502 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

wolfsite wrote...

Got to love how the Pro Cerberus people just "Dismiss" anything that damages there side of the arguement.  I see they learned a lot from the Turian Councilor

If you can back your claim with a source, like I asked, then why don't you? And no, attempting personal attacks on your opponents isn't supporting your claim.

If you didn't make unsubstantiated, factually wrong arguments, you wouldn't be having a problem supporting your position. Then again, your positions would probably change as well.

[Zulu_DFA]

Gnoster wrote...

Question from someone who hasn't read any of the novels: Is it confirmed that ME3 story takes the novels into effect?
Asking because that would really mean that one "really should" read them before playing ME3.

The events of the books and comics are referenced in the games. Another book is coming out close to the ME3 release, and bets are it will be even more heavily referenced in the game. They are not essential, but you "really should" read them. But if you do, be careful not to metagame: some information from the books cannot be available to Commander Shepard in-universe!

[darknoon5]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

Zulu, don't blame Anderson entirely for Grayson getting free. TIM really badly underestimated him. His only plan to kill him was Kai Leng, and it's clear by the time of the attack, Grayson was powerful enough to have mopped the floor with Kai Leng. Grayson may well have gotten free anyway, and definitely would not have been killed by Kai Leng.

This is all a baseless supposition.

But OK, let's play "What Ifs". Sure, TIM was in full controll of his Idiot Ball (if he wasn't, he'd have had Grayson in a cell that would fill with some fancy sci-fi napalm in case of emergency). But really, as the book says, Grayson was gaining power after he broke free. He only managed to kill the Turians on the shuttle, because they were treating him as a liberated POW and not an environmental hazard. Kai Leng wouldn't have had any trouble killing him because the initiative would have been his.

Sorry, but when it comes down to measuring Idiot Balls, Anderson's and Turians' ones prove to be far bigger than that of TIM and Cerberus.

Wulfram wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Yeah, right... Attacking the single organization that believes Shepard about the Reapers is going to do a great deal towards making the Turians believe Shepard about the Reapers.

Like I said, paragon thinking is brilliant!

It's certainly going to do a great deal more to towards that than becoming a Cerberus collaborator yourself, which is the other option.

Keep thinking, my dear Paragon. May be you're right, and the Turians can't use logic either.

Reapers is Cerbs' 'ganda! We attacks Cerbs! Must be some Reapers out there!

You seriously think Kai Leng could've killed Grayson?

Right...

He killed a bunch of Turians unarmed. He would've had some form of biotic power by then, and I reckon seeing as Kai Leng wasn't biotic, he probably could've ripped him apart with his mind.

Besides, I never remember the order to kill him being issued until the attack. If it wasn't for the attack, who knows how long TIM would've waited to order Grayson to be killed.

[ddv.rsa]

Anderson is a fool. Just before he went running to the Turians with info on Cerberus, they had made it possible for Shepard to defeat the collectors. And he knew it! While Cerberus was doing what had to be done Anderson sat on his hands. In Retribution he was no longer content with being merely useless and started actively attacking the group that just saved everyone's ass. Moron. Worse than being a moron, he's also a traitor to humanity.

[Dean_the_Young]

Grayson on the station was still weak. He wasn't yet as powerful as he'd be on Omega, let alone at the Ascension project. While the point that he'd get more powerful over time on the station applies, so does the fact that he'd still be under  their control/preparations, and not free. Cerberus always knew they'd have to kill him sooner or later, hedging on sooner.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 15 février 2011 - 01:54 .

[Fixers0]

Cerberus are terrorist who should be removed from the Galaxy as they are doing more bad then good things. Anderson is a War hero, and not a traitor, He did was best, He saw Cerberus as terrorists and a danger to Alliance/Human citizens.

[Dean_the_Young]

Funnily enough, no one has ever been able to give three examples of Cerberus committing classical terrorism.



Atrocities? Sure. Murder? Yes. But actual terrorism, something intentionally public to make a public point with the intent of striking fear in order to force a government or public to change a policy? No.



Calling Cerberus a terrorist group is really just flinging a buzzword with abandon. They're a cabal.





Kind of hard to say they're doing more bad than good based on their body count, though. Especially given their successful trap at Horizon, and overall stopping of the Collector genocide.

[Zulu_DFA]

darknoon5 wrote...

He killed a bunch of Turians unarmed.

