504 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Arijharn wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?

Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

Maybe they like to get out the big weapons when it's time to crush some skulls? The CB wasn't a weapon in and of itself but merely a factory. Destroying a factory doesn't diminish the weapons on the field of course, but it might mean that we get better kevlar vests.

I do agree with you that the base in itself one way or the other wont be instrumental in our defeat of the Reapers, but I try to RP my Shephard's to not have all the information I know as well. It can be difficult at times I guess and I still trip up occasionally.

..It's a baby factory. You have no proof it's anything but (granted I have no proof that it's just a baby factory but still). There's no strange weapons lying around, no nothing. Just collectors, swarms (that they need for the baby food) and well...baby food and the baby. That's it. You don't see anything else in there even though you go to the core. That to me was pretty telling. 

And yes game wise you knwo there's not going to be anything deal breaking in there because 50% of people if not more blew the base up. And the epic nerd rage that would ensue on these forums if BW made the game unwinnable for them...

It's not just a baby factory though, it has examples of Collector technology that is by itself approx 10 years ahead of galactic standard. I mean, the Collectors have to be able to make their Collector Beam Rifles somewhere right? During the course of the game the boffins had nfi how a CBR works, let alone how it is made and providing you kept the base, you get both!

Maybe, just maybe there's a chance that will lead us to mount ever more powerful weapons on ship configurations of all sizes, and if that is the case, then that is more than what would be offered if you blew up momma base.

And maybe just maybe there's a chance that it'll drive everyone in there long enough insane. You see what I did there?

What examples? How do you know the collector's didn't have the guns the whole time (please note while you find CG lying around in horizon (if you have the DLC? or either way) you do not find any of these in said reaper base. Yes the reapers are using them but they're not lying around everywhere. There's nothing in that base that shows it as anything other than a breeding ground. 

That's the whole point. The decision whether blowing it up or keeping it requires a leap of faith. You're taking a chance no matter what you decide. I just decide to blow it up and go with the method that has allowed me to kill 2 reapers so far (well...one reaper and one baby reaper). BLOW IT UP! 

[Arijharn]

Ryzaki wrote...
And maybe just maybe there's a chance that it'll drive everyone in there long enough insane. You see what I did there?

I did indeed.

Ryzaki wrote...
What examples? How do you know the collector's didn't have the guns the whole time (please note while you find CG lying around in horizon (if you have the DLC? or either way) you do not find any of these in said reaper base. Yes the reapers are using them but they're not lying around everywhere. There's nothing in that base that shows it as anything other than a breeding ground. 

Well, we don't explore the entire base either do we? You may look in every nook and cranny of the locations you cross, but there's many more that you don't actually go to because the game (god I hate playing that card, it could mean anything) doesn't let us.

Either way, you'll never find out for sure whereas I will .

Ryzaki wrote...
That's the whole point. The decision whether blowing it up or keeping it requires a leap of faith. You're taking a chance no matter what you decide. I just decide to blow it up and go with the method that has allowed me to kill 2 reapers so far (well...one reaper and one baby reaper). BLOW IT UP! 

Heh of course. I just think with all this technology I'll be able to blow them up betterer and hopefully with much less cost in life to do so. In game though we are told by EDI that not even dreadnought fire-power is enough to breach Reaper defenses (Renegade response on Derelict when you tell Joker to just shoot through to rescue them after you get cut off), so it seems to me that dissecting momma base is the best and most immediate way to narrow the technological gap.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah. But I just like explosions. The cutscene when you blow it to smithereens is just so much better than the one with the radiation blast.

Though is this the same ship that's been stalking you? 

If it is I might blow it up for just that reason. Everything in there was trying to molest my poor Shep. The memories.  He feels so violated. 

You feel this Shepard...

Poor poor Shep. 

XD 

Besides a majority of said information might have been uploaded to EDI's data banks while you were fighting for your life in that stalker collector ship. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 octobre 2010 - 04:47 .

