2146 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

Shandepared wrote...

General User wrote...

I feel this is where TIM gets off. He’s probably willing to even die himself to stop the Reapers but his commitment is less than total. Shepard’s commitment is total, it’s one of the things that makes her so special.

Right, so that's why she blew up the base, greatly increasing the chances that she and everyone else will die for her beliefs.

What a hero.

To misquote Malcolm Reynolds from Serenity “[I’m willing to do it], `course that ain’t exactly Plan A.” I’m not convinced the situation is desperate enough in any field (especially technology) that we have to grab a hold of every physical advantage in order to win. 
 
Besides, I thought you kept the base?

[smudboy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

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.

Proof of TIM harming the galaxy?  None.
Proof of TIM saving the galaxy?  Lots.

Your observations on his personality are irrelevant.

Modifié par smudboy, 10 octobre 2010 - 01:09 .

[DPSSOC]

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

Alright so let's have a look shall we.

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?

 
The Reapers are coming, I know it, you know it.  So whether you give the base to TIM or not the Reapers will return the only difference is by saving the base there's a chance of gaining valuable intel, while destroying the base you have nothing.

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
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.

Ok to this I must ask why?  Why would TIM try to turn all species against humanity it makes no sense.  I understand many people think Cerberus wants to enslave all non-humans, but think about it logically.  TIM knows the Reapers are coming and has a fair idea of what kind of threat they represent, why in the name of all things rational and sane would TIM start picking a fight with the rest of the galaxy?  I'll admit TIM is ruthless and amoral but I've seen no evidence to support the idea that he is either stupid or insane.

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
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.

Again why would he do this?  It's all well and good to say "TIM might build a Reaper" but you need to provide an explanation of motivation that would drive him to such an action.  Personally I can't see it happening, it'd be like the humans on Battlestar Galactica saying, "The Cylons are attacking, build more Cylons."  I could see him trying to build a dreadnaught of equal power to a Reaper but not a Reaper itself.  I'm not trying to dismiss the risk such actions would represent but i can't see any reason why he would take such action.

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
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).

Anyone else like how that sounds (not the toaster but the whole concept).

[Gibb_Shepard]

smudboy wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

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.

Proof of TIM harming the galaxy?  None.
Proof of TIM saving the galaxy?  Lots.

Your observations on his personality are irrelevant.

Proof of TIM slimly avoiding failure of epic, galaxy harming proportions? Overlord and Grayson. You say Overlord was a success because it yielded information on how to control geth? Yeah, but if it weren't for shepard that thing would've beamed itself off world. And what happens if shepard never goes to help out down at Aite?
You say that that Grayson was under control until the Turians came knocking at the door? Maybe, but an intelligent man would consider all possible outcomes when dealing with an experiment this dangerous, TIM did not.

[Jabarai]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
... There are many valid arguments on both sides.

Quite true. However, perhaps we need further questions that might generate some fresh viewpoints to the debate. Here's a few:

- Is survival the only goal in the face of the Reaper threat?
- In the chance of survival, shouldn't we already look into the risk of some of the races (TIM and humanity?) harnessing Reaper technology to gain an advantage over others?
- Will the end justify the means?

These are questions that Shepard might ask himself during the last moments on the base. Therefore, they're valid.

[Aramintai]

smudboy wrote...

Proof of TIM harming the galaxy?  None.
Proof of TIM saving the galaxy?  Lots.

Your observations on his personality are irrelevant.

Hmm. Is there alot of proof that TIM actually did anything for the sake of the galaxy, other than bringing Shepard back? And that too wasn't for the sake of the galaxy, but to stop the Collectors from taking more human colonies and in the future to stop Reapers from destoying humanity. He couldn't care less what would happen to other species and won't waste any resourses for them unless it benefits Cerberus or humanity. However there is proof in the games and books that his organization and its experiments so far only do more harm than help to anyone. Maybe some of them will pan out well in the future but we have yet to see that. And as for bringing Shepard back, well, all the good deeds that came after that are Shepard's own services not TIM's. So I'd say that there is proof of Shepard saving the galaxy, lots. But as for TIM, no, not so much.

