465 réponses à ce sujet

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Xilizhra wrote...

What do you mean? Humanity is still at war with the Geth, remember?

And has Overlord helped that at all?

No it didn't, but that is how these things work. It's analogous to an arms race. I'd be willing to slow development, but you first.

[Xilizhra]

Well, then. We shall see whether Overlord bears fruit in ME3. I look forward to the answer.

[Vaenier]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, then. We shall see whether Overlord bears fruit in ME3. I look forward to the answer.

Well, we now know we dont need it. So it wont do much in ME3. But they did not know that when they ran it. They saw a very real threat and they acted accordingly to prepare for a very likely war.

[Xilizhra]

Acting overly quickly to respond to an inflated threat in a rather gruesome manner. That failed equally gruesomely. Well done, Cerberus.

[Vaenier]

Xilizhra wrote...

Acting overly quickly to respond to an inflated threat in a rather gruesome manner. That failed equally gruesomely. Well done, Cerberus.

You would definitally hate the UNSC in halo. Well, the UNSC is competant atleast, they never got handed the idiot ball to make missions out of.

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...
No, it's the same. That female Krogan in the Weyrlok hospital preferred being tortured to death to living infertile.
[/quote]
You are still arguing about this? Whether you like it or not, killing people is not better than rendering them infertile.
[/quote]
Killing a few people is better then rendering an entire race unhappy.


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

You base the emotions of all of the krogans on a few who wished to be sacrificed in order to find a cure.
[/quote]
Right. Because only one sick bastard wanted to help them out, there were only so many Krogans that could be experimented upon at any given time.


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

You want to know how they feel? They are pissed. Pissed, because they could have had all of the Milky Way for themselves, but were defeated by some aliens who were weaker than them. Their egoism is hurt. 
[/quote]
First, you don't get defeated by something weaker than you. Then, egotism or not, it's what the Krogans are, they can't know any better, it's not even ther fault as Mordin himself admits. So you here, just to bash Cerberus, advocate the genophage more than Dr. Genophage v2.0 himself? Lol.

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

Not for the Krogans it wouldn't. But as I said, the values of the Krogans and the Council races were incompatible, so the stronger side prevailed and imposed their values onto the Krogans.[/quote]
No, it's a lot simpler. Neither the krogan nor the Council would stop. The Council ordered the STG to create the genophage. It was a clean victory, no more deaths. Millions were saved.
[/quote]
Krogans don't hink so. Doesn't their opinion count?


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

You want to compare them to Cerberus? The cowards[/quote]
This is and emotionally charged word. And inaccurate.


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

who abducted little children, tortured and murdered little to children so that they could produce a single biotic who bring more death?
[/quote]
So that they could research a reliable method of producing such biotics on industrial scale. Granted the experiment involved maybe a few hundred deaths, plus a few thousand severe health concerns due to involuntary and uncontrolled Eezo exposure. (The latter part, however, had been standard procedure with the Alliance long before Cerberus was created.)


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

To the idiots murder their political enemies and soldiers?
[/quote]
Since when killing an enemy is idotic? As for the soldiers, it's their job to be in harms way. I believe the military service in the Alliance is voluntary, not conscription.


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

To TIM who dismissed betrayal as a petty grudge and had his own organization destroyed because of one? Nice try.
[/quote]
You mean Admiral Anderson's betrayal?


[quote]Phaedon wrote...
[quote]That's what Cerberus is all about too: be stronger, prevail and impose own values onto others, rather than submit to others and have your values replaced.[/quote]
The first part was disturbing, but you prove my point, they force people to do things. This, by all standards, is bad and codemnable. But then again, it might be the same standards that you consider idiotic.
[/quote]
Right. I do consider it idiotic to let the others do things to you that you consider bad, when you are able to do it to them first. In light of this, good luck bringing Cerberus down in the last part of Shepard's story ark...


[quote]
Liberty is indeed overrated.
[/quote]
Actually it's non-existent. There is only an illusion of it.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, then. We shall see whether Overlord bears fruit in ME3. I look forward to the answer.

E-mail. It was a mindless "pew-pew" level. Neither cut off from the main game like Zaeed and Kasumi, nor a "bridging" DLC like LotSB. Really a gift to the "Cerberus is inept" crowd, but entirely misleading as to the direction Cerberus is being taken in storywise (which is: saving the Galaxy).

[Xilizhra]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, then. We shall see whether Overlord bears fruit in ME3. I look forward to the answer.

E-mail. It was a mindless "pew-pew" level. Neither cut off from the main game like Zaeed and Kasumi, nor a "bridging" DLC like LotSB. Really a gift to the "Cerberus is inept" crowd, but entirely misleading as to the direction Cerberus is being taken in storywise (which is: saving the Galaxy).

I very much doubt that Cerberus will be doing anything of great importance to save the galaxy in ME3. Especially since I destroyed the Collector base.

[JamieCOTC]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

luakel wrote...