[Inverness Moon]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
There is, we just haven't found it yet.

How can someone be sure though? When did guaranteed crystal balls come out because I really want one. Could you give me the name of your supplier?

Bioware

We know all Paragon decisions turn out great... The Reapers get stopped because they threaten the entire galaxy... TIM's the only real liability we can't anticipate.

Stop destroying the integrity of your argument by metagaming. The collector base argument isn't about metagaming, it's about what you would do if you were in Shepard's shoes.

TcheQ wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
Don't be so dramatic; this is a game. 

Anyhow, it's foolish to put all your hopes of victory on one strategy like your Shepard seems to be doing. There are no assurances that a galactic alliance will make a significant difference in the outcome of a war with the reapers. That is why you need to explore all available avenues, including the Collector base. Now then, I'm wondering where all this nonsense about tyranny, injustice, cruelty, torture and slavery is coming from.

Well I don't waste my time accusing eveyrone of having lax moral standards.  Mass Effect allows me to have high standards of morality, that I might not have an outlet to exercise for in real life, yet when I express those on a forum, that's not allowed?  Gimme a break, people are clearly are spoiling for fights and "be in the right" when the whole Mass Effect experience is never about being in the right, it's always about standing up for what you believe.  The OP clearly states in the title "no personal attacks", yet some seem so eager to try and provoke emotional responses.

My professor once told me "one thought per sentence".  I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh on people who don't have a postgraduate education, but it does irk me that they continue on the point long after the horse has become a skeleton. 

I see no point in taking the thread off-topic further (because it will just be closed and will start "Collector Base Discussion 4"), and the arguments people are coming up with are turning the way of "religious fanatic".  If they turned their own statements on themselves, how they could possible explain themselves?

As for your questions, it seems you are unaware of the many sins Cerberus have committed, you do realise they killed an Admiral of the alliance?  You do realise it was Cerberus who led Kahoku's men to their death?  If it had been Captain Anderson, would we be having this conversation?  It is my opinion that they are atrocious.  There is always another way.  I am not going to judge others on their opinions, but this does not mean I will not defend my own decisions if provoked.

My opinion of Cerberus has been formed by the league of information on their atrocities throughout both games.  I consider the use of reaper-forged genetic tech as a crime against nature (indoctrination is slavery, genetic manipulation to allow domination of a race is tyranny).  

As an aside, I do hope Bioware develop both sides of this very sharp coin.  I can see for some that having Cerberus on your side can be very powerful, but I simply do not agree with their methods.

Let's revisit this conversation when ME3 has been completed, ok?  

My criticism of your character has nothing to do with morals, but rather his apparent willingness to put all of his eggs and one basket. It's unwise to assume that some giant galactic alliance fleet will be able to meet the reapers head-on in some epic space battle to end all space battles and come out victorious. For all we know there could be more reapers than ships in the Migrant Fleet. That means you need to explore different ways of dealing with the reapers simultaneously.

And whatever the Mass Effect experience may be about, that is not what this argument is about. This argument is about what you would do if you were in Shepard's shoes. Unfortunately for Shepard, he/she is not experiencing an awesome game by BioWare. I understand what you're saying of course, but in my opinion morals have no place when you're trying to decide what course of action will increase your chances of keeping yourself and everyone you know from being erased from history. No matter how much you dislike Cerberus, they're not worse than the reapers.

Anyhow, I'm quite familiar with Kahoku. What was done to him was quite terrible. But I simply have to consider that (and my memories of that are fuzzy) if he had done anything to significantly weaken Cerberus, perhaps they might not have had the resources for Project Lazarus, and many more would have suffered for it. I also disagree that there is always another way, that is far too optimistic.

I also disagree with the whole crime against nature thing, simply because people have more right to manipulate themselves (voluntarily) than they do to manipulate the world around them. Actually its more like I find the whole concept of a crime against nature to be quite arbitrary. If I could use some fancy reaper tech to make it so my eyeballs could fire lasers I would do it in a heartbeat.