[Arijharn]

Jabarai wrote...
- Is survival the only goal in the face of the Reaper threat?

In my opinion, it's the only immediate goal that should have everyone's full attention.

Jabarai wrote...
- In the chance of survival, shouldn't we already look into the risk of some of the races (TIM and humanity?) harnessing Reaper technology to gain an advantage over others?

The other races have their own intelligence gathering services. If they were truly concerned about any headway humanity as a whole gains then they should be the ones pouring the hours into it. Considering Cerberus has already made weapons gains (Arc Projector for example), then there probably isn't even more pressing concerns than usual.
Also, I want Humanity to be independent in the sense that it can enforce it's own sovereignty, I see no reason to believe that TIM would want to rock the boat either.

- Will the end justify the means?

Against galactic level genocide affecting not just me or mine, but basically pretty much all of Creation (if you have a religious bent)? Of course. I'll let future generations decide whether they should revile my actions or not because, well, at least they'll be future generations.

[General User]

Inverness Moon wrote...



Sorry, but that is how it works in Mass Effect. Missiles are a no-go, I don't feel like trying to drag up all the technical details and how the mythical element zero fits into it.

I also don't think the slugs they fire from dreadnoughts are the right size to be able to create a uranium gun device or contain enough uranium to reach critical mass on impact.

*With bitter resignation* I understand, missiles and nukes don’t work in ME because every ship, from escape pods to Reapers is equipped with the Wide Inter-ship Zone Area Ranged Defense, the W.I.Z.A.R.D. Which makes any projectile equipped with an independent drive, guidance system, or payload, and ONLY those projectiles vulnerable to M.A.G.I.C. (Mass Affected General Internal Collapse). 

It all makes sense “a W.I.Z.A.R.D. did it!”

What makes you would be any suspicious behavior for you to be able to monitor? For all we know it would happen like flicking a switch and end up with someone pulling a gun on a Councilor or some other important person and shooting them in the head. There could be absolutely zero detectable warning with out current technology.

We simply don't know. I'm not going to take that risk just to keep the base out of TIM's hands.

There might very well not be sucpicious behavior to monitor, or said behavior could be so sublte as to avoid notice.  But that's true of conventional spies and saboteurs as well.  Besides a fellow would still have to be exposed to an indoctrination field to become indocrtinated (David Weber deals with a remarkably similar situation ie, indoctrinated assassins in his book "At All Costs" (Honor Harrington 11).  If the Reapers could indoctrinate over stellar distances they wouldn't need to invade at all.

I would say that if Shepard is more committed than TIM it is only because of his experiences with the prothean beacons.

Could be alot of things, upbringing, background, military experience (incl. Eden Prime).  What made you choose that one in particular?

[chris025657]

Aramintai wrote...

Hmm. Is there alot of proof that TIM actually did anything for the sake of the galaxy, other than bringing Shepard back? And that too wasn't for the sake of the galaxy, but to stop the Collectors from taking more human colonies and in the future to stop Reapers from destoying humanity. He couldn't care less what would happen to other species and won't waste any resourses for them unless it benefits Cerberus or humanity. However there is proof in the games and books that his organization and its experiments so far only do more harm than help to anyone. Maybe some of them will pan out well in the future but we have yet to see that. And as for bringing Shepard back, well, all the good deeds that came after that are Shepard's own services not TIM's. So I'd say that there is proof of Shepard saving the galaxy, lots. But as for TIM, no, not so much.

The Illusive man brought Shepard back for two reasons; stopping the Collectors and eventually the Reapers. Cerberus also rebuilt and improved upon the Normandy, funded the mission, provided the crew and equipment, and provided the intelligence for the mission. Shepard would never have succeeded in the mission without TIM and Cerberus and none of this would have happened. This was a successful Cerberus mission that achieved its immediate goal of stopping the Collectors.