Yep, if the U.S. relied on things like Tuskegee to win the Cold War and didn't even punish those responsible once they became public knowledge, we were no better than U.S.S.R., except perhaps in the number of experiments carried out. So it would make no difference if we won or they did.

What makes you think such things were done in the USSR on a larger scale than in the US, or at all?

Maybe the USSR lost the Cold War due to being less ruthless and determined than the US, including the areas where the human experimentation was concerned?

/facepalm

The Cold War was won through economic means.  Reagan was more of peacenik than most people were lead to believe. He wanted to totally dismantle the nukes of both countries, but the two countries couldn't agree.  So, Reagan outspent the USSR.  It wasn’t that Reagan was more ruthless, but that the US simply had a bigger wallet. No renegade or paragon interrupts were required. 

[Sbri]

I'm sorry that I wasn't more precise earlier. I'm chasing sick kids and husband and must type fast.

Ok, to claim that if the US hadn't done such experiments, we might have lost the war is no a valid arguement. There is really no way to know, short of time travel. I will say that doing unethical experiments didn't help anyone in WW2. And the Soviets had their own share of equally immoral experiments. http://en.wikipedia....secret_services

But I still feel that my point still stands. Laws exist to stop this kind of work for a reason. You do not experiment on unwilling or unknowing victims. And you sure as hell don't knowingly torture and murder. Any agency that condones this sort of work I feel deserves the label of evil. And yes, that applies to the winners as well as the losers.

[Gabey5]

He has a lot of crimes to answer for... my shepard intends to bring the hammer down on him

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

I very much doubt that Cerberus will be doing anything of great importance to save the galaxy in ME3. Especially since I destroyed the Collector base.

Oh, they will. Or do you think BioWare made a comic series about TIM just to toss him away from the picture in the final game?

[Xilizhra]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I very much doubt that Cerberus will be doing anything of great importance to save the galaxy in ME3. Especially since I destroyed the Collector base.

Oh, they will. Or do you think BioWare made a comic series about TIM just to toss him away from the picture in the final game?

That statement does not logically connect to your premise. Why would making a prequel comic about TIM invalidate Cerberus being defeated in ME3? The comic's an accessory to ME2.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Xilizhra wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I very much doubt that Cerberus will be doing anything of great importance to save the galaxy in ME3. Especially since I destroyed the Collector base.

Oh, they will. Or do you think BioWare made a comic series about TIM just to toss him away from the picture in the final game?

That statement does not logically connect to your premise. Why would making a prequel comic about TIM invalidate Cerberus being defeated in ME3? The comic's an accessory to ME2.

What? Your original statement was "I very much doubt that Cerberus will be doing anything of great importance to save the galaxy in ME3" not "I'm going to destroy them in ME3."

[Xilizhra]

It was a response to Zulu's line about "tossing them away." Though I will destroy them in ME3, if possible.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:30 .

[Zulu_DFA]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

luakel wrote...

Yep, if the U.S. relied on things like Tuskegee to win the Cold War and didn't even punish those responsible once they became public knowledge, we were no better than U.S.S.R., except perhaps in the number of experiments carried out. So it would make no difference if we won or they did.

What makes you think such things were done in the USSR on a larger scale than in the US, or at all?

Maybe the USSR lost the Cold War due to being less ruthless and determined than the US, including the areas where the human experimentation was concerned?

/facepalm

The Cold War was won through economic means.  Reagan was more of peacenik than most people were lead to believe. He wanted to totally dismantle the nukes of both countries, but the two countries couldn't agree.  So, Reagan outspent the USSR.  It wasn’t that Reagan was more ruthless, but that the US simply had a bigger wallet. No renegade or paragon interrupts were required. 

No need to facepalm here. By the 1980s the Soviets had no will to win the Cold War, although economically they could try and push it, especially if they hadn't alienate the Chinese comrades earlier. In 1950-70s it was a tight competition, with very uncertain result. I don't say that the human experiments were indeed a critical factor, but there were no means to tell at the time.

[JamieCOTC]

Xilizhra wrote...

It was a response to Zulu's line about "tossing them away." Though I will destroy them in ME3, if possible.

I think Cerberus will play a role in ME3 and I would like to have the option to side w/ them or destroy them.  My canon Shep will personally like to kill TIM, but I'm sure others would like to (resists urge to say something vulger) be his buddy. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:34 .

[JamieCOTC]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

luakel wrote...

Yep, if the U.S. relied on things like Tuskegee to win the Cold War and didn't even punish those responsible once they became public knowledge, we were no better than U.S.S.R., except perhaps in the number of experiments carried out. So it would make no difference if we won or they did.

What makes you think such things were done in the USSR on a larger scale than in the US, or at all?

Maybe the USSR lost the Cold War due to being less ruthless and determined than the US, including the areas where the human experimentation was concerned?

/facepalm

The Cold War was won through economic means.  Reagan was more of peacenik than most people were lead to believe. He wanted to totally dismantle the nukes of both countries, but the two countries couldn't agree.  So, Reagan outspent the USSR.  It wasn’t that Reagan was more ruthless, but that the US simply had a bigger wallet. No renegade or paragon interrupts were required. 

