1342 réponses à ce sujet

[lolwut666]

Weather it was a personal favor or not, they would have sent someone to rescue Kenson regardless, because that's what governments do when one of their best operatives is captured.

And, like others have mentioned above, Hackett had no idea Shepard would have to blow up an entire solar system. Shepard did it because he had to out of his own volition. All Hackett asked him to do was to rescue Kenson, nothing more.

Modifié par lolwut666, 05 mai 2011 - 12:03 .

[Reapinger]

ExtremeOne, you clearly don't understand politics. You are what we call a warmonger. It's not kissing Batarian ass, it's avoiding a war that would be your fault. Humanity i.e. Shepard clearly was responsible and the ends justified the means. In the political world, this means nothing. If war before a reaper invasion can be avoided, then why not avoid it? So dumb...

[ExtremeOne]

Reapinger wrote...

ExtremeOne, you clearly don't understand politics. You are what we call a warmonger. It's not kissing Batarian ass, it's avoiding a war that would be your fault. Humanity i.e. Shepard clearly was responsible and the ends justified the means. In the political world, this means nothing. If war before a reaper invasion can be avoided, then why not avoid it? So dumb...

   







I totally understand politcis . I understand the alliance does not want a war with the batarains . But if you do not want  a war with them . Then why did they have a secret base inside batarian space with out informing them of the base . that right there if the batarains found out would be a act of war .  So in effect the alliance basically invaded batarin space .  I would not consider myself a war monger at all.  Making Shepard a fall guy for the allaince's crimnal actions is wrong . But I forgot the alliance can commit crimes and no one says anything . I will do what ever it takes to save humanity and Earth .  when humanity is threatened by a alien race rules go out the window . Because survival is the only goal . Cerberus was right instead of doing nothing action is always better 

[Dean_the_Young]

Reapinger wrote...

ExtremeOne, you clearly don't understand politics. You are what we call a warmonger. It's not kissing Batarian ass, it's avoiding a war that would be your fault. Humanity i.e. Shepard clearly was responsible and the ends justified the means. In the political world, this means nothing. If war before a reaper invasion can be avoided, then why not avoid it? So dumb...

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to desire an organization that won't turn on them for its own gain. Certainly a number of people have lambasted Cerberus for just that.

It might not be a realistic prospect, in light of both the Council and Alliance also having histories of selling allies/subordinates out for their own interest, but its not unreasonable.

[ExtremeOne]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

ExtremeOne, you clearly don't understand politics. You are what we call a warmonger. It's not kissing Batarian ass, it's avoiding a war that would be your fault. Humanity i.e. Shepard clearly was responsible and the ends justified the means. In the political world, this means nothing. If war before a reaper invasion can be avoided, then why not avoid it? So dumb...

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to desire an organization that won't turn on them for its own gain. Certainly a number of people have lambasted Cerberus for just that.

It might not be a realistic prospect, in light of both the Council and Alliance also having histories of selling allies/subordinates out for their own interest, but its not unreasonable.

   





Oh I have dealt with betrayl in real life so that is not a issue with me. My Issue is of the Mass Effect 2 stoyr being completely uesless as 2 nd game in this franchise . If Cerberus is evil then what was the whole point of Mass Effect 2 . If Mass Effect 3 is basically saying the events of 2 mean nothing . Now Cerberus is after Shepard. in 3 . That makes no sense from a story point of view .   

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
I totally understand politcis . I understand the alliance does not want a war with the batarains . But if you do not want  a war with them . Then why did they have a secret base inside batarian space with out informing them of the base . that right there if the batarains found out would be a act of war .  So in effect the alliance basically invaded batarin space .  I would not consider myself a war monger at all.  Making Shepard a fall guy for the allaince's crimnal actions is wrong . But I forgot the alliance can commit crimes and no one says anything . I will do what ever it takes to save humanity and Earth .  when humanity is threatened by a alien race rules go out the window . Because survival is the only goal . Cerberus was right instead of doing nothing action is always better 

Please provide the evidence that says the Alliance intended to make Shepard their scapegoat from the start.
It'd help it stop look like you're pulling all of these accusations out of your ass.