If you think indoctrination is slavery, then I assume you destroyed the heretic geth rather than rewriting them? But more importantly, since when has Cerberus employed indoctrination? I also fail to see how genetic manipulation equates to tyranny. I think it is more like you and I have different views on what TIM considers to be domination. I think it is ridiculous to suggest he wants humanity to conquer the galaxy. It makes more sense that he wants humanity to be the dominant power in the galaxy so that they can protect their future, as the geth would put it. He doesn't want humanity to be at the mercy of any species that would seek to elevate themselves at humanity's expense. While I might not like some of what TIM does, I don't disapprove of the goals. Time will tell whether or not his methods were necessary. With the reapers fast approaching that time may come sooner than many thought.

I also have to mention that in my eyes, the single act of restoring Shepard's life will do more good than all the bad Cerberus has done combined. That factors heavily into my opinion of Cerberus.

TIM believes history will vindicate Cerberus, I'm quite interested in seeing if that happens in ME3 once the reapers are dealt with. 

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 22 octobre 2010 - 06:44 .

[Jabarai]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

The general consensus is that the base builds reapers, therefore it must have some info on their construction. That info on their construction could lead to big breakthroughs in tactics to use against them, vital weakpoints, possible info on how to defend against indoctrination.

TIM's words: "I'm looking at the schematics EDI uploaded. A timed radiation pulse would kill the remaining collectors, but leave the machinery and technology intact."

First of all, it implies EDI's already got information on the base. I had no way of knowing if that's more or less all there is to be learnt. Who can say otherwise?

Second, I remember not trusting TIM when he said the radiation pulse would indeed kill all the collectors. He didn't say that it's EDI's prediction, so it must've been his. At that point I had all my crew alive and didn't want to risk that situation. I had less than half a minute (as I dislike metagaming) to make an educated decision that would probably affect the inevitable encounter with the Reapers. Paragon decision offered knowledge that at least some info had already been secured, a safe way out for me and the whole team and, finally, a way to give proper burial to all the dead humans.

Again, if anyone is still proposing the paragon route is idealistic and naive, I'm going to object.

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...

Well, we don't explore the entire base either do we? You may look in every nook and cranny of the locations you cross, but there's many more that you don't actually go to because the game (god I hate playing that card, it could mean anything) doesn't let us.

Either way, you'll never find out for sure whereas I will .

This is true. However I will have to make it even more over complicated and theoretical by saying that by blowing it up I will never find the potentialy fubar causing things those sneaky reapers may have hidden in some nook and cranny (god I hate playing that card, it could mean anything).

[lovgreno]

Jabarai wrote...Again, if anyone is still proposing the paragon route is idealistic and naive, I'm going to object.

That is the only real "argument" some have so don't get your hopes up too much.

[GuardianAngel470]

I destroy the base every time, but I firmly believe you should have a better reason than it is morally righteous.



Personally I look at Cerberus' history of experiments and how the vast majority of them ended and I think that TIM has never in his life heard of Murphy's Law. I swear, there's willing to do what it takes and then there's reckless abandon.



I personally don't trust anyone who doesn't behave as if they know what Murphy's Law is with tech this volatile. The gains may be high, but the risk is moreso in my opinion.

[Jabarai]

lovgreno wrote...

Jabarai wrote...Again, if anyone is still proposing the paragon route is idealistic and naive, I'm going to object.

That is the only real "argument" some have so don't get your hopes up too much.

A counter-argument explaining just how you're supposed to know how much further information could be extracted via examining an intact base would be entertaining, though. Oh, and why Shepard should take it for granted that the radiation pulse would indeed kill all the collectors and stop them from, say, evaporating the Normandy when it flees. Now that we know what happens if you go down that road, it's easy to forget there ever was a risk.

The paragon option is simply taking every possible short-term precaution. The renegade option is the same for the long-term, given that your Shepard had the insight to the two said questions.

Did he/she?

