Since when have we played a 'senior member' of Cerberus? Because Shephard certainly isn't.
Shephard is an 'interesting case' and (s)he is certainly important... but isn't really Cerberus in the classical sense. It makes quite a deal of sense to me at least that any pertinent information about Cerberus would be concealed until (or if) such time Shep decides to join the organisation.
That’s a very sensible attitude to take towards normal operatives, but Shepard is normal is he? The Illusive Mans said it himself, Shepard is unique. Shepard is the point man for the entire anti-Reaper campaign.
Given that anti-Reaper techniques can come out of some most disparate places, and assuming stopping the Reapers really is Cerberus’ number one priority, Shepard should have been given immediate top-level access to all Cerberus data and operations. But he wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong! I understand why The Illusive Man did it. I even half-ass agree with him! TIM wasn’t sure he could trust Shepard and was taking steps to protect his organization. An organization that, as Inverness Moon pointed out, has accomplished much good. That’s commendable under most circumstances.
But not here. Here there is a galactic level extinction event headed straight for us and TIM would rather engage in shadow games and pissing contests than do everything in his power to stop it. Or, even worse, TIM legitimately thinks that what he is doing is the best course of action. I question his dedication and/or his judgement.
Smoothed relations between the Humans and Salarians.
The Pope assassination? Taints any good that may have come from it. Unless you mean something else, that doesn't count.
You don't approve, therefore it didn't do any good?
Discrediting/marginalizing dangerous people is even more effective than killing them in many cases, always a good thing.
The count is now 3.
And yet the biotic-suppressant drug was paid for in lives and permanent damage for the test subjects involved. If you disapproved of the effects of the Pope assassination because it was 'tainted' by bloodshed, why this?
I'm looking for actions, not advocacy. Cerberus and Heirarchy Special Forces team up to take out a Blood Pack base, that sort of thing.
Except critical advocacy is still critical, and the effects are still relevant. If you keep moving goal posts, eventually your goal is increasingly meaningless.
EDI's value is beyond question, but she was a Shepard/Reaper War-related developement, I want things something that would establish Cerberus' bona fides.
Cerberus has been conducting AI reserch long before Shepard and the Reapers came to light. EDI was a product of entirely separate lines of research predating Shepard and the Reapers.
Again, you're moving goal posts: at this standard, anything Cerberus does that has a positive impact on Shepard and teh Reaper war, no matter how independent it was originally, is now invalidated. And since we, the players, are shadowing Shepard, and nearly all our awareness about anything dealing with Cerberus is in how it affects Shepard, you've effectively disqualified the vast majority of available data about Cerberus and then are claiming that the now-present lack proves something even though the lack is of your own creation.
Using a charity as a front for illegal or immoral acts requires a special flavour of bastard. Still, the good some of those groups do cannot be denied. One point for every altruistic organization, even if it is a front, as long as it isn't exclusively a front. I can only think of one such myself, others welcome.
Except now we get back to 'tainted.'
Moreover, Cerberus is said to have 'a number' of front companies: only soliciting one point or arbitrary value is a deliberate underplaying of your own concession.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Only counts if they subsequently neutralized those threats or shared that intelligence allowing others to, as they did with the batarians on the Citadel and the geth, which have already been counted.
Even ignorring yet another redefinition of value...
*CoughCollectorsCough*
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:03 .
Forgive my batman reference but he could be like a dark knight doing what we don't want to do for the better and isn't afraid to be hated for it. I mean he does what needs to be done to fight the reapers
Since when have we played a 'senior member' of Cerberus? Because Shephard certainly isn't.
Shephard is an 'interesting case' and (s)he is certainly important... but isn't really Cerberus in the classical sense. It makes quite a deal of sense to me at least that any pertinent information about Cerberus would be concealed until (or if) such time Shep decides to join the organisation.
That’s a very sensible attitude to take towards normal operatives, but Shepard is normal is he? The Illusive Mans said it himself, Shepard is unique. Shepard is the point man for the entire anti-Reaper campaign.
Given that anti-Reaper techniques can come out of some most disparate places, and assuming stopping the Reapers really is Cerberus’ number one priority, Shepard should have been given immediate top-level access to all Cerberus data and operations. But he wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong! I understand why The Illusive Man did it. I even half-ass agree with him! TIM wasn’t sure he could trust Shepard and was taking steps to protect his organization. An organization that, as Inverness Moon pointed out, has accomplished much good. That’s commendable under most circumstances.