Cerberus also influenced the Alliance to build the original Normandy, prevented the assassination of the Council, and is interested in maintaining galactic stability in the face of the Reaper threat. 

The Illusive man essentially grants autonomy to his operations. He provides the objective and the resources to accomplish them. TIM doesn't have direct control of missions. Even on the most important mission of stopping the Collectors, he does not install a control chip which allows Shepard to potentially betray him. If your definition of success or failure of Cerberus operations depends on actions taken directly by the TIM then Cerberus hasn't done anything. 

Modifié par chris025657, 10 octobre 2010 - 03:39 .

[mosor]

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?

Actually in every one of those experiments behind those cases, useful data either was acquired or probably was. You're weaping over mostly Cerberus red shirts. I thought you hated Cerberus? Wouldn't you be happy they got killed? Personally, I think it's sad human blood has been spilled, but at least those people didn't die in vain.

Modifié par mosor, 10 octobre 2010 - 03:58 .

[General User]

What about Horizon or the Collector ship raid? If Shepard is the supposedly the autonomous point-woman for the counter-Collector/counter-Reaper campaign, what possible excuse could TIM have for not including her in the planning of the major actions of that campaign?

Don’t get me wrong. Horizon and the Collector ship were tactically and strategically brilliant, masterstrokes even. But they succeeded despite TIM, not because of him. The man does not possess a military mind, his control-issues could have proven disastrous.

Modifié par General User, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:07 .

[mosor]

General User wrote...

What about Horizon or the Collector ship raid? If Shepard is the supposedly the autonomous point-woman for the counter-Collector/counter-Reaper campaign, what possible excuse could TIM have for not including her in the planning of the major actions of that campaign?

Don’t get me wrong. Horizon and the Collector ship were tactically and strategically brilliant, masterstrokes even. But they succeeded despite TIM, not because of him. The man does not possess a military mind, his control-issues could have proven disastrous.

Horizon didn't need Shepards imput. Cerberus was monitoring horizon, and Shepard wasn't called until needed. You forget, that while TIM gives Shepard free reign on how to achieve objectives, TIM is still the one in charge. Almost every major non loyalty mission you do in game, is something he planned. Whether you like it or not.

As for control issues. He's effectively the general. Shepard is the commander. How many generals defer judgement to commanders (A rank of Major in the regular army)

Modifié par mosor, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:18 .

[Zulu_DFA]

mosor wrote...

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?

Actually in every one of those experiments behind those cases, useful data either was acquired or probably was. You're weaping over mostly Cerberus red shirts. I thought you hated Cerberus? Wouldn't you be happy they got killed? Personally, I think it's sad human blood has been spilled, but at least those people didn't die in vain.

A lot of people have this mindset. All bad there is they blame on "the government" - wars, crime, bad public health, bad education, bad ecology, bad economy, etc. While all the good there is they usually think to either gain all by themselves, or with a little help of a few great personae "fighting the good fight" against the system.

The Cerberus hate is a particular case of this. Cerberus here is "the government" - a bunch of inept power-hungry sh*t-mongers. And they are Shepard, a one man army saving the Galaxy with a couple of fashion show winners by their side. Anderson, Aria, Rachni queen stand for the "great personae" here. And it's only the efforts of these individuals, and a fair portion of blind luck that have a strange side effect of keeping TIM in business. Since 2157.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:28 .

[chris025657]

General User wrote...

What about Horizon or the Collector ship raid? If Shepard is the supposedly the autonomous point-woman for the counter-Collector/counter-Reaper campaign, what possible excuse could TIM have for not including her in the planning of the major actions of that campaign?

Maybe autonomy wasn't the right word. TIM does have some influence over missions but he delegates much authority. My post was mainly in response to the whole TIM bears no responsibility for success in stopping the Collectors argument. I guess Horizon and the Collector ship raid would add to that point. 

Modifié par chris025657, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:48 .