Kai Leng also killed a bunch of Turians. With a knife. A Krogan. With a Knife. He would have killed Grayson with a shotgun. Because if he couldn't, Drew Karpyshyn would probably not have made Anderson such a traitor.

[Fixers0]

Shepard did all their work they don't bother to do, besides The Alliance and the Council have declared Cerberus terrorists, not me.

[Zulu_DFA]

Fixers0 wrote...

Cerberus are terrorist who should be removed from the Galaxy as they are doing more bad then good things. Anderson is a War hero, and not a traitor, He did was best, He saw Cerberus as terrorists and a danger to Alliance/Human citizens.

Cerberus are freedom fighters, who should be supported as they are doing what needs to be done to liberate the Galaxy from the decadent and oppressive alien regimes. Anderson is an Alliance poster boy, but in reality a drunkard ready to betray the Alliance over a whim of a woman he is in love with.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 15 février 2011 - 02:15 .

[msantos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Keep thinking, my dear Paragon. May be you're right, and the Turians can't use logic either.

Reapers is Cerbs' 'ganda! We attacks Cerbs! Must be some Reapers out there!

So you think allying yourself with the Turians enemies is the best way to get them on your side?
Or do you think that TIM's merry band of rascals are an adequate substitute for the leading military superpower of the Galaxy?

Are you honestly going to argue that, in the face of galactic extinction looming over their head, the Turians won't cooperate if Cerberus is on board against the Reapers?

Because otherwise, there is no inherent if/else delimma.

Good point.

However, the turians could not be faulted if they initially refused to tag along with Cerberus on anytthing.  Come to think of it, I can't see any race/species easily accepting such a proposal with an organization as vilified and resented as Cerberus is.  

Yes, yes.  In ME2, Cerberus appeared to be the only organization willing to do anything about the collectors and Reapers but despite their checkered past and commited resources they could not do it on their own as it took a "bloody icon" like Sheppard to actually get some (however minimal or reluctant) cooperation going.

That is why, I can see a few scenarios where Cerberus could still be a contributor in the fight against the reapers despite the huge setback they suffered in the "Retribution raid" by the Turians.  In all these scenarios I see Shepard, as a critical instrument facilitating the "Olive branch" moments that even surprised TIM in ME2. 

Then again, maybe these "olive branch" moments are irrelevat since Cerberus was serious cut down in size and effectiveness and is no longer the "boogey man" they used to be in ME1 & ME2.  

Speaking of "Boogey man" references: It is ironic, that I see a better chance of the Geth being a more relevant contributor (especially is the Quarian/geth issue is ever resolved) than Cerberus.  After all they need no convincing of the danger posed by the reapers/old machines...


Cheers;

[Fixers0]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Cerberus are terrorist who should be removed from the Galaxy as they are doing more bad then good things. Anderson is a War hero, and not a traitor, He did was best, He saw Cerberus as terrorists and a danger to Alliance/Human citizens.

Cerberus are freedom fighters, who should be supported as they are doing what needs to be done to liberate the Galaxy from the decadent and oppressive alien regimes. Anderson is an Alliance poster boy, but in reality a drunkard ready to betray the Alliance over a whim of a woman he is in love with.

No Cerberus are criminals, who should be stopped at all cost as they don't care about other species or the average joe and are just trying to archive their insane ideals, Anderson is a Respected man of intergerity, a man who still holds on onto the basic priniciples and who is trying to make the galaxy a better place for everyone.  

Modifié par Fixers0, 15 février 2011 - 02:39 .

[Asheer_Khan]

In SC Mengsk at the beginning was freedom fighter too until his mind suffer hit by a "lust for power" brick and he become exact same what he tried to destroy.



That's why i see that tim goes in exact same way as Mengsk but this time Collector Base didn't become New Gettysburg for Shepard&co.

[msantos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Atrocities? Sure. Murder? Yes. But actual terrorism, something intentionally public to make a public point with the intent of striking fear in order to force a government or public to change a policy? No.

Calling Cerberus a terrorist group is really just flinging a buzzword with abandon. They're a cabal.

Fully agree.  "Cabal" is a better designation.

However, their vilification in the ME universe is neither trivial nor inconsequential and it is something I believe ME2 attempted to tweak(purposely or not)?  In ME2 we learn that:
- There are still many  "Xenophobes" within Cerberus BUT there are also "Good People" within the organization too.
- With the SM in ME2, "Cerberus may be remebered differently" ?
- Despite Horizon being officially/publicly dismissed as the work of Pirates, at least to a small group of Cerberus skeptics within the alliance (i.e: Ashley/Kaidan, etc) know it was Cerberus who in fact "saved" Horizon.