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Well, we don't explore the entire base either do we? You may look in every nook and cranny of the locations you cross, but there's many more that you don't actually go to because the game (god I hate playing that card, it could mean anything) doesn't let us.

Either way, you'll never find out for sure whereas I will .

This is true. However I will have to make it even more over complicated and theoretical by saying that by blowing it up I will never find the potentialy fubar causing things those sneaky reapers may have hidden in some nook and cranny (god I hate playing that card, it could mean anything).

So Retribution only happens for Renegades now?



Let's assume the 'it's a trap' argument is true. The tech is inherently bad/evil/wrong. If you use it, the Reapers will disable it/use it against you/it's not very effective.

Cerberus is going to take, use, and disseminate what it can regardless.

If you blow up the base, the tech is still valuable. There's just a lot less of it, and not as valuable as was. The difference between very rich and rich.

Cerberus (and anyone else who can) is still going to comb the remains for fragments of technology. (Which are bad.) They are still going to study it, replicate it as best they can, and dissiminate it as best they can. (Which is bad.) Reaper technology is still going to be fed to groups Cerberus wants it to be fed to. (Which is bad.)

The only difference is that the tech can't be studied as well. Making full understanding, and finding those nasty Reaper traps, less likely. (Which really is bad.)

You haven't mitigated the 'costs' of the base, IE of Cerberus studying Collector/Reaper technology, having experiments, and spreading what they can to those they want to, leading to our usurption/trap/destruction for using the tech. Cerberus already has Collector weaponstech, for example, superior to most modern tech, and will spread that as it can regardless. And, because of how it's advantageous, people will adopt advanced Collector tech, and be stuck with it when the Reapers come. (Which is the bad thing we were supposed to avoid.) 'Low' reaper tech, Collector tech, will spread regardless.

You've only mitigated the benefits of the base. IE, intact 'high'Reaper tech as well.

[Aurica]

In my first playthrough as Paragon Shephard.  Everyone survived and I kept the Collector base.

Why would my Paragon Shephard do this even though I really dislike TIM.

In ME1
- Sovie & geth fleet ripped apart the Council fleet protecting the Citadel.   No doubt they were caught off-guard.
- Even when Admiral Hackett arrived later with the 5th Fleet, they weren't exactly having an easy time either.   Many
  Alliance ships were also destroyed in the process
-What the Rachni Queen told my Shephard, they were manipulated by the Reapers.
-Indoctrination:  If Sovie could do this, they could theorectically be many other agents elsewhere paving the way for
  the Reaper's return.   If Saren is breeding Krogans, there could be other agents out there doing something else...

In ME2
-I saved the council & they are still dismissing the claim of the Reaper's existence.
-The galaxy is still pretty fragmented with much conflicts in many areas.  Look at Attican Traverse / Terminus 
 Systems / Geth vs Quarians
-Our technology is based on the Reapers means they have an advantage over us
-Derelict Reaper supposingly dead still possess Mass Effect field & power of indoctrination
-Cerberus is the only one taking the threat of the Reapers seriously.

Conclusion:
If a single Reaper is capable of such power, can you imagine what an entirely fleet of them can do?  They are also showing signs to be making preparations for their return.  Collectors, breeding Krogan etc... etc.  There could potentially be more agents working for them which we don't know about. 

Also no one believes in the existence of the Reapers, Citadel Council hushed it all up.  So they are obviously not making any preparations for the return of the Reapers.   The rest of the galaxy too busy killing each other to take notice.  Batarians, geth vs quarians etc etc... 

There is currently no unified front that seems to be even making the slightest prepartion for the threat represented by the Reapers.   And I don't see how anyone can suddenly come to our rescue since everyone seems to be mired in their own problems.  

If there was a super ancient race with the power to stop the Reapers... well we don't know about that, neither does my shephard.  So morality and what not be damned.  I kept the collector base since it looks like we will need all the help and tools to survive this..

