965 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...


The point was assessing possible Cerberus motives based on what we do know from ME1. In ME2, we have no idea, since the base is only handed over at the end (assuming it is) and TIM hasn't had a chance to do anything with it yet. Researching Rachni, Thorians, etc, to look for ways to 'build better super-soldiers' (i.e. modify the human race based on studies of alien DNA) seems pretty extreme to me even if they took reasonable precations in pursuing it, and it is questionable whether any such soldiers would technically still be human.

Why?

Half of the entire point of ME2 was that we were exposed to and actually got to understand Cerberus. Unlike in ME1, where we never got insight as to the who was behind the 'Enemies everywhere!' or what sort of attitudes or positions they held, in ME2 we got to work with real Cerberus people, listen to real Cerberus people, and deal with real Cerberus people. We had a relationship with them.

So why, at the very end of ME2, are we throwing away all of our relevant, direct experience with the organization and considering only ME1, where we didn't have any insight as to the group?

We know for the SB dossiers that TIM is ensuring that Cerberus friendly/Cerberus controlled politicians are in power. Just because he doesn't currently have control doesn't mean he doesn't want it. The question is, what he would do with it. Stalin and Mao had similar mindsets, but had acheived control of major countries in addition.

Saying TIM hasn't done the same things when he isn't yet in a position to do so is inherrently flawed. The similar mindsets are comparable.

Still haven't supported how a Hitler analogy is relevant, M. And most the same issues that trouble a Hitler comparison also apply to TIM: the lack of genocide, wars of conquest and expansion, the police state, the control of the media...

Keep in mind that the current popular defintions of the major powers are 'racist.' The Alliance is typically referred to as 'the humans.' The other governments are similarly defined by race. Is that because of race, though or simply because of demographics? Does an alien living on Earth, or on any of the other government's worlds have no citizen's rights or ability to become a citizen? They would be a minority, but it is an important question.

I disagree that it's an innately racist setup. National lines have existed along largely ethnic lines without being racist for generations. Saying 'the Humans' is no more racist than 'the French' when the Alliance is overhwelmingly populated by, well, Humans, and to a degree that no other political unit is.

Regardless, that is a question of 'is everyone racist?' rather than 'is Cerberus racist?' Cerberus is racist. They are not promoting the Alliance, they are promoting humans. There is a difference there. Even if the Alliance has no non-human citizenship rights, that only means that the Alliance is also racist, not that Cerberus is not.

If Cerberus believes Humanity should be a political unit, then the Alliance is an existing but imperfect current implementation. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

If your assessment of overlord is correct, why would they need the Overlord project? Anyone could transmit to the Geth and preach/ask them to do things. They were designed to assist Quarians. Even in the unlikely event that they had no tranlation capacity, it is a safe bet that they can understand Quarian.

Because not everybody or everything can appeal to the Geth religious inclination.

If it is just a matter of cracking their language, then that shouldn't have required an autistic anyone wired into anything either.

That was incredibly an incredibly stupid, naked emotional shock appeal so horrendously blatant by the developers that I have never been able to take it seriously.

[Arijharn]

Even if the treatment to Daniel was shocking (it was), it still conclusively proved that the project was doable. If 'saving' Daniel meant that you actually were damning 'millions' more, than how can you argue that it wasn't zero sum?



One person's -- what? Lack of freedom? versus many people dying over a war that you could have prevented (and didn't) and you argue moral superiority?



I know, I know, freedom is stupidly important to us, it's been drummed into our minds since day one (at least, it has been if you were born in a western society), but frequently at times of alert, people's freedom and civil liberties are squashed for the 'greater good.'



The one real issue I would have with Overlord would be if Daniel was to remain in that machine at all times if it meant he couldn't get appropriate care. I would imagine that Cerberus would want to provide that, because if nothing else they wouldn't want a repeat of the catastrophe again.

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
TIM treats diplomacy as zero sum, we can only win by way of someone else losing, or vis versa.