[Undertone]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

ExtremeOne, you clearly don't understand politics. You are what we call a warmonger. It's not kissing Batarian ass, it's avoiding a war that would be your fault. Humanity i.e. Shepard clearly was responsible and the ends justified the means. In the political world, this means nothing. If war before a reaper invasion can be avoided, then why not avoid it? So dumb...

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to desire an organization that won't turn on them for its own gain. Certainly a number of people have lambasted Cerberus for just that.

It might not be a realistic prospect, in light of both the Council and Alliance also having histories of selling allies/subordinates out for their own interest, but its not unreasonable.

  



Oh I have dealt with betrayl in real life so that is not a issue with me. My Issue is of the Mass Effect 2 stoyr being completely uesless as 2 nd game in this franchise . If Cerberus is evil then what was the whole point of Mass Effect 2 . If Mass Effect 3 is basically saying the events of 2 mean nothing . Now Cerberus is after Shepard. in 3 . That makes no sense from a story point of view .   

Bahaha I'm been bashed by paragons for saying exactly the same in my thread. But all I get is how apparently I'm an idiot for giving the base to Cerberus.

Plus I find the funny irony that another Zulu is anti-Cerberus. Maybe the two Zulus will cancel each other by the wave principle

Modifié par Undertone, 05 mai 2011 - 12:33 .

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh I have dealt with betrayl in real life so that is not a issue with me. My Issue is of the Mass Effect 2 stoyr being completely uesless as 2 nd game in this franchise . If Cerberus is evil then what was the whole point of Mass Effect 2 . If Mass Effect 3 is basically saying the events of 2 mean nothing . Now Cerberus is after Shepard. in 3 . That makes no sense from a story point of view .   

No, it doesn't make sense, because we don't know all of it yet. How about we find out the reason they're after Shepard, then start throwing rocks? Some would look less stupid that way. 

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 05 mai 2011 - 12:34 .

[Seboist]

Undertone wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

ExtremeOne, you clearly don't understand politics. You are what we call a warmonger. It's not kissing Batarian ass, it's avoiding a war that would be your fault. Humanity i.e. Shepard clearly was responsible and the ends justified the means. In the political world, this means nothing. If war before a reaper invasion can be avoided, then why not avoid it? So dumb...

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to desire an organization that won't turn on them for its own gain. Certainly a number of people have lambasted Cerberus for just that.

It might not be a realistic prospect, in light of both the Council and Alliance also having histories of selling allies/subordinates out for their own interest, but its not unreasonable.

  



Oh I have dealt with betrayl in real life so that is not a issue with me. My Issue is of the Mass Effect 2 stoyr being completely uesless as 2 nd game in this franchise . If Cerberus is evil then what was the whole point of Mass Effect 2 . If Mass Effect 3 is basically saying the events of 2 mean nothing . Now Cerberus is after Shepard. in 3 . That makes no sense from a story point of view .   

Bahaha I'm been bashed by paragons for saying exactly the same in my thread. But all I get is how apparently I'm an idiot for giving the base to Cerberus.

Plus I find the funny irony that another Zulu is anti-Cerberus. Maybe the two Zulus will cancel each other by the wave principle

The whole CB base decision seems to have degenerated into some petty choice of whether to screw TIM over or not.

Based on what we know so far, it seems the only thing the CB decision will affect is if Cerberus will be firing at Shepard with Collector weapons or not.

[008Zulu]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I am not buying the excuse of oh they were in a certain part of the galaxy so the alliance not helping is ok . The alliance turned its back on Shepard in Mass Effect 2 and thats the cold hard truth . Now they come calling on Shepard as if nothing happens and want him to take care of arrival which is basically a set up to put him on trail 
Cerberus saved humanity in 2 and brought Shepard back . So now they are evil is bull sh*t . 

The numbnuts who decided to live out in the Terminus cut all ties with the Alliance and earth, and espressed that they want nothing more to do with them. Alliance officially turned their backs because Shepard was temporarily affiliated with a terrorist organisation. Investigating the events in Arrival was an unofficial favour. Cerberus caused more human deaths in ME2 than they saved. Cerberus is and always will be evil.

[Someone With Mass]

008Zulu wrote...
The numbnuts who decided to live out in the Terminus cut all ties with the Alliance and earth, and espressed that they want nothing more to do with them. Alliance officially turned their backs because Shepard was temporarily affiliated with a terrorist organisation. Investigating the events in Arrival was an unofficial favour. Cerberus caused more human deaths in ME2 than they saved. Cerberus is and always will be evil.

