141 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

If you read between the lines, the SR2 crew wasn't staffed with Cerberus hardliners, but rather with people, mostly ex-Alliance military types sympathetic to Cerberus, who knew their way around a starship.

[pf17456]

ReconTeam wrote...

Why is there this assumption that everybody working for Cerberus is some evil maniac? Indeed you get those sorts, the types running that Subject Zero experiment, but look at the rank and file on the Normandy.

It just seems like TIM has a bad habit of selecting mad scientists to run his side projects.

I don't think he selects 'mad scientists' I think funds projects intended to give Humans and Cerebrus an edge or upper hand on other species which would all be well and good except for TIM's 'any means necessary' policy coupled with his wanting or demanding quick results. He does afterall hold the purse strings and we learn from Project Overlord that he'll threaten to pull the plug if deadlines aren't met so in this regard TIM plays a part in engineering unethical actions and Cerebrus disasters.

[Phaedon]

As everyone else said, except for Miranda, everyone is ex-Alliance and/or willing to sleep with you. TIM wants to keep Shepard comfortable and make you trust him, so that in the end he persuades you to give him the base.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Maybe, just maybe, we don't know enough about Cerberus to determine what is "Cerberus material." In ME1 our sample of Cerberus is extremely biased because we're only going to interfere with failed projects. I work happily with Cerberus in ME2, and I hope to continue the relationship in ME3. Whether or not you agree with Cerberus shouldn't change the fact that they aren't just a xenophobes that are bored and want to hate on some aliens.

[Phaedon]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Maybe, just maybe, we don't know enough about Cerberus to determine what is "Cerberus material." In ME1 our sample of Cerberus is extremely biased because we're only going to interfere with failed projects. I work happily with Cerberus in ME2, and I hope to continue the relationship in ME3. Whether or not you agree with Cerberus shouldn't change the fact that they aren't just a xenophobes that are bored and want to hate on some aliens.

On the contrary, some do sign up on Cerberus just for that.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Phaedon wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Maybe, just maybe, we don't know enough about Cerberus to determine what is "Cerberus material." In ME1 our sample of Cerberus is extremely biased because we're only going to interfere with failed projects. I work happily with Cerberus in ME2, and I hope to continue the relationship in ME3. Whether or not you agree with Cerberus shouldn't change the fact that they aren't just a xenophobes that are bored and want to hate on some aliens.

On the contrary, some do sign up on Cerberus just for that.

Of course some do, but that doesn't mean that's how Cerberus should be defined.

[Dean_the_Young]

How is that an accurate or reasonable assumption of the whole organization in the first place?

ME1 was so hazy on Cerberus we never got any insight into the organization or its personnel or even their operations in the first place. Why were they doing the same thresher maw trap decades after Akuze? What was the basis (and result) of the Akuze project in the first place, back when Cerberus was strictly Alliance?


This assumption that if you're not a hardline human supremacist xenophobe you aren't Cerberus material comes from, well, what? Who have we ever even met in Cerberus in the games who's like that?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 15 novembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[-empTe-]

Far as I'm concerned I think I know why the crew was made the way it was, listen to some of the crew's conversations seems like the vast majority of the crew has had friends or family who have been abducted by the Collectors. Seems to be that TIM made a crew that had a vested and personal interest in fighting the collectors, which makes them a lot more effective as they know what they're fighting for. Anyway that's just my take on this.

[MatronAdena]

ReiSilver wrote...

Bebbe777 wrote...

According to the Codex, some believe that Cerberus changed leadership and structure between ME1 and ME2. Maybe they got rid of all the xenophobes. Plus there are several different branches. Our branch may be the least extreme while there are more extreme ones (Like Pragia and Overlord)

They didn't get rid of the xenophobes, just read a few paragraphs from the POV of the Cerberus assassin in the latest novel, ugh I hated that guy. Maybe we can get some DLC where we can kill him or crazy renegades might want to recruit him.

Don't get me started on Kai.. I want to tie him to the back of the hammerhead, and drag him through a thrasher maw nest sight old west style for what he did to Liselle, and put Aria through.

[Phaedon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How is that an accurate or reasonable assumption of the whole organization in the first place?

