1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Besides these being hypothetical buoys, if they don't use QE, then their signals can be intercepted.

Only if you're in a position to intercept them.

You can set up a system of tight-beam transmitters to avoid transmitting through changing areas. Infact, that sort of alorithm for re-routing across moving no-go routes is a basic component of the internet.

They just happen to have static camo for that specific point in space, Gracie? Good enough that it functions universally from all angles and has perfect light absorption (i.e. zero reflection) regardless of angle?

It doesn't need to function universally from all angles (especially if you take into account basic positioning theory), or have perfect light absorption: you're falling into letting the perfect get in the way of the good. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value or a role.

Static cameoflages would be designed to minimize the chances of detection by making it harder from relevant distances: not prevent it at all ranges, not make it invisbile up close. Reduction is their roll, and that's all they have to do to be effective. No one confuses giving soldiers cameoflaged uniforms with needing to hide them absolutely. In the context of space, positioning the satelites would also dictate what sort of needs they have:.

Even the existence of satelites in a known system is not in and of itself grounds for some abandoning of the region by the Normandy.

You completely evaded my point, which was that conventional FTL communications in ME seem to be real time as well, meaning everything is QE, including ,btw, the Normandy broadcasting to Shepard and Shepard broadcasting back during the Citadel battle. So they install a 'matched pair' into every suit they find, even the ones you find mid mission that don't inhibit real time com?

Realtime com by the buoy system is dependent on being around the buoy system. It's like cellphones: very easy and convenient when you are in an area with reception.


The FTL network isn't everywhere, however, and is much easier to track/detect. The QEM communiction suite provides a way around this, however, by both being applicable everywhere no matter the distance from the buoy network, and by avoiding the interceptable mediums. Its limit, however, is high cost and low bandwidth/versatility.

My point is that there is a tendancy on the part of some science fiction writers to try to explain the wierd science. They are better off just leaving it as unexplained wierd science, just saying 'They are using some communicaiton system unknown to us. We can't detect any signals, so there is no way to tell how or what to jam.'

It is the same thing as the force suddenly relating to mitochonria, it isn't science fiction, it is just science misinformation. They should leave such things to writers who do know the science behind their writing such as Asimov and know when to leave things unexplained.

Congratulations: mass effect has been doing
this introductory screen one in which the Mass Effect and Mass Relays
were introduced, and has caried it on through kinetic bariers, FTL, genetic 'essence of a species', Asari omni-mating ability, psychic powers, and FTL.

You're playing an entire series built upon a large number of impossible science fiction conceits. Complaining about any one in particular as proof of weakness is more than a little missing the forest for the shrubbery.

As for it being 'the lore ME goes by', ME also has real time communications everywhere anyway, and the issues with targetting tight beam point to point transmissions in real time are still issues.

Bold: By the lore it doesn't.
Itallic: Already addressed.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 mai 2011 - 12:00 .

[Arijharn]

008Zulu wrote...
The pretzel was Dean's idea. My point was that if Bioware decides that the colonists die then they will. You can't save someone if they are slated to die.

He was using it as an example of why your argument is frankly a stupid one to make. If that is your true position, then what's the point of doing well, anything? What's the point of having an ambulance, what's the point of having the police? All of this is an 'evolution' (or an exaggeration) of your position that there isn't much point of saving someone if they die a short time later.

MisterJB wrote...
Then explain to me why every major Renegade choice directly benefits Cerberus and every major Paragon choice benefits the Alliance.

They don't. You have made an assumption (that may or may not be correct), but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Does choosing Udina 'directly benefit' Cerberus? Or is that even a 'Renegade' choice? Does choosing to save the CB 'directly benefit' Cerberus? I know you're going to say that the last point does and that's precisely the point, you could be right, but until ME3 ships we have no way of knowing for sure.

Considering in ME1 you weren't even working for Cerberus, I don't see how you could make your conclusion theway you did. Did killing everyone on Feros somehow directly benefit Cerberus? If so, how so? Remember you made this claim you have to back it up.

The only decisions I can think of that directly benefit Cerberus in 2 is the decision at the end of Overlord and the side mission where you investigate the intel the deceased Operative gave the Eclipse torturer's, and whether you send that to the Alliance, Cerberus Command or keep for yourself, but that's hardly major neither is it the 'majority' either.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Only if you're in a position to intercept them.

You can set up a system of tight-beam transmitters to avoid transmitting through changing areas. Infact, that sort of alorithm for re-routing across moving no-go routes is a basic component of the internet.

The more buoys, the greater the chance any given one will be noticed conventionally.

It doesn't need to function universally from all angles (especially if you take into account basic positioning theory), or have perfect light absorption: you're falling into letting the perfect get in the way of the good. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value or a role.

Static cameoflages would be designed to minimize the chances of detection by making it harder from relevant distances: not prevent it at all ranges, not make it invisbile up close. Reduction is their roll, and that's all they have to do to be effective. No one confuses giving soldiers cameoflaged uniforms with needing to hide them absolutely. In the context of space, positioning the satelites would also dictate what sort of needs they have:.

They cannot know in advance what angle the spotter wil be at. This isn't a duckblind. They have to be able to hide against much more sophisticated spotting than a duck's brain.

Even the existence of satelites in a known system is not in and of itself grounds for some abandoning of the region by the Normandy.

Salvage is free money to any pirate or stray merchant. If we had cheap space travel now, every obsolete satellite currently in orbit would be recovered.

Realtime com by the buoy system is dependent on being around the buoy system. It's like cellphones: very easy and convenient when you are in an area with reception.

