742 réponses à ce sujet

[lawp79]

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

[Fiery Phoenix]

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

[R3c0nn4155nc3]

Let's settle this. Anderson vs Udina. Who would you side with? Don't give me a reason just an answer.

[Zeratul20]

Thunderdome: Anderson vs. Udina.

[Dave666]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dave666 wrote...


You mean the attack on Horizon that happened because The Incompetent Man spread it about that Shep would be there?  I'll grant you that the attacks would have taken place somewhere else, but how do we know that it wouldn't have been a much smaller colony.

Or larger. But it wouldn't have been just 'a' colony: without the ability to predict and pre-empt, it would have been many colonies, of whatever size, with no realistic hope of pre-emption, until it got back to Horizon. At which point you're back to where you started, only without, you know, being in a position to save half the colony unless you do the same thing you avoided.

Horizon was choosing a battlefield, and while it certainly does suck to be living on Battlefield chosen, a battle is rather necessary to beat an enemy.

 I just honestly can't understand people who support Cerberus. They're a bunch of terrorists,

They aren't by any classical meaning of the word. They're more of a cabal.

if they hadn't done all of those things I listed above (and there were many more that I didn't list) and they then decided to help Shepard with the Collector Threat then I would be all for them, but I simply cannot condone their past actions and say that well, they helped Shep out so their past doesn't matter.

You don't need to condone their past actions to work with them for now.

Your last bit is just plain silly and you know it. 

It's actually pretty accurate: you're confusing saving a group with being mutually exclusive to not doing any harm to that group, when doing harm can often result in overall betterment. We can look at this for militaries, in which losing people is a necessary cost for achieving objectives, we can look at this in terms of economies where letting some people get screwed can open greater economic opportunities, we can look at this in science where we're still testing products on animals, we can see this in politics were compromise for a deal often means that someone in particular loses out.

With the exception of the events of Arrival, when does Shepard even come close to Cerberus?

Quite often, and even in excess. Shepard can kill 50+ people units a mission. Shepard can commit more genocide than Cerberus has ever had its hands with. The only acts of known Cerberus nuclear usage are by Shepard's hands. Shepard does take part in the assassination of political figures (Nassana Dantius), and Shepard gotten far more Alliance soldiers or Aliens killed (the Council decision) than Cerberus has ever dreamed of.

I'll readilly agree with your argument about the Colonies, I kinda knew that I was on shaky ground as I more or less said. lol

Where I completely disagree with you though is your comparison of Shep to Cerberus, 50+ Mercs who shoot first and are always involved in illegal activities per mission does not even come close to the innocent kids who were tortured, experimented on and killed simply because they had the good fortune not to die from eezo exposure and developed biotics (which are already pretty rare among humans, so Cerberus actually weakened humanity by killing so many biotics) or the Alliance Marines killed for no reason other than 'they were getting too close'. Or Shepards Squad so they 'could see what happens'. Even Shepards interrogation of Elias Kelham comes nowhere close to what Cerberus did to poor Corporal Tooms.

[lawp79]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

That would explain why I still like him then as I havent read it.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

Exactly, before reading Retribution I considered Anderson an idealistic (perhaps to a fault) and honorable character. His actions in the book are completely naive, foolish, and arguably treasonous. My opinion of him went from very good to hatred after the novel.

[RattleSnake08]

I did not get that he turned on the Alliance after reading the book. It is known that not many like Cerberus and will do any thing to take them down. That is what he did. He saw there was a chance and the took it. He went after Cerberus and not Shep.

[Fiery Phoenix]

lawp79 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

That would explain why I still like him then as I havent read it.

It depends on how you think of it: I have read Retribution and I don't see myself hating Anderson. Certainly my point of view about him has changed somewhat, but I don't hate him.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

RattleSnake08 wrote...

I did not get that he turned on the Alliance after reading the book. It is known that not many like Cerberus and will do any thing to take them down. That is what he did. He saw there was a chance and the took it. He went after Cerberus and not Shep.

The foolishness of his actions have nothing to do with the standing of Cerberus, and they certainly have nothing to do with Shepard. Basically, Anderson is blinded by puppy love for some girl he hardly knows that he will go behind the Alliance's back to work with the Turian Hierarchy to save some Cerberus ex-assassin that this girl feels emotionally attached too. Any motives Anderson has to help are childish at best, and his decision to go rogue from the Alliance and work with their biggest galactic competitor is inexcusable.

Imagine during the Cold War that the Secretary of State of the US works with the Russians to take down a loyal US splinter cell with very strong ties to the US government (possibly official ties), no doubt housing sensitive US material. Would (or should?) the PotUS say "that's ok they were fringe," or would the SoS meet severe punishment?