But not here. Here there is a galactic level extinction event headed straight for us and TIM would rather engage in shadow games and pissing contests than do everything in his power to stop it. Or, even worse, TIM legitimately thinks that what he is doing is the best course of action. I question his dedication and/or his judgement.
I'm sorry: are you honestly lambasting a leader of a organization for not giving full and total access to someone with no guarantee or promise of said revelations not being immediately turned against said organiztion and not used against the common threat (the very reason for cooperation), and then decrying that as bad judgement?
Because I will be forced to say that is a very, very stupid standard for you to hold to anyone. Moronic, even. Completely impractical, definitely.
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:07 .
Ah, yes... "free will"... we have dismissed the claim.
Seriously, there is no such thing as free will, guys. Anything you do and think is conditioned. Strapping a person to an operations chair is just the roughest and cheapest form of conditioning.
And take Paul Grayson, for instance. Was the experiment on him performed without his "willing"? He had chosen to join Cerberus (of his own "free will"), and he had chosen to defect from Cerberus (of his own "free will"), and everything says that on both occasions he had fully realized the possible consequences and was ready to live with them. Even the title of the novel implies that it was a Retribution for his own wrong-doings, although it is, of course, up to an endless debate, which part of them.
My "defense of Stalin" is that him being bad is a matter of opinion, and usually not one's own.
Julius Caesar was also responsible for millions of deaths, including quite a few citizens of Rome. However, nowadays he is generally remembed as a great guy, who set up the modern calendar, etc.
Rome had a democratic government, there was slavery, but there were means to earn freedom.....
Stalin was trying to force an ecomomic system to work that the world wasn't ready for. Mao was too, for that matter. And I don't mean just not psychologically ready.... for it to work as a system you need much higher personal productivity. We may get there eventually as Marx predicted, but over half a century later it is clear we still have a long ways to go yet.
The difference is that Caesar was arguably bringing new and better ideas that the world was ready for. Even after the empire fell, those ideas lasted.
Stalin didn't really bring anything new. Russia would have been just as defensible against Germany under the Tsars. That was proven against Napoleon (who, like caesar, arguably offered a lot to civilization... he just didn't have the military strength to back it up, although a lot of his better ideas (the Napoleonic code, for example) did find their way into society despite his loss.
So what is TIM's legacy going to be? What does he bring to the table that is new or better or neccessary, other than maybe being a catalyst to wake the Council and Alliance up in the same way the Sith snapped the Jedi out of their navel gazing? Being the only one to take the reapers seriously doesn't count when he withholds all evidence that would convince anyone else to do so.
That’s a very sensible attitude to take towards normal operatives, but Shepard is normal is he? The Illusive Mans said it himself, Shepard is unique. Shepard is the point man for the entire anti-Reaper campaign.
Given that anti-Reaper techniques can come out of some most disparate places, and assuming stopping the Reapers really is Cerberus’ number one priority, Shepard should have been given immediate top-level access to all Cerberus data and operations. But he wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong! I understand why The Illusive Man did it. I even half-ass agree with him! TIM wasn’t sure he could trust Shepard and was taking steps to protect his organization. An organization that, as Inverness Moon pointed out, has accomplished much good. That’s commendable under most circumstances.
But not here. Here there is a galactic level extinction event headed straight for us and TIM would rather engage in shadow games and pissing contests than do everything in his power to stop it. Or, even worse, TIM legitimately thinks that what he is doing is the best course of action. I question his dedication and/or his judgement.
This isn't Flemming's MI-6. Even though there are similarities between Shepard and Bond, TIM isn't M.
Agents who are treated as potential liabilities and who have key facts withheld from them out of distrust are, actually 'normal' agents, no matter how compent they may be otherwise.
TIM may well be a neccessary evil, needed against the greater threat of the reapers, but that doesn't make him 'good' or even 'neutral.' A neccessary evil is still an evil.
Ah, yes... "free will"... we have dismissed the claim.
Seriously, there is no such thing as free will, guys. Anything you do and think is conditioned. Strapping a person to an operations chair is just the roughest and cheapest form of conditioning.