The FTL network isn't everywhere, however, and is much easier to track/detect. The QEM communiction suite provides a way around this, however, by both being applicable everywhere no matter the distance from the buoy network, and by avoiding the interceptable mediums. Its limit, however, is high cost and low bandwidth/versatility.

You are completely ignoring the fact that FTL in ME does not equal instantaneous travel, so the com buoys can't be simply 'FTL.' Communications are all in real time. This seems consistant in the books.

Congratulations: mass effect has been doing
this introductory screen one in which the Mass Effect and Mass Relays
were introduced, and has caried it on through kinetic bariers, FTL, genetic 'essence of a species', Asari omni-mating ability, psychic powers, and FTL.

You're playing an entire series built upon a large number of impossible science fiction conceits. Complaining about any one in particular as proof of weakness is more than a little missing the forest for the shrubbery.

 
Most are left unexplained. The mechanics of the Mass Effect itself (and related tech) is essentially unexplained, in that we don't know how the laws of physics are broken, only that there is a new magical element which allows this which for whatever reason is either non-existant on Earth or was otherwise undetectable until we found the cache on Mars, a planet that in RL we have yet to significantly explore. The tech based on that unexplained development for the most part holds together reasonably well. That includes FTL, btw. The theory behind mass effect FTL is similar to that behind Star Trek's warp drives, namely that if you can figure out how to change one of the natural parameters in the universe, you can trick the universe into allowing you to travel faster actually than you are subjectively, thereby getting around the natural barrier to velocity.

As for other elements you mention, 'psychic abilities' again are some new mutation that is developed previously non-existant in humans. As for existant in alien species, we haven't met any to compare with yet.

Asari mating isn't 'bad science' either. It just requires a very tight mutation rate, such that even though there is no actual gene mixing, they still end up with viable offspring most of the time. Depending on the full nature of the mindlink, it is even possible that they do gain by way of it shaping the mutation process somehow. At any rate, they don't need to reproduce outside their species, they just prefer to. In ME1, IIRC there was even a study mentioned in the codex saying it seemed to have no genetic benefits over reproducing within the species.

The genetic 'essence of the species' thing (assuming you mean the Reapers using slushies) is considered bad science by most here, and gets a lot of criticism.

Bold: By the lore it doesn't. Itallic: Already addressed.

By the lore (specificly the codex), Sovereign is a Geth ship, too. There are plenty of examples in game and in the books of communications all being real time with the exception of email/voicemail. How many FTL buoys are there anyway? Even the moon is a little more than 1 light-second away from the Earth. That means that for there to be no delays, they have to be no further than that distance from the sender to the relay. Even at that distance, one would expect a one second delay.

[008Zulu]

Arijharn wrote...

He was using it as an example of why your argument is frankly a stupid one to make. If that is your true position, then what's the point of doing well, anything? What's the point of having an ambulance, what's the point of having the police? All of this is an 'evolution' (or an exaggeration) of your position that there isn't much point of saving someone if they die a short time later.

if Bioware decides that the colonists die then they will. My statement had nothing to do with real life.

MisterJB wrote...
They don't. You have made an assumption (that may or may not be correct), but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Does choosing Udina 'directly benefit' Cerberus? Or is that even a 'Renegade' choice? Does choosing to save the CB 'directly benefit' Cerberus? I know you're going to say that the last point does and that's precisely the point, you could be right, but until ME3 ships we have no way of knowing for sure.

Considering in ME1 you weren't even working for Cerberus, I don't see how you could make your conclusion theway you did. Did killing everyone on Feros somehow directly benefit Cerberus? If so, how so? Remember you made this claim you have to back it up.

The only decisions I can think of that directly benefit Cerberus in 2 is the decision at the end of Overlord and the side mission where you investigate the intel the deceased Operative gave the Eclipse torturer's, and whether you send that to the Alliance, Cerberus Command or keep for yourself, but that's hardly major neither is it the 'majority' either.

I have already answered this in my previous post.

[CroGamer002]

Something funny guys.

Mass Effect Wiki wrote...

Many characters outside Cerberus say not to trust the Illusive Man; humorously, his voice actor Martin Sheen says in the Mass Effect 2 Documentary DVD that he would not trust the Illusive Man.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

The more buoys, the greater the chance any given one will be noticed conventionally.

And the fewer, the less. But even the notice of a buoy isn't necessarily a deal breaker of any sort: the Normandy would make a very, very poor stealth scout if it immediately fled any system in which there were buoys.

They cannot know in advance what angle the spotter wil be at. This isn't a duckblind. They have to be able to hide against much more sophisticated spotting than a duck's brain.

Actually, they can't largely do just that depending on range of the sensor. If you place a fake asteroid in the asteroid field, you can dictate from what direction the sensor will not be shielded by the asteroids. If you put it on the ground of a planet, the same. And if you put it out on the fringes of the system, 'out' from where most traffic would ever bother to loiter...

Salvage is free money to any pirate or stray merchant. If we had cheap space travel now, every obsolete satellite currently in orbit would be recovered.

Then either accept it, and the Reapers don't have much concern about cost, or make it not worth the while, which must exist in some form of the Mass Effect universe becuse satelites can be found. Whether you make it self-destructive, poisonous, or simply attack them if they get to close. In which case said stray merchant going missing or pirate being killed by unknown forces becomes just another blip of concern as to why the system should be examined for a Geth presence.

It doesn't even have to be the Collectors doing the screening-harassment prior to the Normandy showing up: we do know that the Collectors and Geth are linked.

You are completely ignoring the fact that FTL in ME does not equal instantaneous travel, so the com buoys can't be simply 'FTL.' Communications are all in real time. This seems consistant in the books.