No, despite the propagana that paints Cerberus as a terrorist org, I still don't see it as such.  If anything, they are to be feared because of their past methods and projects... and I do welcome any means of keeping their influence and reach in check.  That is why I still agree with the Turian raid on their primary facilities and I was happy to see the raid did not totally eliminate Cerberus but it dealth a serious "size checking" blow to the org.


Cheers

[wolfsite]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

Got to love how the Pro Cerberus people just "Dismiss" anything that damages there side of the arguement.  I see they learned a lot from the Turian Councilor

If you can back your claim with a source, like I asked, then why don't you? And no, attempting personal attacks on your opponents isn't supporting your claim.

If you didn't make unsubstantiated, factually wrong arguments, you wouldn't be having a problem supporting your position. Then again, your positions would probably change as well.

I have a few times, in sveral different threads.  Seem to get Ignored for some reason.

Also you really have a pot calling the kettle black persona going on.

Modifié par wolfsite, 15 février 2011 - 02:51 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Fixers0 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Cerberus are terrorist who should be removed from the Galaxy as they are doing more bad then good things. Anderson is a War hero, and not a traitor, He did was best, He saw Cerberus as terrorists and a danger to Alliance/Human citizens.

Cerberus are freedom fighters, who should be supported as they are doing what needs to be done to liberate the Galaxy from the decadent and oppressive alien regimes. Anderson is an Alliance poster boy, but in reality a drunkard ready to betray the Alliance over a whim of a woman he is in love with.

No Cerberus are criminals, who should be stopped at all cost as they don't care about other species or the average joe and are just trying to archive their insane ideals, Anderson is a man of intergerity, a man who still holds on onto the basic priniciples and who is trying to make the galaxy a better place for everyone.  

No, Cerberus are idealists, who should prevail against all odds, as they are the only group that dares to take a look into the future, and is capable of giving an adequate purpose for all species in the Galaxy, as well as to every average Joe among our own species. Anderson is a retrograde, who hasn't got even a remotely coherent worldview and is likely to act on impulse just as much as on any kind of outdated preconception.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 15 février 2011 - 02:54 .

[DTKT]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Cerberus are terrorist who should be removed from the Galaxy as they are doing more bad then good things. Anderson is a War hero, and not a traitor, He did was best, He saw Cerberus as terrorists and a danger to Alliance/Human citizens.

Cerberus are freedom fighters, who should be supported as they are doing what needs to be done to liberate the Galaxy from the decadent and oppressive alien regimes. Anderson is an Alliance poster boy, but in reality a drunkard ready to betray the Alliance over a whim of a woman he is in love with.

No Cerberus are criminals, who should be stopped at all cost as they don't care about other species or the average joe and are just trying to archive their insane ideals, Anderson is a man of intergerity, a man who still holds on onto the basic priniciples and who is trying to make the galaxy a better place for everyone.  

No, Cerberus are idealists, who should prevail against all odds as they are the only group dares to take look into the future and is capable of giving an adequate purpose for all species in the Galaxy, as well as to every average Joe among our own species. Anderson is a retrograde, who hasn't got even a remotely coherent worldview and is likely to act on impulse just as much as on any kind of outdated preconception.

Thats your point of view and your own interpretation of the Cerberus mandate. To me, they arent any better than any mercenaries and should be put down.

[Dean_the_Young]

wolfsite wrote...
I have a few times, in sveral different threads.  Seem to get Ignored for some reason.

No, what generally occurs is exactly what occured in this thread.

You make a claim.

Someone challenges the accuracy of your claim.

Rather than return and validate your claim, you attack the other person, wonder off, and do the same thing in the next thread.

Also you really have a pot calling the kettle black persona going on.

You make being black sound like a bad thing... you racist devil you.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 15 février 2011 - 02:55 .

[Zulu_DFA]

DTKT wrote...

Thats your point of view and your own interpretation of the Cerberus mandate. To me, they arent any better than any mercenaries and should be put down.

Oh, look!.. it's your opinion here! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

[DTKT]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DTKT wrote...

Thats your point of view and your own interpretation of the Cerberus mandate. To me, they arent any better than any mercenaries and should be put down.

