni?
[/quote]
I didn't know anyone else tried.  Oh right.  The Salarians.

[quote]
Failure for example to control Geth?
[/quote]
Success.

[quote]
Failure for example to control Jack?
[/quote]
Controlling Jack?  "Referred to as Subject Zero, Jack was the core of the project, with every successful biotic enhancement applied to her."  The goal was to enhancing biotic potential in humans.

Success.

[quote]
Failure for example to control David?
[/quote]
Shepard + problem = solution.

Shepard is Cerberus.

Success.

[quote]
Failure for example to control Greyson?
[/quote]
Not valid.

[quote]
Failure for example to control Dead Reaper?
[/quote]
Were they trying to start it up?

[quote]
Failure for example to control Husks?
[/quote]
Can you control corpses?

[quote]
Failure for example to control Thorian Creepers?
[/quote]
Can you control mindless beings?

[quote]
Failure for example to control Wilson?
[/quote]
Miranda showed excellent bullet control.  Success.

[quote]
Failure for example to control Corporal Toombs?
[/quote]
Who cares about Corporal Toombs?

[quote]
This list can keep going >.< Now why should I trust them with the Collecters Base again?[/quote]
They have experience in these sorts of things.
It's Sorry Shepard Sunday.
You are an intelligent and cognitive human.