FTL travel isn't instantaneous, but FTL communication is fast enough for real-time conversations.

Most are left unexplained. The mechanics of the Mass Effect itself (and related tech) is essentially unexplained, in that we don't know how the laws of physics are broken, only that there is a new magical element which allows this which for whatever reason is either non-existant on Earth or was otherwise undetectable until we found the cache on Mars, a planet that in RL we have yet to significantly explore. The tech based on that unexplained development for the most part holds together reasonably well. That includes FTL, btw. The theory behind mass effect FTL is similar to that behind Star Trek's warp drives, namely that if you can figure out how to change one of the natural parameters in the universe, you can trick the universe into allowing you to travel faster actually than you are subjectively, thereby getting around the natural barrier to velocity.

Most have the exact same sort pseudo-science nonsense.

As for other elements you mention, 'psychic abilities' again are some new mutation that is developed previously non-existant in humans. As for existant in alien species, we haven't met any to compare with yet.

They violate conservation of energy. You can't cling to scientific rationalism if you intend to avoid that.

Asari mating isn't 'bad science' either. It just requires a very tight mutation rate, such that even though there is no actual gene mixing, they still end up with viable offspring most of the time. Depending on the full nature of the mindlink, it is even possible that they do gain by way of it shaping the mutation process somehow. At any rate, they don't need to reproduce outside their species, they just prefer to. In ME1, IIRC there was even a study mentioned in the codex saying it seemed to have no genetic benefits over reproducing within the species.

And now you're mixing standards about the justification via in-game sources.

The genetic 'essence of the species' thing (assuming you mean the Reapers using slushies) is considered bad science by most here, and gets a lot of criticism.

Sure. It's also typical for the series, not an exception. It just annoys more people than other things.

By the lore (specificly the codex), Sovereign is a Geth ship, too. There are plenty of examples in game and in the books of communications all being real time with the exception of email/voicemail. How many FTL buoys are there anyway? Even the moon is a little more than 1 light-second away from the Earth. That means that for there to be no delays, they have to be no further than that distance from the sender to the relay. Even at that distance, one would expect a one second delay.

The lore does not specifically mean only the codex, though that is a part it. In the lore of the game, the galaxy thinks Sovereign is a geth ship because that's what the Council is telling them, hence why that is in the Codex, but that does not invalidate the codex on other aspects of the backstory (like the Turian Hegemony being a empire with dozens/hundreds of conquered minor races used as auxileraries).

There are enough FTL buoys to allow the extranet and real-time communication in their area of coverage to ships and stations equiped to interface with the network.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 mai 2011 - 04:58 .

[DarkDrewski316]

[quote]008Zulu wrote...

Alluded to when you meet Tali for the first time, that Cerberus tried to infiltrate and destroy a Quarian ship in the Flotilla.

Modifié par DarkDrewski316, 11 mai 2011 - 04:43 .

[DarkDrewski316]

The mission which is allude to by Tali is in fact the mission which
you are told about in the Mass effect book Ascension which involves the
quarian footilla hiding a human biotic child from cerberus who were
using her to further their reasearch and caused cerberus to
infiltrate the flotilla and attempt to take back the girl and destroy one
of the flotilla ships, the idenna

Modifié par DarkDrewski316, 11 mai 2011 - 04:44 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And the fewer, the less. But even the notice of a buoy isn't necessarily a deal breaker of any sort: the Normandy would make a very, very poor stealth scout if it immediately fled any system in which there were buoys.

Actually, they can't largely do just that depending on range of the sensor. If you place a fake asteroid in the asteroid field, you can dictate from what direction the sensor will not be shielded by the asteroids. If you put it on the ground of a planet, the same. And if you put it out on the fringes of the system, 'out' from where most traffic would ever bother to loiter...

If the sensor is shielded by asteroids, how would it be able to provide real time telemetry on a stealth vessel like the Normandy, which requires visual contact to detect? Similarly, if it is out on the fringes, it wouldn't have been near the planet and would have had its view 'screened' by other celestial objects, even if it was looking in the right direction.

The Normandy wouldn't have to run immediately. FTL isn't instant travel and the Collectors don't have instant reaction times or they would never miss in ground combat. They would just have to capture and/or eliminate the buoy.

Then either accept it, and the Reapers don't have much concern about cost, or make it not worth the while, which must exist in some form of the Mass Effect universe becuse satelites can be found. Whether you make it self-destructive, poisonous, or simply attack them if they get to close. In which case said stray merchant going missing or pirate being killed by unknown forces becomes just another blip of concern as to why the system should be examined for a Geth presence.

It doesn't even have to be the Collectors doing the screening-harassment prior to the Normandy showing up: we do know that the Collectors and Geth are linked.

Of couse satellites can be found in ME, but they stay up there for the same reason they do in RL. Besides the cost of retrieval, they have owners who still consider them useful who would consider it a hostile act of they were eliminated. I bet though that most remote colonies have no orbitals because they would be way too vulnerable on pirate raids. Note that if the buoys are too sensitive, i.e. too quick to self destruct, you again have the issue of losing telemetry prematurely.

FTL travel isn't instantaneous, but FTL communication is.

By definition, yes. It has to be faster than light to be instantaneous. My point is that the current system of 'talk to the buoy and the message gets passed along' doesn't explain instantaneous. QE tech being common place, the way the writers seem to be using it, would.

Most have the exact same sort pseudo-science nonsense.

