742 réponses à ce sujet

[NKKKK]

Yes Zulu we get it, you're a bad ass hipster

[ExtremeOne]

RattleSnake08 wrote...

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.

  


I will do what ever it takes to get the job done. The Alliance is soft and lacks the balls to get things done. thats why they need Shepard 

[NKKKK]

ExtremeOne wrote...

RattleSnake08 wrote...

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.

  


I will do what ever it takes to get the job done. The Alliance is soft and lacks the balls to get things done. thats why they need Shepard 

Man you're so edgy, your like...Edward Cullen

[AdmiralCheez]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I will do what ever it takes to get the job done. The Alliance is soft and lacks the balls to get things done. thats why they need Shepard.

The events on Horizon have led me to conclude that the Alliance was gearing up to tackle the abduction problem.  However, they didn't start taking the problem seriously until things got really bad.  To their credit, you needed a hell of a lot of intel and luck to take down the Collectors, or even discover them.

Besides, TIM's idea of taking action is spending lots of money to bring some hero dude back from the dead so he can try to get him killed again.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

NKKKK wrote...

Man you're so edgy, your like...Edward Cullen

No one is being disrespectful of your opinions. Your childish ad hominem fallacies do you no credit. I'm sure those you disagree with would love to have a civil argument on the topic at hand.

[NKKKK]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

NKKKK wrote...

Man you're so edgy, your like...Edward Cullen

No one is being disrespectful of your opinions. Your childish ad hominem fallacies do you no credit. I'm sure those you disagree with would love to have a civil argument on the topic at hand.

Hi there, welcome to the forums. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
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.

Even if it was legal (doubtful, but let's assume for the sake of argument), the act is incredibly imprudent and makes the Allliance look extremily bad and weak.

Why do you think the Turians were so anxious to do this? Because they hate Cerberus that much even though they never targetted the Hierarchy? I bet that they thought this would be a great opportunity to show the Alliance that they are still weak and that the Turians are the real "problem solvers" of the galaxy. Especially since apparently the default Shepard ends up with the Council killed.

Unless Cerberus was targetting aliens, it remains a human affair. And even then, unilateral action against it without the Alliance  knowing or participating is politically imprudent.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 avril 2011 - 12:29 .

[Sylvianus]

Can anyone tell me why some hate the Alliance after having read the Game Informer ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 19 avril 2011 - 12:33 .

[NKKKK]

Sylvianus wrote...

Can anyone tell me why some hate the Alliance after having read the Game Informer ?

Cause it's too mainstream bro

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Sylvianus wrote...

Can anyone tell me why some hate the Alliance after having read the Game Informer ?

1. I do not consider the GI stuff to have actually happened in universe yet, so it is remained to be seen what will happen.

2. Even if I took the GI stuff seriously, obviously all the the events/motivations will be more nuanced than what is presented currently.

3. I don't hate the Alliance. I just believe they are a somewhat ineffective organization that cares more about PR than taking care of their constituency.

[AdmiralCheez]

NKKKK wrote...

Cause it's too mainstream bro

If you like what everyone else likes, you're a sheep.

If you don't, you're a hipster.

So... I'm a sheepster?

[didymos1120]

Sylvianus wrote...

Can anyone tell me why some hate the Alliance after having read the Game Informer ?

The Normandy thing.  The Alliance takes it, pokes around to check it out, and then upgrades it.  This is apparently beyond the pale, even though it's perfectly obvious and understandable why they would: it's based on illicitly obtained designs for their most advanced class of ship.  Of course they're gonna grab the thing if they can.  Equally obvious is the fact that Shep gets it back, so I really don't see what all the high dudgeon is about.  Especially because it's based on this "BUT IT'S MY SHIP THAT IS MINE" attitude....even though you basically stole it from Cerberus.

[NKKKK]

So... I'm a sheepster?

Mind= Blown

The Normandy thing. The Alliance takes it, pokes around to check it out, and then upgrades it. This is apparently beyond the pale, even though it's perfectly obvious and understandable why they would: it's based on illicitly obtained designs for their most advanced class of ship. Of course they're gonna grab the thing if they can. Equally obvious is the fact that Shep gets it back, so I really don't see what all the high dudgeon is about. Especially because it's based on this "BUT IT'S MY SHIP THAT IS MINE" attitude....even though you basically stole it from Cerberus..

Is this from the GI article?

[Fiery Phoenix]

I can't help but laugh at those who think the Normandy is the ultimate reason Timmy wants to kill Shepard. I mean, sure, it could be part of the reason, but it's definitely not all there is to it. That would be comical.

[didymos1120]

NKKKK wrote...