And take Paul Grayson, for instance. Was the experiment on him performed without his "willing"? He had chosen to join Cerberus (of his own "free will"), and he had chosen to defect from Cerberus (of his own "free will"), and everything says that on both occasions he had fully realized the possible consequences and was ready to live with them. Even the title of the novel implies that it was a Retribution for his own wrong-doings, although it is, of course, up to an endless debate, which part of them.
If there is no such thing as free will, there is no point to carrying on this discussion, because we will all simply say what we are predestined to say.
If there is no such thing as free will, there is no point to carrying on this discussion, because we will all simply say what we are predestined to say.
Well, the existence of a point is irrelevant if the discussion itself is inevitable.
My "defense of Stalin" is that him being bad is a matter of opinion, and usually not one's own.
Julius Caesar was also responsible for millions of deaths, including quite a few citizens of Rome. However, nowadays he is generally remembed as a great guy, who set up the modern calendar, etc.
Rome had a democratic government, there was slavery, but there were means to earn freedom.....
Lol, and you're telling me Caesar was evil! While he was leading the "Popular" party, and fought the "Optimates" (aka aristocracy) party. But yeah, you're right, Caesar was percieved as "evil" back then, because it was a commonplace, that democracy is one step away from the tyranny, and Caesar deliberately applealed to the crowd to take that step, and sh*t on the "good men".
Moiaussi wrote...
Stalin was trying to force an ecomomic system to work that the world wasn't ready for. Mao was too, for that matter. And I don't mean just not psychologically ready.... for it to work as a system you need much higher personal productivity. We may get there eventually as Marx predicted, but over half a century later it is clear we still have a long ways to go yet.
The idea was to make the world ready, before something really bad happens (something like what happened on Rakkana in the ME universe).
Moiaussi wrote...
The difference is that Caesar was arguably bringing new and better ideas that the world was ready for. Even after the empire fell, those ideas lasted.
The difference is that Caesar's party won, and Stalin's party lost. This is however only a difference in the general perception of these two persons. The accomplishments of both of them, however, can hardly be undone.
Moiaussi wrote...
Stalin didn't really bring anything new. Russia would have been just as defensible against Germany under the Tsars.
Lol. Russia was certainly defensible against the Germany during the WWI, when the Tsar was forced to resign, and not by Communists!
Moiaussi wrote...
That was proven against Napoleon (who, like caesar, arguably offered a lot to civilization... he just didn't have the military strength to back it up, although a lot of his better ideas (the Napoleonic code, for example) did find their way into society despite his loss.
So what is TIM's legacy going to be? What does he bring to the table that is new or better or neccessary, other than maybe being a catalyst to wake the Council and Alliance up in the same way the Sith snapped the Jedi out of their navel gazing? Being the only one to take the reapers seriously doesn't count when he withholds all evidence that would convince anyone else to do so.
Nothing that the alien-loving folks can percieve as "better ideas". Even Napoleon's Code was largely regarded as a threat to public order in most of the European countries, well into the late 19th century. And it was not until after the WWII, that his project of a united Europe began to be come true, yet the idea was sewn by him.
You see, it's easy to look back centuries and say, "this guy was evil, but, in spite of that, something good came out of his rule." And it really sucked to be that guy, when the thing you now call good (becasue you live by them) were perceived as the most evil things the guy did, and often had to pay for by the end of his life.
But let's get back closer to ME. Compare TIM to Rael'Zorah. The real difference between them is that the latter was a cool alien and had daughter who, coincidentally, was Shepard's squadmate, and an LI, and an immensely popular one at that - among this forum posters, anyway. But what a huge difference in perception! Where is the 50 threads named "Is Rael'Zorah really evil", may I ask you?
Ah, yes... "free will"... we have dismissed the claim.
Seriously, there is no such thing as free will, guys. Anything you do and think is conditioned. Strapping a person to an operations chair is just the roughest and cheapest form of conditioning.
And take Paul Grayson, for instance. Was the experiment on him performed without his "willing"? He had chosen to join Cerberus (of his own "free will"), and he had chosen to defect from Cerberus (of his own "free will"), and everything says that on both occasions he had fully realized the possible consequences and was ready to live with them. Even the title of the novel implies that it was a Retribution for his own wrong-doings, although it is, of course, up to an endless debate, which part of them.
If there is no such thing as free will, there is no point to carrying on this discussion, because we will all simply say what we are predestined to say.