My point is that it is consistant psuedo science based around finding a way around one natural law. That is not the same as saying that something works within existing natural laws that simply does not. QE tech does not work by having matching pairs where changing one end changes the other end identically. Instead, it works by communicating the state at one end and recreating it at the other. It is teleportation tech, not communication tech. You still need to send the 'transporter beam' of information as to what to assemble at the destination. The matched pair doesn't even work as a cypher, since the signal itself has to be carrying patterns that correspond somehow to regular communications, no different from any conventional encrypted transmission.

The way the writers seem to be using it, there is no need to send the information. In their version as you describe it, changing one end changes the other and therefore does send information.

They violate conservation of energy. You can't cling to scientific rationalism if you intend to avoid that.

They only violate conservation of energy if the mind is not tapping some sort of external energy source. Since the exact mechanics are not given, such a connection is possible and thus a violation isn't a given.

And now you're mixing standards about the justification via in-game sources.

Howso? In what way am I mixing standards? 

Sure. It's also typical for the series, not an exception. It just annoys more people than other things.

You have a habit of stating things without explaination. Please elabourate? To be fair, I usually make similarly strong statements. I do try to at least elabourate though.

The lore does not specifically mean only the codex, though that is a part it. In the lore of the game, the galaxy thinks Sovereign is a geth ship because that's what the Council is telling them, hence why that is in the Codex, but that does not invalidate the codex on other aspects of the backstory (like the Turian Hegemony being a empire with dozens/hundreds of conquered minor races used as auxileraries).

There are enough FTL buoys to allow the extranet and real-time communication in their area of coverage to ships and stations equiped to interface with the network.

Here's one for you to bring things back closer to the main topic. Since most (I contend all) ships have real time communications, how is it that a Turian (fake) distress call was unable to reach Turian command? The implication is that TIM had a vessel there in advance or has such control over the communications system that he could detect and decide to jam the signal nigh instantly.

That is a pretty scary level of control, don't you think?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 11 mai 2011 - 05:37 .

[James2912]

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

Modifié par James2912, 11 mai 2011 - 08:59 .

[Moiaussi]

James2912 wrote...

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

No, you summed up a convenient straw man arguement that is easy for you to refute and completely ignores actual evidence presented by posters who oppose Cerberus.

[Bad King]

Mesina2 wrote...

Something funny guys.

Mass Effect Wiki wrote...

Many characters outside Cerberus say not to trust the Illusive Man; humorously, his voice actor Martin Sheen says in the Mass Effect 2 Documentary DVD that he would not trust the Illusive Man.

Doesn't really mean anything though because I seriously doubt Martin Sheen has actually played the game. He just turns up to the studio, does a bunch of lines and takes his money.

Modifié par Bad King, 11 mai 2011 - 09:17 .

[Zulu_DFA]

James2912 wrote...

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

Saved for future QFTs.

[Jagri]

James2912 wrote...

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

Cerberus is good! Blah Blah! I myself am a renegade of intelligence who cannot be wrong and can make no mistakes. The world is clearly shades of grey and if you can see in black and white clearly you are stupid blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus= S A I N T S. How do they equal ****s well there good and everything good equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the arguement for Cerberus.

Hah can't even take myself seriously.

Modifié par Jagri, 11 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[008Zulu]

James2912 wrote...

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

I almost mistook you for ExtremeOne. Funny that isn't it?

[ExtremeOne]

008Zulu wrote...

James2912 wrote...

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

I almost mistook you for ExtremeOne. Funny that isn't it?

    


Oh I am here and the whole story of Cerberus being evil in 3 is stupid but hey at least My Shepard can use 3 to get revenge on the VS and Anderson by hoping I get to chose them both to die in 3 

[Seboist]

mrsph wrote...

TIM: I must fight the Reapers!

No, TIM, you are the Reaper.

I'm half expecting a cutscene where TIM is smoking,drinking and playing poker with Harbinger.

[Arijharn]

008Zulu wrote...

if Bioware decides that the colonists die then they will. My statement had nothing to do with real life.

Changing the goal posts once again are we? You were arguing with Dean about his pretzel statement which is what I was responding too. Is your argument then that you may as well not save anyone because everyone is going to die eventually anyway then? You know, we're mortal, we're going to die. Who freaking cares if it's going to be 5 minutes later.

Your position truly baffles me.

Presumably the following is the quote you're talking about as to your answer to someone who raised the same points as me.

008Zulu wrote...
(moving these two together since its the same point)

I think your missing the rather obvious one. The Council in ME1, if you let them die Cerberus gets its all human Council. The Cargo retreival mission, Aria gave me the co-ordinates to that world when I gave her the note from Garrus's recruitment mission and saved Patriarch, hardly an N7 mission. I figured it was her way of warning me not to screw with her. Destroying the Collector base has serious rammifications for Cerberus, TIM was banking on getting all that tech to help defray the costs of ressurecting Shepard and building the Normandy.

Cerberus may indeed benefit from an all human Council, but considering we know next to nothing about the consequences and the game plays out practically the same way anyway, it's kinda academic (i.e., you have no proof). The only immediate difference that is apparent is that you aren't offered your Spectre reinstatement.

And you said 'major' decision, so while sure the crates will actually 'directly benefit' Cerberus, it's hardly a major decision. 

Destroying the Collector Base has serious rammifications for everyone, not just Cerberus. Considering Cerberus didn't actually know what the Collector homeworld was any quicker than you did (hint; it was in the galactic core, and he discovered that at about the same time as you or whenever Miranda filled in her report post Collector Cruiser mission) it's a bit impossible for him to peer into his crystal ball and find out ahead of schedule. Yes, he wants that Collector Base, but that wasn't the principle reason why he resurrected you. Considering the cash bounties you got from giving him tech during the course of the game, well... I'm sure he's made a sizeable strides in recouping his outlays.