As for Cerberus misusing the technology... we'll see if we can survive the reaper first.   If yes, then perhaps someone will rise up to stop Cerberus from mis-using should Shepard fall in the events of ME3. 

Then again I would have destroyed the Collector's Base if the Citadel Council were serious about combating the Reaper threat and showed signs of making preparations.

Modifié par Aurica, 24 octobre 2010 - 04:45 .

[Kasen]

I think it should be mentioned that regardless of each individuals personal stance on Cerberus, you're making another choice by destroying or keeping the Collector Base. The System's Alliance and the Citadel Council both have Cerberus marked as a terrorist organization, the only reason that they are letting you work with them is because you're trying to help stop the Collector attacks in an area of space that they cannot officially act in.

If you destroy the base, you are more than likely losing the support of the ONLY group that truly believes the Reapers are coming and is attempting to stop them. The Illusive Man is not known for his merciful side and by ungraciously stabbing him in the back (from his point of view) he'll probably come after the Commander eventually. Cerberus is undoubtedly ruthless in their methods, but that has its advantages. You can't forget, if not for Cerberus bringing Commander Shepard back, there's pretty much no way we'd have a chance against the Reapers...

If you hand the base over to Cerberus on the other hand, you are giving that technology to an organization that is almost unanimously considered a threat to galactic peace by the galactic community. If the Citadel Council or the Systems Alliance finds out it would be called treason regardless of your reasons, this would cost Commander Shepard his/her Spectre status (assuming it was reinstated) and make them a fugitive - just like Saren. It's true that the Council and the Alliance aren't entirely on board yet, but they have many, many, many times the number of resources of Cerberus, no matter how strong they may be.

As someone else has stated, both choices are a leap of faith... but it's not as clear a decision as either side wishes it to be.

P.S. I'll admit that I may be jumping to the conclusion that the Systems Alliance and Citadel Council will help in the first place. I have seen the rumors that they will not, however for this post I'm going with the presumption that eventually they will realise the Reaper threat is real.

Edit: After some thought I'm beginning to wonder why I even bothered responding to this thread, I know that my arguement will likely be torn asunder by one side or the other. Probably mentioning the fact that faction allegiance is not alluded to in the choice and is therefore irrelevant... But still, I think it's worth a mention that it's not always black and white, sometimes there are reprecussions that may not have been considered when the choice was made.

Modifié par Kasen13, 24 octobre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Jacen987]

In the play-through i just finished,i kept it and why the hell not.It was the perfect choice,after all that happened in the first and second game.The only reason why you would destroy the thing,is petty revenge on Tim,trying to be some kind of angel,or if youre a Parangon points collector.

I cant think of any feasible way to justify the destruction of a potential resource,a costly one at that.So many people died.The only way to acknowledge their sacrifice,is to avenge them by destoying the very monsters that did this to them - The Reapers.....What of the collectors,you say.They're tragic figures,rather then evil ones.Actually i correct myself,Saren was a tragic figure,an individual,a misguided soul.Collector are just organic machines,so you really couldn't hate them or pity them.Just stop them,turn them off,deny them their purpose.

In retrospect it made perfect sense for Shepard to do what he did.And if it wasnt for Bioware's very intrusive way of telling you,that you're good or evil,it would have been perfect.

My Shepard is usually a very dedicated person,defending the galactic community and very attached to his friends and allies.But he does what he does well,because he can make the right choices in impossible situations.Not the morally-perfect and idealistic ones ,but the pragmatic ones,that will insure victory against impossible odds.Acting like a paragon honers none and serves nothing.

Sometimes its difficult,because ethics can get in the way.Killing the Rachni and sacrificing the council weren't easy choices,but the were the right ones.Some species as proved by the Yagh cant coexist with others and 3 leaders on a scale to millions of soldiers and the fate of every civilization.Oh come on who would choose to save them,paying such a high price. Only moral decision,was the encounter with Wrex.Being a comrade,Shepard could just kill him as easily.He hesitated,he knew what he had to be done,but he just couldn't.So Ash did,before Wrex could act first.Both were right,but it was the needs of the many against those of the few.