 
That's because it kind of is.  In diplomacy you can't gain anything without giving something up, that's how compromise works.  When dealing with a firmly entrenched opponent with a superior bargaining position (any of the big 3) you consider yourself lucky if you manage a zero-sum.

I take it you haven't studied economics? There is an important concept called 'gains from trade' in which each side specializes to take into account relative production differences. It does mean that certain industries on both sides lose, but overall both sides win overall because they are offsetting each other's weaknesses and playing to each others' strengths. It also takes better advantage of economies of scale because both sides are now making better use of mass production, supply side efficiencies, etc (which is one of the main reasons production efficiency differences occur in the first place).

Diplomacy is only zero sum when you try to give up nothing, but then not only does the other side have considerably less reason to bargain with you, but you end up with less than you would under a gains from trade model too.

Protectionism helps only the current producers in ineffecient industries, at the expense of everyone else.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Personally I would say withholding potentially galactic community saving intel crosses any line you might be suggesting. TIM treats diplomacy as zero sum, we can only win by way of someone else losing, or vis versa. If we have an invention first, it means they don't have it first, and they are comparitively worse off in some way, likely economicly.

Except that most of our known Cerberus political shinanigans have not been zero sum. Working with the Turians on the Normandy shared Alliance technology in exchange for Turian ship-building knowledge. Drugging an Asari biotic-supremacist matriarch with anti-biotic drugs cleared the way for better Asari relations with all non-biotics. Killing the pope didn't merely make militarizing humanity politically more palatable, but made way for better Human-Salarian relations with an influential anti-Salarian voice silenced.

Cerberus is out so that Humanity wins most, but it hasn't demonstrated a zero-sum attitude to... well, much of anything.

Where is the evidence that the original joint project was Cerberus backed?

Drugging the biotic supremicist Matriarch isn't a 'trade negotiation' and also would have discouraged Asari biotics, not merely improved relations. In fact, I would be surprised if improving relations was the primary goal considering the degree to which Cerberus seems to pursue research into 'improving' humans, esp but not exclusively in terms of biotics.

Killing the pope definately wasn't to improve human-Salarian relations.

Finding unintended side effects and calling them 'goals' doesn't count.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why?

Half of the entire point of ME2 was that we were exposed to and actually got to understand Cerberus. Unlike in ME1, where we never got insight as to the who was behind the 'Enemies everywhere!' or what sort of attitudes or positions they held, in ME2 we got to work with real Cerberus people, listen to real Cerberus people, and deal with real Cerberus people. We had a relationship with them.

So why, at the very end of ME2, are we throwing away all of our relevant, direct experience with the organization and considering only ME1, where we didn't have any insight as to the group?

Appearantly we played very different ME2 games. In the game I played, we saw only what we were told, nothing of any current Cerberus operations that did not relate to the mission TIM wanted us on, and of what we did see, Teltin was an operation that might have been intended as benign (but still involved kidnapping children), and incidents of crucial strategic information being deliberately withheld from both the Council and Alliance, as well as tossing researchers' lives away with little benefit on the derilect reaper.

Still haven't supported how a Hitler analogy is relevant, M. And most the same issues that trouble a Hitler comparison also apply to TIM: the lack of genocide, wars of conquest and expansion, the police state, the control of the media...

I haven't particularly tried to make the Hilter analogy, and how does one carry out Genocide, war, a police state, etc, without an actual nation? Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Mao carried out any of those before coming into power. Hilter's penchant for genocide wasn't even his idea, it was one of his ministers convinced him. He was an aryan supremicist before then though.

I disagree that it's an innately racist setup. National lines have existed along largely ethnic lines without being racist for generations. Saying 'the Humans' is no more racist than 'the French' when the Alliance is overhwelmingly populated by, well, Humans, and to a degree that no other political unit is.

Being pro france isn't racist though. Being pro Norway isn't either even though norway is predominantly white caucasian. TIM isn't pro Alliance, he is pro HUMAN. That is a difference whether you admit it or not.