The fact of the matter is, Anderson's dealins with the Turians was improper and best and treasonous at worst.

[jbadm04]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Damsel or not, he sold out the Alliance over a personal concern. Which kind of concern was that: money, love, pure stupidity, revenge, self-righteousness, is irrelevant. Anderson is a traitor.

Cerberus is considered terrorist organisation (enemy) by the alliance, thus, going after Cerberus is NOT treason (especialy against the Alliance).

Cerberus infiltrated the Alliance, going after such agents is again NO treason, as you go after traitors. During the actions agsinst such agents various secrets could be revealed. This is a quite grey area, whats worser, a) having someone else get the intel or having enemy in your ranks. Here Anderson goes with the Turians, they are ALLIES, this is going to shift the balance towards a.

Anderson will have to answer for his actions, but will never be deemed guilty of treason. This is just wishfull thinking.

Last but not least, this is not about Anderson being some great character or not. I dont realy like him either, but treason goes way too far.

You list money, love, pure stupidity, revenge, self-righteousness, thats nice. How about: Anderson is a soldier and now sees the possibility to take out an enemy of the state (Alliance) ?
Cerb maybe "pro humanity" and maybe you can call Anderson a traitor to humanity, but not to Alliance. And sorry, but Cerb would sell our soul to the devil if it would raise the humanity above anyone else. I can disclaim such an advocate, this is not renegade, this is pure evil.

If I have to choose between Anderson, Udina and lets say TIM, I choose the leastz worst option and its Anderson.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

jbadm04 wrote...

Cerberus infiltrated the Alliance, going after such agents is again NO treason, as you go after traitors. During the actions agsinst such agents various secrets could be revealed. This is a quite grey area, whats worser, a) having someone else get the intel or having enemy in your ranks. Here Anderson goes with the Turians, they are ALLIES, this is going to shift the balance towards a.

Wrong.

Cerberus split from the Alliance and many viewed loyalty to Cerberus as a greater service to humanity than loyalty to the incompetent Alliance. "Infiltration" requires moving from a point where they had no power in the Alliance to getting their members inside. Cerberus has always been a part of the Alliance. No "infiltrating" was necessary.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Dave666 wrote...


Where I completely disagree with you though is your comparison of Shep to Cerberus, 50+ Mercs who shoot first and are always involved in illegal activities per mission [/quote]Mercenary companies are legal, nor are they always doing illegal stuff per mission.



[quote]
does not even come close to the innocent kids who were tortured, experimented on and killed simply because they had the good fortune not to die from eezo exposure and developed biotics (which are already pretty rare among humans,[/quote]Dave, the logical analogy is the Akuze incident. Not Teltin, which even Cerberus recognizes as a rogue cell and a mistake.

[quote]
so Cerberus actually weakened humanity by killing so many biotics)[/quote]Presumption in the extreme, and ignores the production of Jack, who's extreme exceptional powers were an enabler in the salvation of many more.

[quote]
or the Alliance Marines killed for no reason other than 'they were getting too close'.[/quote]'Wrong place, wrong time' actually describes most of Shepard's mercenary foes in ME2.

Oh, you were helping recover a kidnapped child for her true biological father? Kill. Oh, you were drugged and driven insane by a neurological compound? Kill. Oh, you were fighting a vigilantee with a penchant for breaking into people's homes and trying to murder them? Kill. Oh, you were sitting on your own base, not attacking anyone? Kill, steal. You might have had something to do with helping a fugitive escape? Massacre.

[quote]
Or Shepards Squad so they 'could see what happens'.

[quote] Even Shepards interrogation of Elias Kelham comes nowhere close to what Cerberus did to poor Corporal Tooms.
[/quote]Brutally beating a man is a bit short of of drugging him with Thresher Acid, I agree. Then again, I'd consider the Acid better than outright letting dozens burn death (Zaeed decision), or even the Overlord decision to keep David stuck in.

Selective arbitrary comparisons are, by their nature, selective and arbitrary.

[Zulu_DFA]

jbadm04 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Damsel or not, he sold out the Alliance over a personal concern. Which kind of concern was that: money, love, pure stupidity, revenge, self-righteousness, is irrelevant. Anderson is a traitor.

Cerberus is considered terrorist organisation (enemy) by the alliance, thus, going after Cerberus is NOT treason (especialy against the Alliance).

Cerberus infiltrated the Alliance, going after such agents is again NO treason, as you go after traitors. During the actions agsinst such agents various secrets could be revealed. This is a quite grey area, whats worser, a) having someone else get the intel or having enemy in your ranks. Here Anderson goes with the Turians, they are ALLIES, this is going to shift the balance towards a.