Coming off of that,waking up after 2 years,having lost everything and and everyone,Shepard is alone.Worse yet he is forced to work with one monster to defeat another.He realizes,that he cant count on friends and allies to always be there.People change,move on,act emotionally.Allies betray or forget.He needs to forge opportunities.Restoring the Krogan and preventing a war between the Geth and their creators are just an attempt to make the galaxy strong.When pushed against the wall,people will believe and unite,for survival.Every chance he gets,he will use.Tim is a minor threat.Having achieved the impossible a dozen times over,dealing with Cerberus will be a walk in the park.Mind you,Tim is gonna get his.There quite a few atrocities stacked against him.Just give Shep a opportunity.Besides destroying that base means Shepard's struggle was meaningless.Anybody dies,it was for nothing.This is perhaps the only ace in the bowl.


Liara was actually quite an inspiration to what he did.(Her keeping the Brookers base).Shepard is unique because he can make those tough choices.Thats why he'd survive and win.

Modifié par Jacen987, 24 octobre 2010 - 06:30 .

[Manic Sheep]

I decide to keep the base on my “cannon Shep” even tho I suspect this will be a huge mistake. You know, if the renegade points (tho renegade choices are not necessarily “evil” ones), world domination speech and evil grin weren’t enough of an indication of this.
Why? Because I’m’ trying to play the game like things are desperate even tho I know no matter what you pick you will win in the end. Who knows what knowledge is stored in that base. Considering that we are talking about galactic extinction of advanced sentient life here do you really want to just throw away a potential resource like that?
That and I don’t like ultra heros. My Shep is becoming more that a little obsessed with stopping the Reapers to the exclusion of all else and I want her to make some big mistakes. Makes things more interesting.


Slightly of topic: I have a character who is more paragon than my cannon Sheppard and blew up the base but I can’t bring myself to play a pure paragon. Allot of the choices just seem to naive.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 24 octobre 2010 - 06:45 .

[Jacen987]

Jabarai wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Jabarai wrote...Again, if anyone is still proposing the paragon route is idealistic and naive, I'm going to object.

That is the only real "argument" some have so don't get your hopes up too much.

A counter-argument explaining just how you're supposed to know how much further information could be extracted via examining an intact base would be entertaining, though. Oh, and why Shepard should take it for granted that the radiation pulse would indeed kill all the collectors and stop them from, say, evaporating the Normandy when it flees. Now that we know what happens if you go down that road, it's easy to forget there ever was a risk.

The paragon option is simply taking every possible short-term precaution. The renegade option is the same for the long-term, given that your Shepard had the insight to the two said questions.

Did he/she?

Hardly makes sense.Whether Tim was lieing or not,doesnt matter both devises are technically explosives.The same risk exist to die in both of them.Only difference is the payoff,if you survive.In one case,you get nothing.The other is a chance for something,anything that ensures a fighting chance.Beyond that,destroying it means his fight was for nothing.So they saved a few colonies,kinda have a hard time,believing the collectors can assault Earth.The thousands upon thousands of Reapers  on the other hand......

[Jacen987]

Manic Sheep wrote...

I decide to keep the base on my “cannon Shep” even tho I suspect this will be a huge mistake. You know, if the renegade points (tho renegade choices are not necessarily “evil” ones), world domination speech and evil grin weren’t enough of an indication of this.
Why? Because I’m’ trying to play the game like things are desperate even tho I know no matter what you pick you will win in the end. Who knows what knowledge is stored in that base. Considering that we are talking about galactic extinction of advanced sentient life here do you really want to just throw away a potential resource like that?
That and I don’t like ultra heros. My Shep is becoming more that a little obsessed with stopping the Reapers to the exclusion of all else and I want her to make some big mistakes. Makes things more interesting.