Is this from the GI article?

Uh, well, yeah.  The question was about what it was in the article that was getting people so bent at the Alliance, after all.

[ExtremeOne]

Sylvianus wrote...

Can anyone tell me why some hate the Alliance after having read the Game Informer ?

  


Its real simple Bioware and their utter disrespect of us Cerberus fans and our choices in Mass Effect 2.  Their bull sh*t excuse of not telling us why Cerberus is after Shepard even if he saves the base in 2 is falt out insulting . 

[88mphSlayer]

i don't hate Anderson... i just hate everybody i worked for in ME1

people have short memories but the only reason you win in ME1 is by going rogue, and if it were up to the Alliance there would've been no Normandy SR-1, and don't get me started on the council

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 19 avril 2011 - 12:55 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I can't help but laugh at those who think the Normandy is the ultimate reason Timmy wants to kill Shepard. I mean, sure, it could be part of the reason, but it's definitely not all there is to it. That would be comical.

But remember: they need to keep that "deniability" thing going. So TIM may order a hunt after Shepard to simulate rage, while it was in fact always planned that way: to have Shepard back with the Alliance Navy and the E.D.I. and advanced Tantalus technology handed over to he Alliance...

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 avril 2011 - 12:56 .

[didymos1120]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i don't hate Anderson... i just hate everybody i worked for in ME1

people have short memories but the only reason you win in ME1 is by going rogue, and if it were up to the Alliance there would've been no Normandy SR-1

Yeah, and Anderson is the one who starts the "going rogue" ball rolling.  It was his idea.

[Someone With Mass]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Even if it was legal (doubtful, but let's assume for the sake of argument), the act is incredibly imprudent and makes the Allliance look extremily bad and weak.

Why do you think the Turians were so anxious to do this? Because they hate Cerberus that much even though they never targetted the Hierarchy? I bet that they thought this would be a great opportunity to show the Alliance that they are still weak and that the Turians are the real "problem solvers" of the galaxy. Especially since apparently the default Shepard ends up with the Council killed.

Unless Cerberus was targetting aliens, it remains a human affair. And even then, unilateral action against it without the Alliance  knowing or participating is politically imprudent.

That's not entirely true. Cerberus indirectly assassinated a turian Hierarch hawk by sabotaging his ship's FTL systems.

Don't know if anyone of them knows about this, though.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Someone With Mass wrote...

That's not entirely true. Cerberus indirectly assassinated a turian Hierarch hawk by sabotaging his ship's FTL systems.

Don't know if anyone of them knows about this, though.

I'm fairly certain it was successfully made to look like an accident.

[ExtremeOne]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i don't hate Anderson... i just hate everybody i worked for in ME1

people have short memories but the only reason you win in ME1 is by going rogue, and if it were up to the Alliance there would've been no Normandy SR-1, and don't get me started on the council

  



I agree with you but its clear Bioware does not remember either  

[Fiery Phoenix]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I can't help but laugh at those who think the Normandy is the ultimate reason Timmy wants to kill Shepard. I mean, sure, it could be part of the reason, but it's definitely not all there is to it. That would be comical.

But remember: they need to keep that "deniability" thing going. So TIM may order a hunt after Shepard to simulate rage, while it was in fact always planned that way: to have Shepard back with the Alliance Navy and the E.D.I. and advanced Tantalus technology handed over to he Alliance...

To be honest, that's about the most sensible theory I've read so far. Second to that Cerberus is involved with the Reapers in some way (think Saren 2.0), which was explained in other threads already.

[Zulu_DFA]

Someone With Mass wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Even if it was legal (doubtful, but let's assume for the sake of argument), the act is incredibly imprudent and makes the Allliance look extremily bad and weak.

Why do you think the Turians were so anxious to do this? Because they hate Cerberus that much even though they never targetted the Hierarchy? I bet that they thought this would be a great opportunity to show the Alliance that they are still weak and that the Turians are the real "problem solvers" of the galaxy. Especially since apparently the default Shepard ends up with the Council killed.

Unless Cerberus was targetting aliens, it remains a human affair. And even then, unilateral action against it without the Alliance  knowing or participating is politically imprudent.

That's not entirely true. Cerberus indirectly assassinated a turian Hierarch hawk by sabotaging his ship's FTL systems.

Don't know if anyone of them knows about this, though.

More importanlty, that confirms for the canon that the Hierarchy has "hawks".

The Hierarchy has hawks. The Alliance has hawks.

So why the hell Anderson plays for the alien team???

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 avril 2011 - 01:17 .

[Someone With Mass]

Because there's no point in being a member of a galactic community if we're constantly fighting to topple them.