I'd call them more stupid, but evil works too.

Seriously, judging by some of their employees, (particularly the ones in the novels) they must be getting their personel from some backwater Terra Firma concentration camp. 

[Reapinger]

Someone With Mass wrote...

008Zulu wrote...
The numbnuts who decided to live out in the Terminus cut all ties with the Alliance and earth, and espressed that they want nothing more to do with them. Alliance officially turned their backs because Shepard was temporarily affiliated with a terrorist organisation. Investigating the events in Arrival was an unofficial favour. Cerberus caused more human deaths in ME2 than they saved. Cerberus is and always will be evil.

I'd call them more stupid, but evil works too.

Seriously, judging by some of their employees, (particularly the ones in the novels) they must be getting their personel from some backwater Terra Firma concentration camp. 

+1

[008Zulu]

pointtech86 wrote...

Because even a wasteful government wouldn't pay people to buy pets and ship models?  Cerberus provided everything that the Alliance and the Council gave you in ME1 plus the extra equipment if you bothered to pay for the DLC.  

You were never given upgrades in ME1, you still had to buy them, or waste time flying to a planet you could land on, drive the Mako for 10 minutes trying to find some shipwreck, and then play a minigame just to find out you have no room in your inventory for it.  Considering the fact that the money spent on giving Shepard all this stuff was from donations and profits made from front companies, rather than unknowing taxpayers, I'm more inclined to feel grateful to Cerberus.

So then why ask Shepard to place a memorial statue of the Normandy where it crashed?  Why not put it there as soon as possible?  They knew where the system was, why didn't they go find the dog tags to the lost members of the Normandy?  Instead the second they get reports that Shepard is alive, they scramble their PR agents to head off a potential situation before it becomes an issue.

Is that how the military works 008Zulu?  Your commanding officer just trusts that the only person involved in this secret mission is truthful?  The same people that have been badmouthing you for two years calling you crazy and deranged for believing in the Reapers?  Why wouldn't the doctor tell Hackett what's going on?  It's all about image, and the Alliance has forsaken their duty to protect humanity, just so they can look good to the other council species.

Obviously you never got mod drops off the enemy? You should probably let Bioware know of this glaring bug.

They asked Shepard to do it so he could have a sense of closure. He was the commander of the ship and her crew. I get that pro-Cerbs don't have a lot in the way of positive emotions, so I won't blame you if you can't understand it.

Hackett never once bad mouthed Shepard, neither did Anderson. Udina has never particularly liked you, he was never shy about expressing that sentiment, but since he is a politician and not part of the Alliance armed forces, to hell with him. The Doctor didn't say anything because she was coming under the effects of indoctrination, it was playing with her mind and sense of reality. That part of Arrival was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face.

If its all about image, why is it, do you suppose that Cerberus never issued any sort of press release stating all the facts about Collectors working for the Reapers and them being responsible for the disappearing colonies in the Terminus to the general public? Also, if Cerberus were so concerned about saving the lives of the people in the Terminus, why wern't they the ones sending out good will teams with defensive weapons in order to protect them?

You might think the Alliance did nothing, but once you sit down and process the facts, Cerberus has done even less.

Modifié par 008Zulu, 05 mai 2011 - 01:13 .

[pointtech86]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
I totally understand politcis . I understand the alliance does not want a war with the batarains . But if you do not want  a war with them . Then why did they have a secret base inside batarian space with out informing them of the base . that right there if the batarains found out would be a act of war .  So in effect the alliance basically invaded batarin space .  I would not consider myself a war monger at all.  Making Shepard a fall guy for the allaince's crimnal actions is wrong . But I forgot the alliance can commit crimes and no one says anything . I will do what ever it takes to save humanity and Earth .  when humanity is threatened by a alien race rules go out the window . Because survival is the only goal . Cerberus was right instead of doing nothing action is always better 

Please provide the evidence that says the Alliance intended to make Shepard their scapegoat from the start.
It'd help it stop look like you're pulling all of these accusations out of your ass.