008Zulu wrote...
Since TIM wants to make his own Human Reaper, which would require millions of humans to be sacrificed, having trouble how understanding the benefit to a Paragon for handing the base over. Since the Paragon option is to rewrite the heretics, letting Cerberus keep David isn't in the Paragon's interest either.

Logical disconnect here tbh. Cerberus neither has the material assets nor the modus operandi to liquify all the people from Earth to make a Reaper, and while they have a mo to aid in the advancement of the human race, I think there's a bit of a difference between transhumanism and say melting everyone into a Reaper shell. Here's a key difference: transhumanists still are human, a human-Reaper isn't human at all.

That's also ignoring the fact that TIM would have a damn hard time I'd imagine trying to sell to his own organization to round up every man, woman and child on Earth (and the other colonies) to make a Reaper slushie.

Honestly though; I figured the line as to be more of a demonstration that Shephard thinks of TIM as being completely ruthless, not because (s)he thinks that TIM actually wants to make a Human-Reaper. Isn't it common sense considering Cerberus is an organization apparently of next to 150 people? What drugs are you on if you seriously think they'd want to try and use 150 people to abduct how many billions are left on Earth?

008Zulu wrote...
So if all the little things are inconsequental or easily interpreted to be benefiting both sides, I guess it all adds up to; Why does the game determine that because you are a Renegade you are for Cerberus? The last choice of the game would then determines who you are, giving the base is a big Renegade boost. 

Um, because the game is larger than just the one decision at the end of the game? Your own example above about the crates isn't a 'renegade' decision either, you either go down there and save as many crates as possible or not and you assist Cerberus either way.

Does defrenestrating someone out a window directly aid Cerberus?
Does threatening to defrenestrate someone out a window directly aid Cerberus?
How about those Feros colonies, to which you didn't reply.

008Zulu wrote..
Bioware like to keep things black and white. Black and white is simple, less choices & dialogue to write and code.

Yes and no. Conversational pathways are essentially binary decisions because those are easier to write, but the narrative doesn't add up to your stance, with the whole Quarian/Geth issues, the Council itself and it's responsibilities and the rights of its members and associates, the Genophage and even the Turian Hierarchy with the Volus all seem to bely your stance even if you do not agree with it.

Anyway, while I'll give the courtesy and read your responses (if any) to this message, I don't think I have the patience to argue with you anymore. Truth to be told, you actually manage to rub me the wrong way mainly with your whole 'chronological semantics' sort of thought process. While I can't rule out not responding in this thread again (if only because Dean may miss a reply or someone makes a point to which I want to refute) I think it's worn thin.

You see danger in the Collector Base, that's cool (I respect your decision even if I don't respect the way you came about that decision), but I find it highly unlikely that any military commander would share your response given how little we actually know about the Reapers.

Anyway, good luck.

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh I am here and the whole story of Cerberus being evil in 3 is stupid but hey at least My Shepard can use 3 to get revenge on the VS and Anderson by hoping I get to chose them both to die in 3 

Cerberus has always been evil. It's nothing new.

[lawp79]

ExtremeOne wrote...

008Zulu wrote...

James2912 wrote...

Cerberus is evil! blah blah! I myself am a paragon of virtue who smells my own farts and can do no evil. the world is clearly black and white and if you think you see a grey you are also evil blah blah. There I summed up the argument. Oh forgot to say Cerberus=N A Z I s. How do they equal ****s well there evil and everything evil equals ****s wah wah.
There I summed up the argument against Cerberus.

I almost mistook you for ExtremeOne. Funny that isn't it?

    


Oh I am here and the whole story of Cerberus being evil in 3 is stupid but hey at least My Shepard can use 3 to get revenge on the VS and Anderson by hoping I get to chose them both to die in 3 

I dont think mass effect 3 is ever going to be the game you want.

[008Zulu]

Arijharn wrote...
Changing the goal posts once again are we? You were arguing with Dean about his pretzel statement which is what I was responding too. Is your argument then that you may as well not save anyone because everyone is going to die eventually anyway then? You know, we're mortal, we're going to die. Who freaking cares if it's going to be 5 minutes later.

Your position truly baffles me.

Presumably the following is the quote you're talking about as to your answer to someone who raised the same points as me.

My original point was that if they are to die, then we can't stop it. Dean then countered with the pretzel analogy. I then restated my point, not in its original format because he already knew it. You came in half way.

Arijharn wrote...
Cerberus may indeed benefit from an all human Council, but considering we know next to nothing about the consequences and the game plays out practically the same way anyway, it's kinda academic (i.e., you have no proof). The only immediate difference that is apparent is that you aren't offered your Spectre reinstatement.

And you said 'major' decision, so while sure the crates will actually 'directly benefit' Cerberus, it's hardly a major decision. 

Destroying the Collector Base has serious rammifications for everyone, not just Cerberus. Considering Cerberus didn't actually know what the Collector homeworld was any quicker than you did (hint; it was in the galactic core, and he discovered that at about the same time as you or whenever Miranda filled in her report post Collector Cruiser mission) it's a bit impossible for him to peer into his crystal ball and find out ahead of schedule. Yes, he wants that Collector Base, but that wasn't the principle reason why he resurrected you. Considering the cash bounties you got from giving him tech during the course of the game, well... I'm sure he's made a sizeable strides in recouping his outlays.

He knew there was a base, he just didn't know where. Since the base has pretty much one use, only Cerberus (and perhaps the Reapers) stood to gain any benefit from it. We don't need to know how the Reapers began or who built them. Only what weapons are effective against them, and we already have those.