I still told Tim to shut up,and that he only gets one chance.However the red planet was annoying.Its like the game saying "Hey,look you're evil"I beg to differ Bioware.Things are desperate.Beating one ship and some mingless husks hardly aomplished much,in the face of the final cutscene.Did you see how many Reapers were in the background.Id say were f----ed.

[Ryzaki]

Also at the whole Cerberus isn't terroists discussion. Uh...yes they are. Heck Jacob tells you as much the first time you speak to him on the Normandy.

[Dave of Canada]

Ryzaki wrote...

Also at the whole Cerberus isn't terroists discussion. Uh...yes they are. Heck Jacob tells you as much the first time you speak to him on the Normandy.

They are labeled terrorists by the Alliance, however their motives aren't terrorist in nature. They are more of a shadow organization.

[Christmas Ape]

Ryzaki wrote...

Also at the whole Cerberus isn't terroists discussion. Uh...yes they are. Heck Jacob tells you as much the first time you speak to him on the Normandy.

Jacob. You could put that man's brain in the body of a cat and that poor animal would keel over dead.
He has the worst ratio of terrible to useful advice of any squad mate and doesn't seem to grasp the definition of "mercenary". I wouldn't trust him to know terrorists if they strapped a suicide vest to him. Can you actually point to an action by Cerberus that involved

the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda

Bolded the particularly relevant portion so you don't skip it. Have they intentionally engaged in acts of violence to further a political or social agenda? Yes. But directly. Cerberus doesn't bomb spaceports, they ensure trade ministers 'die of the measles*' and replace them with more sympathetic or pliable candidates.

* Spook for an assassination that looks accidental or natural.

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 24 octobre 2010 - 07:17 .

[Ryzaki]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Also at the whole Cerberus isn't terroists discussion. Uh...yes they are. Heck Jacob tells you as much the first time you speak to him on the Normandy.

Jacob. You could put that man's brain in the body of a cat and that poor animal would keel over dead.
He has the worst ratio of terrible to useful advice of any squad mate and doesn't seem to grasp the definition of "mercenary". I wouldn't trust him to know terrorists if they strapped a suicide vest to him. Can you actually point to an action by Cerberus that involved

the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda

Bolded the particularly relevant portion so you don't skip it. Have they intentionally engaged in acts of violence to further a political or social agenda? Yes. But directly. Cerberus doesn't bomb spaceports, they ensure trade ministers 'die of the measles*' and replace them with more sympathetic or pliable candidates.

* Spook for an assassination that looks accidental or natural.

So...those biotic kids don't count? Those threasher mauls and husks don't count? 

...And why would you think I'd skip the "bolded reverant portion?" and...you're saying...indirect terrorism somehow doesn't count? Let's use my definition. 

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[11]

...Hm...I'd say torturing a bunch of scared kids to produce a powerful human biotic falls under this definition? Wouldn't you? Or running tests on people to use husks as "shock troops". The same people they claim to want to advance and protect. 

...Where does that sound familiar...oh wait. Terrorists often use that excuse. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 octobre 2010 - 07:24 .

[Kasen]

Regardless of whether or not Cerberus actually is a terrorist organization doesn't matter that much. The perception of billions (trillions?) of people in the galaxy is that they are. Perception means a lot...

Modifié par Kasen13, 24 octobre 2010 - 07:29 .

[Dave of Canada]

Kasen13 wrote...

Perception means a lot...

Unless it's false. Shepard would probably be scolded by people as being part of a terrorist group but that doesn't make Cerberus terrorists, it's just an association they have by the media. The media says a lot of things about Shepard, they might not be true but being percieved as reality by a thousand people doesn't make any less false.

For example, the news reports saying that Shepard was hiding for two years. People around the galaxy happen to believe it, we know it's not true.

[GuardianAngel470]

Ryzaki wrote...

Also at the whole Cerberus isn't terroists discussion. Uh...yes they are. Heck Jacob tells you as much the first time you speak to him on the Normandy.

They aren't terrorists. Just look at the word. Cerberus doesn't conduct acts for the purpose of causing terror in a populace.