Why don't you explain to us why an Alliance Admiral would go to Shepard, a known agent of Cerberus at that point (remember this mission happens right after Horizon when the VS finds out you work for them), and ask to help out a top-secret Alliance project out?  When secrecy would be the utmost concern.  They contact a Cerberus vessel, use the Cerberus channel linked up through Miranda and TIM's communications, to contact you about a 'secret' mission to break out an Alliance scientist?  Without any help whatsoever?

The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that Kenson told Hackett that the Reaper devise was a timeline for the Reapers getting there.  Hackett tells Kenson to on purposely get caught by the Batarians so that Hackett could make up a story to Shepard about this being a favor to Hackett to break her out, knowing full well what Shepard would do once he found out what was going on.  Thus allowing the Alliance to bear no responsibility for the death of 300000 Batarians plus a busted mass relay.  Hackett didn't want the report because it would have proven the involvement of the Alliance during the trial.

One last question.  If the Alliance had no idea that they were going to destroy the mass relay, and it's granted that this was just a recon mission, then how did a small science team get the money to buy up all the thrusters needed to push a small planet into the mass relay?

[didymos1120]

pointtech86 wrote...

*snip bunch of stuff*

That's nice.  Now how about providing some concrete evidence?  All of that is simply speculation and it doesn't matter how plausible it may or may not be.

[pointtech86]

008Zulu wrote...

The Doctor didn't say anything because she was coming under the effects of indoctrination, it was playing with her mind and sense of reality. That part of Arrival was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face.

Really?  Then why is it that she had no problem telling Shepard that they planned to destroy the mass relay until the Reaper devise showed Shepard the vision?  Why is it that they were simply a button push away, and the head scientist decides to go on a stroll and conveniently gets captured at that point?

[Someone With Mass]

TS; DR.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 05 mai 2011 - 01:17 .

[pointtech86]

didymos1120 wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

*snip bunch of stuff*

That's nice.  Now how about providing some concrete evidence?  All of that is simply speculation and it doesn't matter how plausible it may or may not be.

You have no evidence that this was just a favor to Admiral Hackett.  You would take his word for it simply because he's Admiral Hackett.  My questions are valid, after all, 'the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence'.

[didymos1120]

pointtech86 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

*snip bunch of stuff*

That's nice.  Now how about providing some concrete evidence?  All of that is simply speculation and it doesn't matter how plausible it may or may not be.

You have no evidence that this was just a favor to Admiral Hackett.  You would take his word for it simply because he's Admiral Hackett.  My questions are valid, after all, 'the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence'.

Yeah I do: that's what the game says.  It's up to you to show that we can't take that at face value.  The mere fact that you can ask questions is meaningless.  Show that the answers you think are the right ones are in fact the right ones. 

[lolwut666]

@pointtech86

That's a poor argument.

Then you have to take the Illusive Man's word that he didn't know about what was really happening at the Pragia facility and the Project Overlord.

And that he didn't just bring you back to life to acquire Reaper technology for him.

And you'll have to take my word that I've been to the moon, because you can't prove otherwise.

At least what we're saying has a little evidence to support it, unlike your empty claims.

Modifié par lolwut666, 05 mai 2011 - 01:33 .

[pointtech86]

didymos1120 wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

pointtech86 wrote...

*snip bunch of stuff*

That's nice.  Now how about providing some concrete evidence?  All of that is simply speculation and it doesn't matter how plausible it may or may not be.

You have no evidence that this was just a favor to Admiral Hackett.  You would take his word for it simply because he's Admiral Hackett.  My questions are valid, after all, 'the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence'.

Yeah I do: that's what the game says.  It's up to you to show that we can't take that at face value.  The mere fact that you can ask questions is meaningless.  Show that the answers you think are the right ones are in fact the right ones. 

The game says that Hackett doesn't want it known that it is an Alliance mission.

"If asked about the batarian response, which Shepard will say the batarians won’t take kindly to the Alliance breaking into a secret prison. Hackett will counter by saying that it is not an Alliance operation, it is one person going in to rescue a friend because if it was an official mission then they would be upset. As long Shepard keeps it quiet, then there is nothing to worry about."

Hackett even tells Shepard that Kenson told him about the "imminent Reaper invasion".