Arijharn wrote...
Logical disconnect here tbh. Cerberus neither has the material assets nor the modus operandi to liquify all the people from Earth to make a Reaper, and while they have a mo to aid in the advancement of the human race, I think there's a bit of a difference between transhumanism and say melting everyone into a Reaper shell. Here's a key difference: transhumanists still are human, a human-Reaper isn't human at all.

That's also ignoring the fact that TIM would have a damn hard time I'd imagine trying to sell to his own organization to round up every man, woman and child on Earth (and the other colonies) to make a Reaper slushie.

Honestly though; I figured the line as to be more of a demonstration that Shephard thinks of TIM as being completely ruthless, not because (s)he thinks that TIM actually wants to make a Human-Reaper. Isn't it common sense considering Cerberus is an organization apparently of next to 150 people? What drugs are you on if you seriously think they'd want to try and use 150 people to abduct how many billions are left on Earth?

TIM said his goal was to save humanity, not every single human. Its a pretty clear distinction between the two. The human race consists of billions, only millions are required.

Arijharn wrote...
Um, because the game is larger than just the one decision at the end of the game? Your own example above about the crates isn't a 'renegade' decision either, you either go down there and save as many crates as possible or not and you assist Cerberus either way.

Does defrenestrating someone out a window directly aid Cerberus?
Does threatening to defrenestrate someone out a window directly aid Cerberus?
How about those Feros colonies, to which you didn't reply.

Not to be a grammar ****, but you need to check your syntax on those questions.

Throwing someone out a window isn't one of the major choices. As for the Feros colony, without anyone there Cerberus is free to study the Geth ship and the remains of the Thorian.

Arijharn wrote...
Yes and no. Conversational pathways are essentially binary decisions because those are easier to write, but the narrative doesn't add up to your stance, with the whole Quarian/Geth issues, the Council itself and it's responsibilities and the rights of its members and associates, the Genophage and even the Turian Hierarchy with the Volus all seem to bely your stance even if you do not agree with it.

Anyway, while I'll give the courtesy and read your responses (if any) to this message, I don't think I have the patience to argue with you anymore. Truth to be told, you actually manage to rub me the wrong way mainly with your whole 'chronological semantics' sort of thought process. While I can't rule out not responding in this thread again (if only because Dean may miss a reply or someone makes a point to which I want to refute) I think it's worn thin.

You see danger in the Collector Base, that's cool (I respect your decision even if I don't respect the way you came about that decision), but I find it highly unlikely that any military commander would share your response given how little we actually know about the Reapers.

Anyway, good luck.

There are thousands of questions in the games, all of which have a yes or no. When you add them up they do become a complex narrative. But while theirs is a complex interaction, as shown by your examples, ours remains a yes/no.

"Chronological Semantics", I should explain this. It was not meant as a callous look in to human life. In real life there is no such thing as fate, we control our own destinies. But within the limiting scope of a game we have to understand that certain people are going to die. We might save them for a time, but if it is meant to be then it is meant to be.

The only thing we need to know about the Reapers is they want us dead, and have the means to do it. I plan to deny them the opportunity.

[Arijharn]

Rwar, damn your thought provoking replies!

008Zulu wrote...
My original point was that if they are to die, then we can't stop it. Dean then countered with the pretzel analogy. I then restated my point, not in its original format because he already knew it. You came in half way.

Yes, I know. But your argument seemed to sound as if to say: "It doesn't matter" and that's what I found baffling. Even if BioWare decides to completely wipe out Feros in ME3 I don't think that invalidates your decision in ME1, as you still had a 'meaningful outcome' from it.

008Zulu wrote...
He knew there was a base, he just didn't know where. Since the base has pretty much one use, only Cerberus (and perhaps the Reapers) stood to gain any benefit from it. We don't need to know how the Reapers began or who built them. Only what weapons are effective against them, and we already have those.

No he didn't, at least, not necessarily. He knew that there was a Collector homeworld but not what it was nor did he know at the time of where it is until you did. Frankly, when I found out I was hoping there would be some way to save it, because I think any potential intelligence that could come out of it would be useful.

While it's not directly the same thing, just imagine how differently WW2 could have turned out if the British didn't crack the Enigma machine. The same principle (aka; intelligence on the enemy) does however apply.

We also don't know for sure how effective the Thanix is against the Reapers given that there hasn't been an engagement where we've been able to use them. We have a lot of presuppositions however and that's good enough to form a basis of a plan I suppose, but it's hardly clear cut. We do know from EDI though (and our experiences from The Battle for the Citadel at the climax of ME1) that 'Reaper shields are impervious to Dreadnought firepower' which to me at least means that Reaper shields are also impervious to Frigate, Cruiser and Fighter firepower too based on the virtue that the sheer mass of a Dreadnought's firepower outweighs the others.

There is another issue too though; given the weight of numbers of the Reapers (to which Shephard doesn't know but we as an audience can gather) there is insufficient time to effectively construct more Thanix weapons and retrofit them onto the majority of the vessels if the Reapers do arrive in the space of a few months. I admit it, this part is close to metagaming, but we are led to believe that there are more than several considering their capability to wipe out entire species. Even if we aren't able to freely manufacture Particle Beam Rifles from the Collector Base or even the giant Particle weapon from the Cruiser (I mean, the Cruiser had to have been built somewhere right?), I think this just goes to show that intelligence on the Reaper capabilities are even more important, such as structural weaknesses etc. The dataslate that Joker hands Shephard at the end of ME2 may be good enough; but I think it's unbelievable that there couldn't be more information in that base (and yes, sure it's Cerberus' now, but it's better in those hands than no hands, considering it could make a difference).