That's true. Didn't you know all arguments on the Internet were pointless?
Zulu_DFA wrote... Lol, and you're telling me Caesar was evil! While he was leading the "Popular" party, and fought the "Optimates" (aka aristocracy) party. But yeah, you're right, Caesar was percieved as "evil" back then, because it was a commonplace, that democracy is one step away from the tyranny, and Caesar deliberately applealed to the crowd to take that step, and sh*t on the "good men".
I think you are confusing me with someone else. When did I bring up Caesar other than in response to your comparing him to Stalin?
The idea was to make the world ready, before something really bad happens (something like what happened on Rakkana in the ME universe).
There was no option to make the world ready for communism. The world simply didn't have the neccessary productivity to sustain it, and still doesn't. As for making humanity ready in ME, there is nothing even resembling an actual plan, and meanwhile TIM not only treats other race-nations as enemies, but treats the Alliance as enemy too. Hamstringing the main sources of defensive resources is not a great way to ensure the survival of anything.
The difference is that Caesar's party won, and Stalin's party lost. This is however only a difference in the general perception of these two persons. The accomplishments of both of them, however, can hardly be undone.
You say that as if Stalin lost arbitrarily rather than for any failures on its part, and as if their respective accomplishments were equal. What, precisely, did Stalin accomplish that wasn't done elsewhere without all the bloodshed?
Lol. Russia was certainly defensible against the Germany during the WWI, when the Tsar was forced to resign, and not by Communists!
I am pretty sure that the Russian revolution was an actual revolution, and not a takeover on the part of Germany. Didn't the west send troops in to try to suppress the revolution just after WWI and failed?
Nothing that the alien-loving folks can percieve as "better ideas". Even Napoleon's Code was largely regarded as a threat to public order in most of the European countries, well into the late 19th century. And it was not until after the WWII, that his project of a united Europe began to be come true, yet the idea was sewn by him.
You see, it's easy to look back centuries and say, "this guy was evil, but, in spite of that, something good came out of his rule." And it really sucked to be that guy, when the thing you now call good (becasue you live by them) were perceived as the most evil things the guy did, and often had to pay for by the end of his life.
But let's get back closer to ME. Compare TIM to Rael'Zorah. The real difference between them is that the latter was a cool alien and had daughter who, coincidentally, was Shepard's squadmate, and an LI, and an immensely popular one at that - among this forum posters, anyway. But what a huge difference in perception! Where is the 50 threads named "Is Rael'Zorah really evil", may I ask you?
Change is often considered a threat, yet after all the panic died down, many countries adopted aspects of the code. Good ideas are good ideas, whether they come from a nation, a race, or a single person.
So you figure that because someone else might be evil, TIM is therefore good? That there can only be one evil person in existance at any given time? Lol....
There are plenty of threads discussing Rael's approach to the Geth, including the legacy of that approach. Rael himself, though, is dead, and thus beyond any ability to do evil (or good).
Dean_the_Young wrote... You don't approve, therefore it didn't do any good?
It’s not about the results but the act. An act can be good or evil independent of the results it leads to.
Dean_the_Young wrote... And yet the biotic-suppressant drug was paid for in lives and permanent damage for the test subjects involved. If you disapproved of the effects of the Pope assassination because it was 'tainted' by bloodshed, why this?
I’m assuming that the development of the anti-biotic drug (and attendant testing on unwilling victims) and the discrediting of the extremist matriarch were separate incidents. If this is not the case, then the later is tainted as well.
Dean_the_Young wrote... Except critical advocacy is still critical, and the effects are still relevant. If you keep moving goal posts, eventually your goal is increasingly meaningless.
The goal is 6 indisputably good acts on Cerberus’ part.
Cerberus advocating for cooperation / co-development with the Hierarchy does not count for two reasons. First it could mean only that the Hierarchy had something Cerberus thought they/humanity should have. And second, Cerberus itself did not make the commitment, but encouraged others to do so. While this is a very intelligent and prudent thing to do, it is not inherently good or noble.
Dean_the_Young wrote... Cerberus has been conducting AI reserch long before Shepard and the Reapers came to light. EDI was a product of entirely separate lines of research predating Shepard and the Reapers.