If Cerberus believes Humanity should be a political unit, then the Alliance is an existing but imperfect current implementation. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

Cerberus doesn't believe humanity should be a political unit. He believes humanity should be dominant regardless and irrespective of it being one. He isn't clear exactly what he means by that. He isn't pro Alliance, and doesn't even seem to separate whichever party is currently in charge of the Alliance from the Alliance as a politcal unit. It isn't clear if he even has any real plan or if he is just making it all up as he goes along.

Because not everybody or everything can appeal to the Geth religious inclination.

And why would an autistic human be better at appealing than, say, a very logical or very charismatic human who is good at theological theory?

That was incredibly an incredibly stupid, naked emotional shock appeal so horrendously blatant by the developers that I have never been able to take it seriously.

And yet it is cannon, so we still have to try to make sense of it whether we like it or not... that or abandon the discussion on the grounds that the writers have by way of no longer really caring about logic.

[Xilizhra]

Arijharn wrote...

Even if the treatment to Daniel was shocking (it was), it still conclusively proved that the project was doable. If 'saving' Daniel meant that you actually were damning 'millions' more, than how can you argue that it wasn't zero sum?

One person's -- what? Lack of freedom? versus many people dying over a war that you could have prevented (and didn't) and you argue moral superiority?

I know, I know, freedom is stupidly important to us, it's been drummed into our minds since day one (at least, it has been if you were born in a western society), but frequently at times of alert, people's freedom and civil liberties are squashed for the 'greater good.'

The one real issue I would have with Overlord would be if Daniel was to remain in that machine at all times if it meant he couldn't get appropriate care. I would imagine that Cerberus would want to provide that, because if nothing else they wouldn't want a repeat of the catastrophe again.

The project could be done, yes. It'd also be possible for the US to win the war in Iraq by firebombing the country into oblivion. We don't do it, because the associated costs would be vastly too high. Similarly, even if you don't mind torture, Overlord was still a hideous failure of a project that nearly created a self-replicating insane computer virus to menace the galaxy. And on top of that, we now have evidence that the main body of the geth isn't even a thret to the Alliance. There's not enough solid payoff for us to make a commitment this dark.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Where is the evidence that the original joint project was Cerberus backed?

Dialogue with EDI after her memory banks are released, I believe. (if not her, Miranda.)

Drugging the biotic supremicist Matriarch isn't a 'trade negotiation' and also would have discouraged Asari biotics, not merely improved relations. In fact, I would be surprised if improving relations was the primary goal considering the degree to which Cerberus seems to pursue research into 'improving' humans, esp but not exclusively in terms of biotics.

I never claimed the operation was a trade negotiation, so the denial is rather meaningless. 'Discouraged Asari biotics' is a vague, unsubstantiated hypothetical, while the the influence of a proven biotic supremacist is real.

What else would be the implied point of discrediting a vocal and influential biotic supremacist except to discredit and remove her views from obstructing favorable relations?

Killing the pope definately wasn't to improve human-Salarian relations.

Solely? Maybe not. A desired, intended consequence? Nothing to refute that, nor does it touch upon the point of an alleged zero-sum viewpoint.

Finding unintended side effects and calling them 'goals' doesn't count.

What's your basis for calling these side effects unintended?

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why?

Half of the entire point of ME2 was that we were exposed to and actually got to understand Cerberus. Unlike in ME1, where we never got insight as to the who was behind the 'Enemies everywhere!' or what sort of attitudes or positions they held, in ME2 we got to work with real Cerberus people, listen to real Cerberus people, and deal with real Cerberus people. We had a relationship with them.

So why, at the very end of ME2, are we throwing away all of our relevant, direct experience with the organization and considering only ME1, where we didn't have any insight as to the group?

Appearantly we played very different ME2 games. In the game I played, we saw only what we were told, nothing of any current Cerberus operations that did not relate to the mission TIM wanted us on, and of what we did see, Teltin was an operation that might have been intended as benign (but still involved kidnapping children), and incidents of crucial strategic information being deliberately withheld from both the Council and Alliance, as well as tossing researchers' lives away with little benefit on the derilect reaper.