No need to facepalm here. By the 1980s the Soviets had no will to win the Cold War, although economically they could try and push it, especially if they hadn't alienate the Chinese comrades earlier. In 1950-70s it was a tight competition, with very uncertain result. I don't say that the human experiments were indeed a critical factor, but there were no means to tell at the time.

Cool.  Glad you know your history.  Y'know, I typically don't agree w/ a single thing you ever say, but you do make some interesting points all the same.  Fun reading at the very least. Thanks!

[Sbri]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
No need to facepalm here. By the 1980s the Soviets had no will to win the Cold War, although economically they could try and push it, especially if they hadn't alienate the Chinese comrades earlier. In 1950-70s it was a tight competition, with very uncertain result. I don't say that the human experiments were indeed a critical factor, but there were no means to tell at the time.

 You are correct, there is no way to know. But history sure points to the fact that such experiments have not helped other regimes survive.  So it comes down to a question of ethics. Do you do acts you know unethical but MIGHT help you, but will defititly kill unwilling victims? Or do you instead choose to act ethically and either find alternatives, or go without? Understand you have no way to know if the torture and murder will in fact help you.  Do you want your life, your well being decided on a MIGHT? Would you want to discover that your health had been compomised on a might? That you faced death for a might?

[Cra5y Pineapple]

 I don't really hate Cerberus and TIM but I'd rather stay away from the organisation when all their projects go down the sh*tter.

I mean come on, name one Cerberus project that hasn't failed or backfired (apart from Lazarus if you keep the base).

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:47 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

It was a response to Zulu's line about "tossing them away." Though I will destroy them in ME3, if possible.

You really fail at logic. In once post you state that Cerberus won't be important. In the other that they will, so that you could destroy them at the first chance. And somewhere else you said that you won't be destroying them if they'll "fall in line". Or are you just trying to cover all bases?

Actually I do understand you paragons. The fear is strong that BioWare is going to troll you and won't make Ceberus any bit more "politically correct", but at the same time will make them again in some way instrumental to defeat the Reapers... And as soon as the Reapers are defeated, the game will end, depriving you of opportunity to get at TIM.

This would be truly epic. Cerberus joins forces with Batarian slavers to save the Galaxy, while the Council and the rest are be sitting thight on their asses... Well, the 5th Fleet will play a part in the final battle too, but only because it's under the command of a corrupt Cerberus' infiltrator!

[Nashiktal]

This seems more of a verbal slugfest regarding morals and emotion, rather than a true debate about the value and general aptitude of Cerberus.



I would just like to make a small interjection however. Cerberus would probably feel like a much more... How should I put it, "real" organization if sloppy writing and poor planning hadn't of hindered them so. As of right now, Cerberus keeps swinging from incompetent idiots who happen to get results, to brilliant ****s with unnecessary and wasteful methods.



I have a hunch that Cerberus was not originally supposed to have as large a role as they have now. Bioware probably got the idea to make them a "morally Grey" get the job done kind of organization after ME1, which made them feel a tad... lopsided. They went from an evil organization that does experiments for kicks, and failing almost every experiment, to somehow managing to bring a dead body back to life.



They have slowly been getting better with each new piece of lore they are attached to, but I doubt they will ever fully recover from this.

[Encarmine]

Damn Zulu, you killed it, ive just spent 20minutes reading from my last post and you make a brillient argument for Cerberus. The comparisons you make are in my opinion flawless.



+1 well done.

[Sbri]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Actually I do understand you paragons. The fear is strong that BioWare is going to troll you and won't make Ceberus any bit more "politically correct", but at the same time will make them again in some way instrumental to defeat the Reapers... And as soon as the Reapers are defeated, the game will end, depriving you of opportunity to get at TIM.

Wait, what? I'm not asking that Cerberus be made any more "politically correct". I like how they are portrayed, and think that TIM is one of the most interesting characters Bioware has done. I don't want them changed at all.  I think that they will be instrumental in the destruction of the Reapers.  If Shepard is the only one that can stop the Reapers, the Cerberus gets all the credit for saving the galaxy. 
The question we were debating was whether or not Cerberus was "evil". Were their actionsacceptable? There's no need for an ad hominum attack.

[General User]

Barquiel wrote...

General User wrote...

In other words: the ends justify the means.  Interesting.  I disagree.

As I said, it depends on what your end goal is...imo

One of the funny things about the political mindset is that very few people act from anything other than higher motives! Even the cruelest, most oppressive regimes imaginable committed their atrocities in pursuit of “higher” goals.
 
From your earlier posts, may I assume that you believe “galactic peace/stability” is a goal in whose name atrocities (pick your favorite) are justified?

 If so, I must say this is an utterly alien mindset to me. To my way of thinking if “peace” requires such barbarity (as the Citadel Council seems to believe), we are better off with war! At least war is honest.


Especially since the Citadel Council’s version of “galactic peace” always include them being in charge.

Modifié par General User, 02 janvier 2011 - 11:05 .