Oh, look!.. it's your opinion here! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

Is it possible that we have two differing opinions. How is this possible.

[wolfsite]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

wolfsite wrote...
I have a few times, in sveral different threads.  Seem to get Ignored for some reason.

No, what generally occurs is exactly what occured in this thread.

You make a claim.

Someone challenges the accuracy of your claim.

Rather than return and validate your claim, you attack the other person, wonder off, and do the same thing in the next thread.

Also you really have a pot calling the kettle black persona going on.

You make being black sound like a bad thing... you racist devil you.

Okay now I am completely insulted.  I have never once attacked anyone aside from the side remark in my last post which is a very common phrase, hell there were a few times I even came back and placed an apology if I ever offended anyone when I felt the stuff I posted could be taken wrong.  All the "Claims" I have made have been backed up, I played threw the games and have returned showing what I have found in game as well as other people giving supporting information online later on.

Only person who seems to attack anyone and then wonder off to another topic is well....  not going to say it since I know what the outcome will be.

[Zulu_DFA]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

In SC Mengsk at the beginning was freedom fighter too until his mind suffer hit by a "lust for power" brick and he become exact same what he tried to destroy.

Umm, that's like only in the opinion of a notorious terrorist Jim Raynor and his band of miscreants.

[darknoon5]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

He killed a bunch of Turians unarmed.

Kai Leng also killed a bunch of Turians. With a knife. A Krogan. With a Knife. He would have killed Grayson with a shotgun. Because if he couldn't, Drew Karpyshyn would probably not have made Anderson such a traitor.

Knife AND a pistol. Anyway, heard of biotic barriers? It would not be as simple as a shotgun blast to Grayson and done.

[Zulu_DFA]

DTKT wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DTKT wrote...

Thats your point of view and your own interpretation of the Cerberus mandate. To me, they arent any better than any mercenaries and should be put down.

Oh, look!.. it's your opinion here! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

Is it possible that we have two differing opinions. How is this possible. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie]

I wonder...

Wait, are you saying I'm an idiot??? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

[Dean_the_Young]

wolfsite wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

wolfsite wrote...
I have a few times, in sveral different threads.  Seem to get Ignored for some reason.

No, what generally occurs is exactly what occured in this thread.

You make a claim.

Someone challenges the accuracy of your claim.

Rather than return and validate your claim, you attack the other person, wonder off, and do the same thing in the next thread.

Also you really have a pot calling the kettle black persona going on.

You make being black sound like a bad thing... you racist devil you.

Okay now I am completely insulted.  I have never once attacked anyone aside from the side remark in my last post which is a very common phrase, hell there were a few times I even came back and placed an apology if I ever offended anyone when I felt the stuff I posted could be taken wrong. 

You are completely insulted for being called out on insulting others which you insist you never do except the times that you do and apologize for.

All the "Claims" I have made have been backed up, I played threw the games and have returned showing what I have found in game as well as other people giving supporting information online later on.

Lots of people play through the games. Lots of people get their facts wrong, and assuming things that aren't there. There are still people who sincerely insist the Heretics were brainwashed by Sovereign, that Shepard was forced to work with Cerberus, and that the Council doesn't utilize genocide in its own interests.

Case in point, this thread, your claim that Cerberus brought the Dragon's Teeth to the colony of the dead and killed everyone there. Which, to the counter that nothing in ME1 says that Cerberus brought the teeth there or were in anyway involved except in retrieving an indisclosed 'sample', you went off and simply attacked the arguer, not the argument, and started this. Which, after being pointed out to you, you found insulting.

Only person who seems to attack anyone and then wonder off to another topic is well....  not going to say it since I know what the outcome will be.

No. Go ahead, really. This isn't a church, in which hidden slights and insults are socially acceptable so long as you don't mention the person by name, and merely indicate them by every other means. No one's left wondering, or fooled, by your false politeness.

You are, of course, referring to me.

I'd respect people like you a lot more if they actually came out and said what they meant openly rather than pretend they weren't saying just that. It wouldn't change that I find your wrong as often as not, but if you can't be open with what you think about other people on the internet, where can you be honest at all? Why should someone presume you are honest at all otherwise?

Why should anyone give you any respect if you can't even disagree with someone directly? We are adults: or rather, at least some of this board is adults. You disagree with me about an opinion, and I'm not broken or traumatized or even angry. I'm simply disagreeing with you. If we disagree over a matter about facts, then resolving ignorance is for the best.