I'll stop this part here I think, I don't want to turn this thread into yet another CB decision one if I can help it.

008Zulu wrote...
TIM said his goal was to save humanity, not every single human. Its a pretty clear distinction between the two. The human race consists of billions, only millions are required.

Yes, but making a Human-Reaper is contrary to this goal anyway, if for no other reason that it'd be impossible for TIM to exercise any control over it. The mass of sacrifice (i.e., millions) required is still going to be impossible for a group that only supposedly numbers about 150 and it still doesn't stand to reason how anybody else within his organisation would agree to the process. Sacrificing 100 or so people for transhumanistic studies sounds more to TIM's style than that amount you've earmarked.

But once again, there would be no way for TIM to control a Human-Reaper, and I don't think he see's it as aiding 'human advancement' anyway. Taking and studying Reaper derived AI's, or Weapons as being vastly more useful and even manufacturing processes can be 'mimicked' and not carbon copied and in fact has been done so already (presumably no humans were melted down to construct the Normandy's Thannix for example).

008Zulu wrote...
Not to be a grammar ****, but you need to check your syntax on those questions.

First; those defrenstrate usages appear to be correct (I literally just looked it up to make sure because I'm totally okay with being called out on being a hobo and learning from the experience etc), the Feros question which wasn't a question I accept full responsibility for stuffing up on though.

008Zulu wrote...
As for the Feros colony, without anyone there Cerberus is free to study the Geth ship and the remains of the Thorian.

Maybe, but to me that's close to fanfiction (not to mention the fact that you deciding to kill those colonists doesn't 'directly benefit' Cerberus if only because it wasn't a conscious decision. Cerberus could gain benefit true, but it isn't the same thing as handing something as massive as the CB directly to them). Do you want to know why? Because why does it have to be Cerberus? Why can't the STG be interested? Or the Asari or the Turian Cabal teams? You can't sit there and tell me it's only Cerberus who would be interested in mind control.

And before you tell me it'd only be Cerberus who'd be interested and that the Salarians couldn't possibly do something like that, I'd like to take some pains to remind you that they thought it was better to neuter an entire species not once but twice because they thought it'd be more effective.

As an aside (and yes, this is fanfiction), I think it's because of the STG and their Genophage (and the backing that it got; namely from the Council) that allowed the sentiment to exist in the first place that made something like Cerberus exist. 

008Zulu wrote...
There are thousands of questions in the games, all of which have a yes or no. When you add them up they do become a complex narrative. But while theirs is a complex interaction, as shown by your examples, ours remains a yes/no.

Right, but while it's a major decision, it's not the only major decision, and of the major decisions, its the only one that 'directly benefits' Cerberus. Your argument wasn't this at all, it was that all major renegade decisions directly effect Cerberus.

I guess then it might depend on what you'd consider to be a major decision. For me; a 'major decision' occurs as some sort of philosophical choice as evidenced by the end of a storyline mission or a loyalty mission.

008Zulu wrote...
"Chronological Semantics", I should explain this. It was not meant as a callous look in to human life. In real life there is no such thing as fate, we control our own destinies. But within the limiting scope of a game we have to understand that certain people are going to die. We might save them for a time, but if it is meant to be then it is meant to be.

Thanks for your clarification, it's much easier to get into your frame of mind now (ie., it baffles me less). However, even if BioWare does fate them to die in the future, I still personally don't see how it invalidates your previous actions if for no other reason that you don't have a crystal ball (at least, not on your first playthrough) and don't know how the land lies.

You make your decisions because presumably you think that they're the right decisions to make. Knowing that they die 5 minutes later because of another reason shouldn't mean that your previous 'right decision' somehow was incorrect and for reasons outside your control. That's my point. It shouldn't matter to your decision making whether saving that man from choking to death from a pretzel dies 5 minutes from dying of old age or even a miscellaneous Batarian slaver attack or any other reason -- you saved him from choking on a pretzel because you thought it the right thing to do.

008Zulu wrote...
The only thing we need to know about the Reapers is they want us dead, and have the means to do it. I plan to deny them the opportunity.

Right, but the only reason I saved the CB for arguments sake is because I could better plot my plan of attack, as it were to defeat the Reapers. It's less about whimsical guess work and more about cold hard pragmatism. I think strategy is needed, and I don't go for some nebulous hand waving which is my position. In short, denying the CB because of a factor just makes the immediate threat (aka; the Reapers) harder to manage and harder to prevail against.

That's not to say though that I don't see Cerberus as a problem that needs solving, just that a problem is of a much lower priority. I still don't see Cerberus as 'evil' though, because honestly I just think to label something 'evil' is nothing more than subscribing a useless buzzword to grandstand your position, it simultaneously casts them down while implying that you are some morale crusading white knight and thus a champion and custodian of 'good.' Thus, I find it utterly political and self-serving, and as about the antithesis to 'good' as can be (without being of course evil


EDIT: Formatting can be the bane of my existence.

Modifié par Arijharn, 13 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[008Zulu]

Arijharn wrote...
Yes, I know. But your argument seemed to sound as if to say: "It doesn't matter" and that's what I found baffling. Even if BioWare decides to completely wipe out Feros in ME3 I don't think that invalidates your decision in ME1, as you still had a 'meaningful outcome' from it.

It'd be an ironic twist if saving them was the reason for their demise.

Arijharn wrote...
No he didn't, at least, not necessarily. He knew that there was a Collector homeworld but not what it was nor did he know at the time of where it is until you did. Frankly, when I found out I was hoping there would be some way to save it, because I think any potential intelligence that could come out of it would be useful.