[General User]

mosor wrote...

General User wrote...

What about Horizon or the Collector ship raid? If Shepard is the supposedly the autonomous point-woman for the counter-Collector/counter-Reaper campaign, what possible excuse could TIM have for not including her in the planning of the major actions of that campaign?

Don’t get me wrong. Horizon and the Collector ship were tactically and strategically brilliant, masterstrokes even. But they succeeded despite TIM, not because of him. The man does not possess a military mind, his control-issues could have proven disastrous.

Horizon didn't need Shepards imput. Cerberus was monitoring horizon, and Shepard wasn't called until needed. You forget, that while TIM gives Shepard free reign on how to achieve objectives, TIM is still the one in charge. Almost every major non loyalty mission you do in game, is something he planned. Whether you like it or not.

As for control issues. He's effectively the general. Shepard is the commander. How many generals defer judgement to commanders (A rank of Major in the regular army)

How many generals defer to their junior officers? All of them, every single one that has ever lived (not that they do it in a particularly “deferential” manner). In the modern world it’s called a general staff, in the ancient world they would be referred to as “captains and lieutenants”.  Military decision making is much more collaborative than is popularly imagined, even by military people. Deference to experience, and consultation are par for the course. 

Strategic military decisions are made only after intense, exhaustive planning and consultation with all relevant viewpoints considered. The general/admiral/king/etc makes the final decision, but often defers to his staff who are each experts in their own fields, and responsible for making their own little pieces of the final plan work. Even in small units, officers often defer to the judgment of NCO’s who have more experience, or even junior enlisted personnel under certain circumstances ("man on the scene", that sort of thing).
 
Unless someone would care to argue that Shepard had nothing to contribute to those discussions or that her view on the matter is irrelevant, or that she bears no responsibility for making the plan work (all of which are completely absurd), she should have been included in the planning from the beginning.   Great Odin’s Raven, man! She’s the tactical commander for the entire campaign! If one person in the galaxy should have been consulted it should have been her!
 TIM has a mind for intelligence work, he may be the best in the galaxy in that field. But he’s not a military man. Whether it’s his control-issues that won’t let him let go, or his pride that won’t let admit there is a field of endeavor in which he must defer to the judgment of others, Horizon and the Collector ship proved that TIM is a problem to be managed.

[General User]

chris025657 wrote...

General User wrote...

What about Horizon or the Collector ship raid? If Shepard is the supposedly the autonomous point-woman for the counter-Collector/counter-Reaper campaign, what possible excuse could TIM have for not including her in the planning of the major actions of that campaign?

Maybe autonomy wasn't the right word. TIM does have some influence over missions but he delegates much authority. My post was mainly in response to the whole TIM bears no responsibility for success in stopping the Collectors argument. I guess Horizon and the Collector ship raid would add to that point. 

Oh, I agree. Putting forth the idea that TIM has no responsibility for stopping the Collectors and Reapers, is rather silly, imo. The man has put nearly all his considerable resources toward that end.

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...

mosor wrote...

General User wrote...

What about Horizon or the Collector ship raid? If Shepard is the supposedly the autonomous point-woman for the counter-Collector/counter-Reaper campaign, what possible excuse could TIM have for not including her in the planning of the major actions of that campaign?

Don’t get me wrong. Horizon and the Collector ship were tactically and strategically brilliant, masterstrokes even. But they succeeded despite TIM, not because of him. The man does not possess a military mind, his control-issues could have proven disastrous.

Horizon didn't need Shepards imput. Cerberus was monitoring horizon, and Shepard wasn't called until needed. You forget, that while TIM gives Shepard free reign on how to achieve objectives, TIM is still the one in charge. Almost every major non loyalty mission you do in game, is something he planned. Whether you like it or not.