Again, you're moving goal posts: at this standard, anything Cerberus does that has a positive impact on Shepard and teh Reaper war, no matter how independent it was originally, is now invalidated. And since we, the players, are shadowing Shepard, and nearly all our awareness about anything dealing with Cerberus is in how it affects Shepard, you've effectively disqualified the vast majority of available data about Cerberus and then are claiming that the now-present lack proves something even though the lack is of your own creation.
EDI was created out of Cerberus' desire to have the best means possible to fight their (or, giving the benefit of the doubt, humanity's) enemies. A worthy goal, but not a good act. Creating her matters less than what she is used to do. And she was used to help Shepard take down the Collectors.
That being said, if Cerberus had another EDI who was tasked with curing diseases, or such, I would certainly count anything like that.
Dean_the_Young wrote... Except now we get back to 'tainted.'
Moreover, Cerberus is said to have 'a number' of front companies: only soliciting one point or arbitrary value is a deliberate underplaying of your own concession.
The concession applies only to charities; corporations are a whole different kettle of fish. Charities are different since they do good. While they can be tainted even to the point of being irredeemable and worthy of destruction just like any other institution, nothing can erase good acts being committed now.
Cerberus funds an orphanage. While most of the orphans eventually leave and find their place in the world, the best and brightest are recruited in to Cerberus as operatives. Cerberus would be using a charity, but also doing indisputable good.
Dean_the_Young wrote... Even ignorring yet another redefinition of value...
*CoughCollectorsCough*
Let me rephrase. Gathering intelligence on the "bad guys" doesn't qualify as a good act at all unless and until you use that intelligence to umm... act to thwart said bad guys. Until you do that, it's all prep work.
The Illusive Man isn't evil, he's extreme sometimes and filled with hate over what the Turians and Batarians did to humanity, but he's not evil. He's perhaps even a little lost because of humanities ill experiences with other races. You can't really blame him though - look at what the Salarians did to the Krogans and how the Council ignores the Reapers.
The Illusive man is a chaotic neutral type, he doesn't mind working with other races as long as it benefits humanity. At the same time, his alliances with factions of other races is limited.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote... Lol, and you're telling me Caesar was evil! While he was leading the "Popular" party, and fought the "Optimates" (aka aristocracy) party. But yeah, you're right, Caesar was percieved as "evil" back then, because it was a commonplace, that democracy is one step away from the tyranny, and Caesar deliberately applealed to the crowd to take that step, and sh*t on the "good men".[/quote]
I think you are confusing me with someone else. When did I bring up Caesar other than in response to your comparing him to Stalin? [/quote] You said Rome was "democratic" and good, while Caesar was evil. I point out that it's Caesar who was a champion of the Roman "democracy". There is a contradiction in your beliefs about Rome and Caesar.
And it's not the only contradiction in your thinking. A couple of pages back you suggested that the Humanity is bigger than just the folloship of Cerberus and the Alliance, and the Horizon colonists were part of it, so TIM should have taken measures to protect them as well, to support his claims that he is out to protect Humanity. But why didn't the "bigger Humanity" protect what was a part of it and it had to be Cerberus and the Alliance to protect them of which they are not a part of? Where was this "bigger Humanity" with its own stealth frigates, intelligence networks and Commander Sheprards, when the Alliance left a part of that "bigger Humanity" at the discretion of the evil Illusive Man?
[quote]Moiaussi wrote... [quote]The idea was to make the world ready, before something really bad happens (something like what happened on Rakkana in the ME universe).[/quote]There was no option to make the world ready for communism. The world simply didn't have the neccessary productivity to sustain it, and still doesn't. [/quote] This is exactly what the communists were trying to prove wrong. They failed because the capitalists didn't want it to be proved, and had access to more resources. Plus, of course, the WWII went not in Stalin's favor, despite him taking everrything from it he could. Anyway, should Hitler not have attacked the Soviet Union and destroyed half of its industrial base by the Battle of Stalingrad, the world could have been totally communist now.
To quote a cool alien from the ME universe: "Many things are impossible until they are done".
[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
As for making humanity ready in ME, there is nothing even resembling an actual plan, and meanwhile TIM not only treats other race-nations as enemies, [/quote] Naturally, since they restrict any social change.
[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
but treats the Alliance as enemy too. [/quote] Lolwut? Cerberus is part of the Alliance! Or at least its ally in the strive for Human dominance. Yeah, an ally of the Alliance.