They are more comparable to the SS of **** Germany than to terrorists. Experiments conducted to further a goal that are vicious and brutal.

[GuardianAngel470]

Ryzaki wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Also at the whole Cerberus isn't terroists discussion. Uh...yes they are. Heck Jacob tells you as much the first time you speak to him on the Normandy.

Jacob. You could put that man's brain in the body of a cat and that poor animal would keel over dead.
He has the worst ratio of terrible to useful advice of any squad mate and doesn't seem to grasp the definition of "mercenary". I wouldn't trust him to know terrorists if they strapped a suicide vest to him. Can you actually point to an action by Cerberus that involved

the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda

Bolded the particularly relevant portion so you don't skip it. Have they intentionally engaged in acts of violence to further a political or social agenda? Yes. But directly. Cerberus doesn't bomb spaceports, they ensure trade ministers 'die of the measles*' and replace them with more sympathetic or pliable candidates.

* Spook for an assassination that looks accidental or natural.

So...those biotic kids don't count? Those threasher mauls and husks don't count? 

...And why would you think I'd skip the "bolded reverant portion?" and...you're saying...indirect terrorism somehow doesn't count? Let's use my definition. 

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[11]

...Hm...I'd say torturing a bunch of scared kids to produce a powerful human biotic falls under this definition? Wouldn't you? Or running tests on people to use husks as "shock troops". The same people they claim to want to advance and protect. 

...Where does that sound familiar...oh wait. Terrorists often use that excuse. 

Actually, it really doesn't. "For the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual" is the quote right?

When has Cerberus ever done that? When have they done anything violent to anyone "for the purpose of gaining publicity"? Most of their experiments were done in the back rooms, in secret labs.

About the only public thing Cerberus has done is publish their manifesto. Everything else is done in secret, and thus they aren't doing it to gain publicity.

I would still destroy them though.

[Christmas Ape]

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
Jacob. You could put that man's brain in the body of a cat and that poor animal would keel over dead.
He has the worst ratio of terrible to useful advice of any squad mate and doesn't seem to grasp the definition of "mercenary". I wouldn't trust him to know terrorists if they strapped a suicide vest to him. Can you actually point to an action by Cerberus that involved[quote]the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda[/quote]Bolded the particularly relevant portion so you don't skip it. Have they intentionally engaged in acts of violence to further a political or social agenda? Yes. But directly. Cerberus doesn't bomb spaceports, they ensure trade ministers 'die of the measles*' and replace them with more sympathetic or pliable candidates.
* Spook for an assassination that looks accidental or natural.[/quote]So...those biotic kids don't count? Those threasher mauls and husks don't count?[/quote]That's correct. Because in the optimal state of those experiments, no-one knew about them.
[quote]...And why would you think I'd skip the "bolded reverant portion?"[/quote]I took a guess. And since you immediately cited circumstances it doesn't apply to, I feel pretty vindicated.
[quote]and...you're saying...indirect terrorism somehow doesn't count? Let's use my definition.[/quote]Oh yes, let's.
[quote]The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[/quote]This sounds very familiar...
[quote]Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[/quote][quote]...Hm...I'd say torturing a bunch of scared kids to produce a powerful human biotic falls under this definition? Wouldn't you? Or running tests on people to use husks as "shock troops".[/quote]Well, you'd say it, but you'd be wrong. Let's look at your definition:[quote]indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.[/quote]and then mine:[quote]the deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda[/quote]Notice how the bolded and unbolded portions in each are the same damn thing?
We're in agreement that terrorism relies on publicity - something Cerberus avoids at all costs when not generating recruitment interest, such as in the theft aboard the SSV Geneva - and therefore should be able to agree that Cerberus does not fit our shared definition of terrorist.
[quote]Oh right...terrorists often use that excuse.[/quote][quote][Terrorism] is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents[/quote]

EDIT: Clarity, formatting issues, missed an "on".

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 24 octobre 2010 - 07:42 .