Apparently we did... and apparently you still won't address my question.

I haven't particularly tried to make the Hilter analogy, and how does one carry out Genocide, war, a police state, etc, without an actual nation?

WMD's, intelligence manipulation and insitagation, and an effective Cabal.

Which Cerberus does have.

Being pro france isn't racist though. Being pro Norway isn't either even though norway is predominantly white caucasian. TIM isn't pro Alliance, he is pro HUMAN. That is a difference whether you admit it or not.

You're claiming a difference and not supporting it. That's neither persuasive or definitive, and merely becomes your word against mine.

Cerberus doesn't believe humanity should be a political unit. He believes humanity should be dominant regardless and irrespective of it being one. He isn't clear exactly what he means by that. He isn't pro Alliance, and doesn't even seem to separate whichever party is currently in charge of the Alliance from the Alliance as a politcal unit. It isn't clear if he even has any real plan or if he is just making it all up as he goes along.

You state a denial in your first sentence, and then don't support it.

In order for Humanity to be dominant, Humanity needs to be a considered a political unit: in the first place.

And why would an autistic human be better at appealing than, say, a very logical or very charismatic human who is good at theological theory?

Because the story writers wanted an emotional shock appeal of abusing the mentally infirm to put 'dificult decisions' to a optional side mission with a largely meaningless choice.

The pseudo-scientific reasoning they put in was that David's autistic mind was uniquely qualified to interpret the Geth. Why that matters is beyond me, but the game took a clear position that it was something unique to David.

And yet it is cannon, so we still have to try to make sense of it whether we like it or not... that or abandon the discussion on the grounds that the writers have by way of no longer really caring about logic.

The writers don't care about logic in the first place. The writers care about telling a story, of which logic is a convenient accessory at best.

[RubiconI7]

A pragmatist trying very hard. Sometimes over reacts to things and over-analyze..but then again, who isn't nowadays...

However, ignorant in the sense that he thinks humanity can make it alone and establish themselves as an superior entity above the aliens. This I think is his ignorance and arrogance. I do admire his conviction to address problems that bureaucrats ignore though.

All in all, what Cerberus succeeds in balances what they fail.

Modifié par RubiconI7, 19 février 2011 - 02:20 .

[88mphSlayer]

Arijharn wrote...

Even if the treatment to Daniel was shocking (it was), it still conclusively proved that the project was doable. If 'saving' Daniel meant that you actually were damning 'millions' more, than how can you argue that it wasn't zero sum?

One person's -- what? Lack of freedom? versus many people dying over a war that you could have prevented (and didn't) and you argue moral superiority?

I know, I know, freedom is stupidly important to us, it's been drummed into our minds since day one (at least, it has been if you were born in a western society), but frequently at times of alert, people's freedom and civil liberties are squashed for the 'greater good.'

The one real issue I would have with Overlord would be if Daniel was to remain in that machine at all times if it meant he couldn't get appropriate care. I would imagine that Cerberus would want to provide that, because if nothing else they wouldn't want a repeat of the catastrophe again.

Overlord is a good story but in the context of Mass Effect 2 is kinda... wat, i mean first off just looking at David (not daniel) how does he ya know... goto the bathroom? and what's the point of keeping his eyes open? and whats the point in general of that whole getup with him in the crucifix position eh? from David's memories it's obvious he could control a geth in regular clothing just standing there... but apparently to fully optimize this system they have to strip him of his clothes, hang him over a pit, keep his eyes open and stuff feeding tubes down his throat or... what?

whatever, besides all that it seems to me that if The Illusive Man says "i want results but i won't question how you get those results" but if the council says "accomplish your mission we won't question how you accomplish it" somehow they're different? evidently not given Saren and what happens in the shadow broker DLC

(sorta off topic)

stuff like this is why i thought Mass Effect 2 should've been about the council and its Spectres in a precarious position while facing underground organizations like the Shadow Broker and Cerberus, both of whom trying to either work with the collectors or just get their hands on their technology and generally undermine everybody - it would've made more sense if that was the goal of the collectors was to undermine the galaxy from within if the reapers couldn't just do it by brute force, it would've gotten Liara involved in the main story earlier and been more shocking to see the reveal of the collectors near the end of the game as the real controllers of it all, maybe have the collector general as the main antagonist after you've delt with the shadow broker or cerberus (could've been a good "either or" plot tree for a choice-based rpg), and maybe focused more on the revelation of the protheans as collectors

i think that would've been more interesting than the collectors doing all of this just because joker shot sovereign in his weak point for massive damage

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 19 février 2011 - 02:30 .