As for control issues. He's effectively the general. Shepard is the commander. How many generals defer judgement to commanders (A rank of Major in the regular army)

How many generals defer to their junior officers? All of them, every single one that has ever lived (not that they do it in a particularly “deferential” manner). In the modern world it’s called a general staff, in the ancient world they would be referred to as “captains and lieutenants”.  Military decision making is much more collaborative than is popularly imagined, even by military people. Deference to experience, and consultation are par for the course. 

Strategic military decisions are made only after intense, exhaustive planning and consultation with all relevant viewpoints considered. The general/admiral/king/etc makes the final decision, but often defers to his staff who are each experts in their own fields, and responsible for making their own little pieces of the final plan work. Even in small units, officers often defer to the judgment of NCO’s who have more experience, or even junior enlisted personnel under certain circumstances ("man on the scene", that sort of thing).
 
Unless someone would care to argue that Shepard had nothing to contribute to those discussions or that her view on the matter is irrelevant, or that she bears no responsibility for making the plan work (all of which are completely absurd), she should have been included in the planning from the beginning.   Great Odin’s Raven, man! She’s the tactical commander for the entire campaign! If one person in the galaxy should have been consulted it should have been her!
 TIM has a mind for intelligence work, he may be the best in the galaxy in that field. But he’s not a military man. Whether it’s his control-issues that won’t let him let go, or his pride that won’t let admit there is a field of endeavor in which he must defer to the judgment of others, Horizon and the Collector ship proved that TIM is a problem to be managed.

Shepard is not TIM's general staff. He is the one that goes in the field. Where he may be captured by the enemy. Hence, information is dispensed to Shepard strictly on "the need-to-know basis". As it ever been when he served active with the Alliance. This is even explored in the very beginning of ME1, before any shooting has a chance to start. The high command may consult the field commanders or they may not. It's up to them. You, as Sheaprd, are given an opportunity to express your discontent with this order of things (both in ME1 in that conversation with Anderson and in ME2 every time TIM "betrays" you), but ultimately you need to learn your place. Don't worry, it'll be you who gets the medal.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Sviken]

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?

"Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but what we seek to accomplish."

[Frybread76]

mosor wrote...

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?

Actually in every one of those experiments behind those cases, useful data either was acquired or probably was. You're weaping over mostly Cerberus red shirts. I thought you hated Cerberus? Wouldn't you be happy they got killed? Personally, I think it's sad human blood has been spilled, but at least those people didn't die in vain.

If Cerberus and TIM have shown over and over they can't handle "small" experiments that kill only red shirts, then what makes you think they will be competent when it comes to studying and running experiments on the Collector base and the technology within?

[Zulu_DFA]

Frybread76 wrote...

mosor wrote...

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?

Actually in every one of those experiments behind those cases, useful data either was acquired or probably was. You're weaping over mostly Cerberus red shirts. I thought you hated Cerberus? Wouldn't you be happy they got killed? Personally, I think it's sad human blood has been spilled, but at least those people didn't die in vain.

If Cerberus and TIM have shown over and over they can't handle "small" experiments that kill only red shirts, then what makes you think they will be competent when it comes to studying and running experiments on the Collector base and the technology within?

THAT EVERY TIME CERBERUS FAILS AT THEIR EXPERIMENT USEFUL DATA IS ACQUIRED.

[Frybread76]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

mosor wrote...

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?

Actually in every one of those experiments behind those cases, useful data either was acquired or probably was. You're weaping over mostly Cerberus red shirts. I thought you hated Cerberus? Wouldn't you be happy they got killed? Personally, I think it's sad human blood has been spilled, but at least those people didn't die in vain.

If Cerberus and TIM have shown over and over they can't handle "small" experiments that kill only red shirts, then what makes you think they will be competent when it comes to studying and running experiments on the Collector base and the technology within?

THAT EVERY TIME CERBERUS FAILS AT THEIR EXPERIMENT USEFUL DATA IS ACQUIRED.

And what happens if they fail and it kills more than just some Cerberus red shirts, or destroys more than just a Cerberus space station or research facility?