"Hackett starts by saying that the Alliance has a deep cover operative in batarian space, Dr. Amanda Kenson, who found evidence of an imminent Reaper invasion."

"You can press Hackett about the Reapers, and the official Alliance position is that they don’t exist. Shepard will say that she must have found some proof she found. Hackett replies that she and her team found an artifact that is a possible Reaper device, and that it is proof that the Reapers are planning to invade. Hackett will conclude by saying that he’s known her for a long time and if she says she has proof, then she has proof."

Oh, but Hackett just wants you to rescue Kenson and go home right?  Kenson told Hackett about the invasion but forgot to talk to him about what they should do about it.

After the mission is done, Hackett immediately tells you that you must bear the full brunt of blame for the destruction of the Batarian system.

"Shepard asks for some advice, and Hackett says that while the evidence against Shepard is shoddy at best, Shepard will eventually have to go to Earth and face the music. Hackett says that he can’t stop it, but he can make them fight for it."

Source:  http://masseffect.wi...val_(assignment)

Happy?

[pointtech86]

lolwut666 wrote...

@pointtech86

That's a poor argument.

Then you have to take the Illusive Man's word that he didn't know about what was really happening at the Pragia facility and the Project Overlord.

And that he didn't just bring you back to life to acquire Reaper technology for him.

And you'll have to take my word that I've been to the moon, because you can't prove otherwise.

At least what we're saying has a little evidence to support it, unlike your empty claims.

Are you claiming that Hackett had no idea what Kenson was doing out there?  Because that is obviously false according to his own statements in my last post.

[lolwut666]

@pointtech86

He doesn't want it know it was an Alliance mission because it was a deep cover assignment. That's obvious.

Kenson's team was also deep cover, which is why Hackett sent Shepard. If he sent an Alliance team to rescue Kenson, it would undermine her operation in batarian space.

And Hackett told you that Kenson found EVIDENCE about a Reaper invasion. The evidence were the visions Kenson had when she found Object Rho. And then he told you that she was brought in by the batarians on terrorism charges.

It was not definite weather the Reapers were invading, or what exactly were those terrorism charges.

You can claim that Hackett was just withholding information, but that has no basis on evidence and is nothing but wild-guessing on your part.

You want to distrust everyone, that's your business. It doesn't make you right.

Modifié par lolwut666, 05 mai 2011 - 01:57 .

[Undertone]

It's funny how everything Cerberus/TIM does or says are taken at double value or that there's some ulterior motive but when it comes to Hackett everyone is taking him up face value. Oh but he can't be possibly a bad guy or have some agenda of his own! /sarcasm

As if in ME1 he doesn't uses Shepard to do his/the Alliance dirty work on a number of occasions and even tricks Shepard to the reasons why it must be done either by wrong intel or wrong objectives.

You want to trust everyone (except Cerberus) that makes you a tool. And nope doesn't make you right either.

Modifié par Undertone, 05 mai 2011 - 02:03 .

[pointtech86]

lolwut666 wrote...

@pointtech86

He doesn't want it know it was an Alliance mission because it was a deep cover assignment. That's obvious.

Kenson's team was also deep cover, which is why Hackett sent Shepard. If he sent an Alliance team to rescue Kenson, it would undermine her operation in batarian space.

And Hackett told you that Kenson found EVIDENCE about a Reaper invasion. The evidence were the visions Kenson had when she found Object Rho. And then he told you that she was brought in by the batarians on terrorism charges.

It was not definite weather the Reapers were invading, or what exactly were those terrorism charges.

You can claim that Hackett was just withholding information, but that has no basis on evidence and is nothing but wild-guessing on your part.

You want to distrust everyone, that's your business. It doesn't make you right.

The Batarians knew it was Alliance anyway!

"“Security log: Our comm buoy intercepts paid off. We picked up a message to the Alliance coming from somewhere in the asteroid belt. We listened to the feed until we discovered an operation run by a human named Kenson -- smuggling engine parts and guidance systems into the system from Omega.""

LOL.  Hackett didn't say evidence, he said "proof".  Read that quote again.  Hackett says "Hackett will conclude by saying that he’s known her for a long time and if she says she has proof, then she has proof."  Hackett obviously believed the invasion was 'definite' if he's saying that he thinks she has 'proof' of it.