[Xilizhra]

Either Archer is a whackjob or extreme pain is necessary for Overlord to work.

[Lapis Lazuli]

Of course he's evil. Would a good guy allow himself to be called 'the illusive man'?

[Arijharn]

Xilizhra wrote...
The project could be done, yes. It'd also be possible for the US to win the war in Iraq by firebombing the country into oblivion. We don't do it, because the associated costs would be vastly too high. Similarly, even if you don't mind torture, Overlord was still a hideous failure of a project that nearly created a self-replicating insane computer virus to menace the galaxy. And on top of that, we now have evidence that the main body of the geth isn't even a thret to the Alliance. There's not enough solid payoff for us to make a commitment this dark.

At the time there was; the galaxy was still reeling from the sudden and unexpected attack on the Citadel, and Humanity was still trying to pierce together the events of why the Geth attacked Eden Prime without provocation. When they (Cerberus) found about the sort of figurehead that Saren was (presumably Cerberus had access to Shephard's after action reports) and that's when the project was green lit.

It's nice to think that Legion is completely truthful about the intentions about the True Geth but we only have it's word for it at the moment, and it essentially betrays its own species (the Heretics) to get a result that they favour. Additionally, lets face reality, in our own world religious fundamentalism is a pretty big deal that to me at least, manages not much more than 'oceans of blood' -- how many wars have been fought on Earth for the sake of religious superiority? We also have any potential fruits from Admiral Xen to worry about as well (because while I may be alone in this, I think she's crazy charismatic enough to pull it off -- She's the Illusive Woman for the Quarian's imo).

I don't see (from the Geth's point of view at least) that there's any degree of greater moral superiority for me to take regarding the Geth between the enforced re-writing of their entire species to align with my own philosophies, or taking advantage of their burgeoning spiritualism by giving them an idol to worship. If they can be rewritten, then I fail to see how they can't be re-re-written (I think Shep can ask this, but I also wasn't convinced by Legion's responses to be honest -- it is, after all, a data file). The Idol in this way doesn't change any undercurrents of the Geth's thought processes (as far as I can tell), it doesn't even turn water into wine... 

[Brako Von Shepard]

You get the impression that TIM really loves his species, put him back on his own world and TIM will always defend his country.



I would say that only his methods for getting the job done, could be seen as evil. But the man will always have love for what/who he is defending.

[Hard_Choices22]

I wouldn't call him 'evil' per se, ambitious would be a better term. Even if he screws with Shepard at critical points in the game, he may or may not really be doing it for humanity's sake.



I, however, blew the base sky high at then end. Mess with Shepard, you get explosions.

[Xilizhra]

I don't see (from the Geth's point of view at least) that there's any degree of greater moral superiority for me to take regarding the Geth between the enforced re-writing of their entire species to align with my own philosophies, or taking advantage of their burgeoning spiritualism by giving them an idol to worship. If they can be rewritten, then I fail to see how they can't be re-re-written (I think Shep can ask this, but I also wasn't convinced by Legion's responses to be honest -- it is, after all, a data file).

The virus was made by Sovereign, who's currently rubble, and the heretics. And if the other Reapers were in hibernation for energy-saving purposes, it seems unlikely that Sovereign beamed the virus information back to them.

As for moral issues, I rewrote the heretics only because the alternative was killing them. If there was a way to make peace with them without the rewriting, I'd take it in a heartbeat, and that's a very real possibility with the geth as a whole now. There's no need to enslave without purpose.