[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Hamstringing the main sources of defensive resources is not a great way to ensure the survival of anything. [/quote] Last I checked, Cerbrus wasn't too underfunded. Definitely not hamstrung on money.
[quote]Moiaussi wrote... [quote]The difference is that Caesar's party won, and Stalin's party lost. This is however only a difference in the general perception of these two persons. The accomplishments of both of them, however, can hardly be undone.[/quote]You say that as if Stalin lost arbitrarily rather than for any failures on its part, and as if their respective accomplishments were equal. What, precisely, did Stalin accomplish that wasn't done elsewhere without all the bloodshed? [quote]Lol. Russia was certainly defensible against the Germany during the WWI, when the Tsar was forced to resign, and not by Communists![/quote]I am pretty sure that the Russian revolution was an actual revolution, and not a takeover on the part of Germany. Didn't the west send troops in to try to suppress the revolution just after WWI and failed? [/quote] In 1917 there were two revolutions in Russia. During the first one, the Tsar was deposed, due to the imminent defeat by the Germans, and to the general inefficiency of the tsarist government. During this revolution Lenin even wasn't in Russua! And the Bolsheviks were a marginal party. But in a few months, seeing the lack of any change from the "Provisionary Government", the Bolsheviks gathered enough support to stage another revolt and take power.
As for Stalin's mistakes, like I've just said, Hitler managed to surprize Stalin badly, and it cost him a global victory. That, and he was too kind to some people. He definetely had to shoot Khruschev.
And I'm afraid we're getting too close to the "actual socio-political stuff" that is prohibited on here, so before I drop it, I'd just refer you to the guide, that could have been very well used to tell you anything you know about Communism, Stalin, and suchlike. As it can be used for telling anyone anything about anything, but still it confirms my point that all is relative, and as long as you're opposed to Cerberus ideologically, you won't accept any reasonable argument in their favor.
[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Change is often considered a threat, yet after all the panic died down, many countries adopted aspects of the code. Good ideas are good ideas, whether they come from a nation, a race, or a single person. [/quote] Change which Cerberus is about to bring (yeah, I'm talking the Human dominance) will be seen as good, when "the panic dies down". It's only that you can't just see it quite well from where you are at.
But let's get back closer to ME. Compare TIM to Rael'Zorah. The real difference between them is that the latter was a cool alien and had daughter who, coincidentally, was Shepard's squadmate, and an LI, and an immensely popular one at that - among this forum posters, anyway. But what a huge difference in perception! Where is the 50 threads named "Is Rael'Zorah really evil", may I ask you?
I think some of it has to do with Rael being dead, only performing one set of nasty experiments as opposed to the many we've heard about Cerberus doing, possibly the perception that the geth don't count as living beings... I think that your pet "cool aliens" theory is vastly overblown.
Xilizhra wrote... I think that your pet "cool aliens" theory is vastly overblown.
Thanks for confirming that there is this "cool alien" bias. The one I overblow (maybe, a little).
I'm sure that there is a bias like that, just like there's a bias of "humans are better than everyone else." I just think that the former bias is much smaller than the latter.
Xilizhra wrote... I think that your pet "cool aliens" theory is vastly overblown.
Thanks for confirming that there is this "cool alien" bias. The one I overblow (maybe, a little).
I'm sure that there is a bias like that, just like there's a bias of "humans are better than everyone else." I just think that the former bias is much smaller than the latter.
Opinions, opinions... However, in the game itself, even in the Reapers' opinion, the Humans are better.
And Commander Shepard is the living proof that the Humans are better.
Xilizhra wrote... I think that your pet "cool aliens" theory is vastly overblown.
Thanks for confirming that there is this "cool alien" bias. The one I overblow (maybe, a little).
I'm sure that there is a bias like that, just like there's a bias of "humans are better than everyone else." I just think that the former bias is much smaller than the latter.
Opinions, opinions... However, in the game itself, even in the Reapers' opinion, the Humans are better.
And Commander Shepard is the living proof that the Humans are better.
One outlier? As for the Reapers, their DNA is just the strongest for the purposes of reproducing their race. It doesn't make them morally or cosmically superior somehow.
Well... I suppose I could call you a morally abhorrent person who places the ultimate welfare of others far below his own self-righteousness, if you wanted.
Would that help?
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 janvier 2011 - 11:21 .
Retour en haut