ME1 was so hazy on Cerberus we never got any insight into the organization or its personnel or even their operations in the first place. Why were they doing the same thresher maw trap decades after Akuze? What was the basis (and result) of the Akuze project in the first place, back when Cerberus was strictly Alliance?


This assumption that if you're not a hardline human supremacist xenophobe you aren't Cerberus material comes from, well, what? Who have we ever even met in Cerberus in the games who's like that?

I think that it's safe to assume that a) Cerberus is pro-human, Cerberus has no moral limits.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Phaedon wrote...

I think that it's safe to assume that a) Cerberus is pro-human, Cerberus has no moral limits.

a) Yes, yes they are. That is their purpose. That is exactly what TIM tells you. Why is being pro-human bad?

I see how you could make that argument, but it is hardly a "safe assumption." A statement like that is simply an example of a "begging the question" fallacy.

[Inverness Moon]

There is nothing wrong with being pro-human so long as you're not anti-alien. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

A lot of people seem to have developed a stereotypical view of your average Cerberus operative based on nothing but their goals and methods that we observed in ME1. We never really got to know anyone.

Simply consider that there are plenty of people on this forum like me that would join Cerberus, not because they're anti-alien, but because they might see that as the best way of protecting humanity, especially in the face of the reaper threat.

Elite Midget wrote...

In a way. TIM doesn't care about the crew and only desires technology to further his ambitions.

Though it's ironic how Cerberus has you use Aliens to save humans. Yet if it was an alien species being abducted he would have ignored it unless he saw a chance to get technology.

TIM isn't going to ignore anything that has to do with the reapers, even if it wasn't humans being abducted.

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How is that an accurate or reasonable assumption of the whole organization in the first place?

ME1 was so hazy on Cerberus we never got any insight into the organization or its personnel or even their operations in the first place. Why were they doing the same thresher maw trap decades after Akuze? What was the basis (and result) of the Akuze project in the first place, back when Cerberus was strictly Alliance?


This assumption that if you're not a hardline human supremacist xenophobe you aren't Cerberus material comes from, well, what? Who have we ever even met in Cerberus in the games who's like that?

I think that it's safe to assume that a) Cerberus is pro-human, Cerberus has no moral limits.

Besides the fact that it sort of does? Or at least, there are things that wouldn't be allowed to be researched in certain ways?


It's the 'at all costs' limiter. Just because you're committed to something at all costs does not mean you must pay all costs, or want to pay all costs, or seek to pay all costs.

Let's simply go with that there is no limit to the things Cerberus will do. Ok.

Why does that put a limit on the not-morally-horrific things Cerberus can do to advance human interests? 

[pf17456]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's the 'at all costs' limiter. Just because you're committed to something at all costs does not mean you must pay all costs, or want to pay all costs, or seek to pay all costs.

I guess you could say then that the families of those lost or killed during a Cerebrus 'project' should expect strong resistance to any compensation from Cerebrus for thier loss and may even expect a bill for disposing the body.
It sort of works out well for Cerebrus when everybody dies during a project since they don't have to issue any paychecks.

[Phaedon]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I think that it's safe to assume that a) Cerberus is pro-human, Cerberus has no moral limits.

a) Yes, yes they are. That is their purpose. That is exactly what TIM tells you. Why is being pro-human bad?

I see how you could make that argument, but it is hardly a "safe assumption." A statement like that is simply an example of a "begging the question" fallacy.

I am not accusing Cerberus, yet. It's just some of their characteristics, that's all.

Besides the fact that it sort of does? Or at least, there are things that wouldn't be allowed to be researched in certain ways?


It's the 'at all costs' limiter. Just because you're committed to something at all costs does not mean you must pay all costs, or want to pay all costs, or seek to pay all costs.

Let's simply go with that there is no limit to the things Cerberus will do. Ok.

Why does that put a limit on the not-morally-horrific things Cerberus can do to advance human interests?

I was not putting a limit on what things Cerberus does (which I don't really get what it means), I just consider it one of their characteristics. I think that it would be good to provide some basic 'universally' acceptable information for Cerberus before we debate what's Cerberus material and what's not.

Also, c) They have been declared as criminals

[CroGamer002]

I never recall TIM being xenophobe.

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Besides the fact that it sort of does? Or at least, there are things that wouldn't be allowed to be researched in certain ways?