I'd like to know of a single clause in the treaty of alliance between the Alliance and the Hierachy, that allows Turian agents to act in the internal matters of the Alliance, without even notification of the latter. I guess that clause must also allow the Alliance to arrest the Hierarchy's diplomats, businessmen and other dignitaries on a suspicion of being involved with some overly patriotic Turian movement...

Short of that, Andeson had no authority (let alone political advisability) to go to the Turians. He even realized that himself. He realized that the Turians were his only option due to the urgency of the affair, the urgency dictated by Kahlee's request to save Paul Grayson.

jbadm04 wrote...

Anderson will have to answer for his actions, but will never be deemed guilty of treason. This is just wishfull thinking.

Wishful thinking is the prerogative of the Paragons. Executing Anderson is not going to undo the damage he caused, so it's not like we can't live without killing Anderson.

However, if he cannot be useful in some way or other to help with the Reaper problem or to be manipulated as a tool to further the goals of the organization he hates so much, and there are no strings attached, and he is caught in a corner... he gets shot between the eyes withough a second thought.

jbadm04 wrote...

Last but not least, this is not about Anderson being some great character or not. I dont realy like him either, but treason goes way too far.

You list money, love, pure stupidity, revenge, self-righteousness, thats nice. How about: Anderson is a soldier and now sees the possibility to take out an enemy of the state (Alliance)?

If that possibility involves doing more harm to the state than to the enemy?

And soldiers must follow orders, even if those orders are "do not engage".

jbadm04 wrote...

Cerb maybe "pro humanity" and maybe you can call Anderson a traitor to humanity, but not to Alliance.

The Alliance doesn't think so. Anderson knows it. He has to resign before the Alliance can press charges against him. Re-read the book.

jbadm04 wrote...

And sorry, but Cerb would sell our soul to the devil if it would raise the humanity above anyone else. I can disclaim such an advocate, this is not renegade, this is pure evil.

And this changes Anderson's actions how?

jbadm04 wrote...

If I have to choose between Anderson, Udina and lets say TIM, I choose the leastz worst option and its Anderson.

So your prefer a traitor over two patriots. One can only hope to have you in a leadership position in a rival state.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 avril 2011 - 11:09 .

[Someone With Mass]

Hackett is more of a bro to me than Anderson, but I won't hate the poor guy over petty things unless it's really deserved.

[RattleSnake08]

It sounds like quite a few are ok with an organization doing whatever it takes to get things done no matter who they hurt or kill in the process so long the end result is what you want.

[Merchant2006]

Oh god not one of these threads. Well I must contribute anyhow. Anderson is awesome but w/e, if people wanna rage about him then fine. Deal with it.

[The BS Police]

Anderson is awesome! Cerberus can go back to the hell it came from like the three headed dog it is!

[Zeratul20]

Some people have some really strong opinions about fictional characters. Can't we all just agree to disagree?
In all seriousness, though. Wait for ME3. See what happens.

We'll see what happens to Cerberus, Anderson, TIM, etc...

(And Zulu: I really don't know why you keep assuming to have a full and complete comprehension of the whole futuristic legal system. While other people pose valid arguements/questions, you keep on saying "If it doesn't fit my own preconceptions, it's a plothole.")

Modifié par Zeratul20, 19 avril 2011 - 11:39 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

Or you could just not like the novels for their character-butchering and deny that they exist.  Hell, I've been doing the same with the comics so far.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

Or you could just not like the novels for their character-butchering and deny that they exist.  Hell, I've been doing the same with the comics so far.

There aren't any Mass Effect novels and comics. They said they were going to make some once, but then nobody could ever find them.

A persistant urban legend relating to them has sprung up, with many people claiming to have read them. Do not trust these people.

[NKKKK]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

lawp79 wrote...

I had no idea there were Anderson haters, I guess I have learned something.

More and more people have come to question his character since Retribution. Before that, no one seemed to dislike him. In fact, quite the opposite; people actually liked him.

Or you could just not like the novels for their character-butchering and deny that they exist.  Hell, I've been doing the same with the comics so far.

I do however call Tim Jack, even if the mass effect wiki admins refuse to do so.

Modifié par NKKKK, 19 avril 2011 - 12:07 .

[AdmiralCheez]

NKKKK wrote...

I do however call Tim Jack, even if the mass effect wiki admins refuse to do so.

Well, that's perfectly allowed.

I call him "pumpkin."

[Zulu_DFA]

Zeratul20 wrote...

(And Zulu: I really don't know why you keep assuming to have a full and complete comprehension of the whole futuristic legal system. While other people pose valid arguements/questions, you keep on saying "If it doesn't fit my own preconceptions, it's a plothole.")

What do I assume about the "futuristic legal system" here, except that Anderson will probably be able to get away with his treason?