[General User]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Shepard is not TIM's general staff. He is the one that goes in the field. Where he may be captured by the enemy. Hence, information is dispensed to Shepard strictly on "the need-to-know basis". As it ever been when he served active with the Alliance. This is even explored in the very beginning of ME1, before any shooting has a chance to start. The high command may consult the field commanders or they may not. It's up to them. You, as Sheaprd, are given an opportunity to express your discontent with this order of things (both in ME1 in that conversation with Anderson and in ME2 every time TIM "betrays" you), but ultimately you need to learn your place. Don't worry, it'll be you who gets the medal.

What general sends his soldiers into a known ambush without warning their CO? The kind who will be relieved of duty (at least he better start cooking his own food). 
 
The locations and capabilities of Cerberus facilities is information Shepard does not need-to-know, strategies for stopping the Collectors is. “Expect resistance” IS need-to-know for anyone who may encounter it.  The fact that TIM is unable to correctly decide who needs to know what speaks none to highly of him as a leader.
 
What kind of high command only consults with their field commanders after the fact (as TIM does)? The kind that loses wars.
 
 
TIM incompetence as a leader stems from the fact that he’s running a military campaign as an intelligence operation. He’s centralizing decision making, withholding information, jockeying for advantage. He should be consulting with his subordinates, disseminating information (including “suspicions”), and when necessary forsaking the wider goals of Cerberus for the sake of defeating the Reapers. 
 Whether it's out of malice or pure incompetence, the fact remains; TIM should not be a decision maker.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Aramintai wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Proof of TIM harming the galaxy?  None.
Proof of TIM saving the galaxy?  Lots.

Your observations on his personality are irrelevant.

Hmm. Is there alot of proof that TIM actually did anything for the sake of the galaxy, other than bringing Shepard back? And that too wasn't for the sake of the galaxy, but to stop the Collectors from taking more human colonies and in the future to stop Reapers from destoying humanity. He couldn't care less what would happen to other species and won't waste any resourses for them unless it benefits Cerberus or humanity. However there is proof in the games and books that his organization and its experiments so far only do more harm than help to anyone. Maybe some of them will pan out well in the future but we have yet to see that. And as for bringing Shepard back, well, all the good deeds that came after that are Shepard's own services not TIM's. So I'd say that there is proof of Shepard saving the galaxy, lots. But as for TIM, no, not so much.

Not, really. TIM brought Shep back to fight the reapers, with Cerberus or not, Collectors's threat to humanity or not dare I say.

[mosor]

Frybread76 wrote...

mosor wrote...

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?

Actually in every one of those experiments behind those cases, useful data either was acquired or probably was. You're weaping over mostly Cerberus red shirts. I thought you hated Cerberus? Wouldn't you be happy they got killed? Personally, I think it's sad human blood has been spilled, but at least those people didn't die in vain.

If Cerberus and TIM have shown over and over they can't handle "small" experiments that kill only red shirts, then what makes you think they will be competent when it comes to studying and running experiments on the Collector base and the technology within?

Who says anything about not being able to handle the experiments? They got data, they got tech, and they got key technologies that helped you defeat the collectors. You judge them not being able to handle the experiments based on lives (mostly Cerberus personel) lost.  I only judge experiments a failure if nothing was gained by those ventures. This is clearly not the case.

Seriously, how many tech lives were lost modifying the mattock and incisor rifle or developing the kestrel armor? How many commado lives were lost acquiring the Arc Projector or the Geth Plamsa shotgun? How many computer engineers got electricuted by a run amock EDI, before TIM decided that she needed to be shackled? (I made the last one up, but if you're going to assume the worst about Cerberus research, then why not!)

Do you really even care enough to think about it?  Hell plenty of people even spent a few dollars of real money to acquire these armors and weapons, yet come on these boards to criticize Cerberus for being inept and how they shouldn't be allowed to research and acquire dangerous tech. Hyppocrites!

[Barquiel]

Mortis5 wrote...

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?

"Salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but what we seek to accomplish."

That's what I do.