It's the 'at all costs' limiter. Just because you're committed to something at all costs does not mean you must pay all costs, or want to pay all costs, or seek to pay all costs.

Let's simply go with that there is no limit to the things Cerberus will do. Ok.

Why does that put a limit on the not-morally-horrific things Cerberus can do to advance human interests?

I was not putting a limit on what things Cerberus does (which I don't really get what it means), I just consider it one of their characteristics. I think that it would be good to provide some basic 'universally' acceptable information for Cerberus before we debate what's Cerberus material and what's not.

Simply because Cerberus is willing to do just about anything doesn't mean it needs, wants, or only looks for people willing to do anything. There's no need for that: no one (but TIM, really) needs to be willing to do everything, so everyone who isn't willing to do something can be productively doing something else.

Cerberus doesn't need people willing to do everything, so making that a benchmark for 'is this person Cerberus material' is absurd.

Also, c) They have been declared as criminals

And Shepard's a mutineer. People are willing to break laws for what they see as good reasons, but that doesn't mean they'd break all laws or have no standards.

[Dean_the_Young]

pf17456 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's the 'at all costs' limiter. Just because you're committed to something at all costs does not mean you must pay all costs, or want to pay all costs, or seek to pay all costs.

I guess you could say then that the families of those lost or killed during a Cerebrus 'project' should expect strong resistance to any compensation from Cerebrus for thier loss and may even expect a bill for disposing the body.
It sort of works out well for Cerebrus when everybody dies during a project since they don't have to issue any paychecks.

I believe you missed the point by orbital trajectories.

[Xilizhra]

The problem with Cerberus is that... well, the group whose job it is to advance human interests throughout the galaxy is THE ALLIANCE, not a shadowy independent organization that regularly uses terrorist-esque tactics and has no accountability (although this might be moot, depending on how thoroughly Cerberus has infiltrated the Alliance; I certainly don't trust the latter anymore either).

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

The problem with Cerberus is that... well, the group whose job it is to advance human interests throughout the galaxy is THE ALLIANCE, not a shadowy independent organization that regularly uses terrorist-esque tactics and has no accountability (although this might be moot, depending on how thoroughly Cerberus has infiltrated the Alliance; I certainly don't trust the latter anymore either).

When that we know of has Cerberus used terrorism?

Cerberus was made by the Alliance in the first place because there are things that can advance human interests that the Alliance can't publicly do. That's never changed.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Xilizhra wrote...

The problem with Cerberus is that... well, the group whose job it is to advance human interests throughout the galaxy is THE ALLIANCE, not a shadowy independent organization that regularly uses terrorist-esque tactics and has no accountability (although this might be moot, depending on how thoroughly Cerberus has infiltrated the Alliance; I certainly don't trust the latter anymore either).

1. Cerberus is black-ops while the Alliance is worried about galactic politics.

2. The Alliance sucks at their job.

3. Cerberus was (and maybe still is) a branch of the Systems Alliance, so to say Cerberus has "infiltrated the Alliance" isn't quite accurate. It would be more precisely stated "the Alliance hasn't yet cut all ties to Cerberus." One may think this is purely semantics, but the political ramifications are very much different in each case.

[Xilizhra]

When that we know of has Cerberus used terrorism?

Terrorist-esque. The attack on the Migrant Fleet. The thresher maw incident, although that might not have counted since the dead were combatants.

2. The Alliance sucks at their job.

How? They leveraged humanity into a Council position centuries, perhaps millennia faster than any other species that's tried to get there.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Xilizhra wrote...
2. The Alliance sucks at their job.
How? They leveraged humanity into a Council position centuries, perhaps millennia faster than any other species that's tried to get there.

I don't see a big enough military (build more ships!), their politicians suck, and the Systems Alliance name isn't badass enough.

[Xilizhra]

Their military is a decent size, I think. I'll admit that Udina is kind of terrible, though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Udina's willing to reign in the Spectres, stop the Batarian solar ray system, and create a system in which even minor species like the Volus (the Volus!) can be significant influences in the halls of power.



And did I mention that he's willing to reign in the Spectres?



How's he terrible by any measure except 'doesn't share Shepard's views on the Reapers.'