While it's not directly the same thing, just imagine how differently WW2 could have turned out if the British didn't crack the Enigma machine. The same principle (aka; intelligence on the enemy) does however apply.

We also don't know for sure how effective the Thanix is against the Reapers given that there hasn't been an engagement where we've been able to use them. We have a lot of presuppositions however and that's good enough to form a basis of a plan I suppose, but it's hardly clear cut. We do know from EDI though (and our experiences from The Battle for the Citadel at the climax of ME1) that 'Reaper shields are impervious to Dreadnought firepower' which to me at least means that Reaper shields are also impervious to Frigate, Cruiser and Fighter firepower too based on the virtue that the sheer mass of a Dreadnought's firepower outweighs the others.

There is another issue too though; given the weight of numbers of the Reapers (to which Shephard doesn't know but we as an audience can gather) there is insufficient time to effectively construct more Thanix weapons and retrofit them onto the majority of the vessels if the Reapers do arrive in the space of a few months. I admit it, this part is close to metagaming, but we are led to believe that there are more than several considering their capability to wipe out entire species. Even if we aren't able to freely manufacture Particle Beam Rifles from the Collector Base or even the giant Particle weapon from the Cruiser (I mean, the Cruiser had to have been built somewhere right?), I think this just goes to show that intelligence on the Reaper capabilities are even more important, such as structural weaknesses etc. The dataslate that Joker hands Shephard at the end of ME2 may be good enough; but I think it's unbelievable that there couldn't be more information in that base (and yes, sure it's Cerberus' now, but it's better in those hands than no hands, considering it could make a difference).

I'll stop this part here I think, I don't want to turn this thread into yet another CB decision one if I can help it.

I suspect a dreadnaught could put a lot more power behind a Thanix cannon shot than a frigate could. Building particle weapons hasn't been much of a concern, we have built them already. Powering them is the only thing preventing common usage. EDI did raid the Collector Base computers, so maybe even destroying it wouldnt mean the loss of intel.

Arijharn wrote...
Yes, but making a Human-Reaper is contrary to this goal anyway, if for no other reason that it'd be impossible for TIM to exercise any control over it. The mass of sacrifice (i.e., millions) required is still going to be impossible for a group that only supposedly numbers about 150 and it still doesn't stand to reason how anybody else within his organisation would agree to the process. Sacrificing 100 or so people for transhumanistic studies sounds more to TIM's style than that amount you've earmarked.

But once again, there would be no way for TIM to control a Human-Reaper, and I don't think he see's it as aiding 'human advancement' anyway. Taking and studying Reaper derived AI's, or Weapons as being vastly more useful and even manufacturing processes can be 'mimicked' and not carbon copied and in fact has been done so already (presumably no humans were melted down to construct the Normandy's Thannix for example).

One of the things that irked me about Mass Effects morality system was that Renegades couldn't be the ones to conquer the galaxy. I theorized elsewhere that TIM turned on Renegade Shepard because he wanted to use Shepard as the key component in his Human Reaper. Perhaps if Renegade Shepard were a willing participant it could solve the control issues.

Arijharn wrote...
First; those defrenstrate usages appear to be correct (I literally just looked it up to make sure because I'm totally okay with being called out on being a hobo and learning from the experience etc), the Feros question which wasn't a question I accept full responsibility for stuffing up on though.

Defenestrate means to throw someone out a window, so you actually said it twice. Correct usage tho.

Arijharn wrote...
Maybe, but to me that's close to fanfiction (not to mention the fact that you deciding to kill those colonists doesn't 'directly benefit' Cerberus if only because it wasn't a conscious decision. Cerberus could gain benefit true, but it isn't the same thing as handing something as massive as the CB directly to them). Do you want to know why? Because why does it have to be Cerberus? Why can't the STG be interested? Or the Asari or the Turian Cabal teams? You can't sit there and tell me it's only Cerberus who would be interested in mind control.

And before you tell me it'd only be Cerberus who'd be interested and that the Salarians couldn't possibly do something like that, I'd like to take some pains to remind you that they thought it was better to neuter an entire species not once but twice because they thought it'd be more effective.

As an aside (and yes, this is fanfiction), I think it's because of the STG and their Genophage (and the backing that it got; namely from the Council) that allowed the sentiment to exist in the first place that made something like Cerberus exist.

The Thorian is a rare, perhaps unique lifeform, its secrets could hold the answer to immunity from indoctrination. I wont deny everyone would want to get their hands on it.

Arijharn wrote...
Right, but while it's a major decision, it's not the only major decision, and of the major decisions, its the only one that 'directly benefits' Cerberus. Your argument wasn't this at all, it was that all major renegade decisions directly effect Cerberus.

I guess then it might depend on what you'd consider to be a major decision. For me; a 'major decision' occurs as some sort of philosophical choice as evidenced by the end of a storyline mission or a loyalty mission.

Mine was the literal.

Arijharn wrote...
Thanks for your clarification, it's much easier to get into your frame of mind now (ie., it baffles me less). However, even if BioWare does fate them to die in the future, I still personally don't see how it invalidates your previous actions if for no other reason that you don't have a crystal ball (at least, not on your first playthrough) and don't know how the land lies.

You make your decisions because presumably you think that they're the right decisions to make. Knowing that they die 5 minutes later because of another reason shouldn't mean that your previous 'right decision' somehow was incorrect and for reasons outside your control. That's my point. It shouldn't matter to your decision making whether saving that man from choking to death from a pretzel dies 5 minutes from dying of old age or even a miscellaneous Batarian slaver attack or any other reason -- you saved him from choking on a pretzel because you thought it the right thing to do.

(In the game) It wont alter my initial decision, it probably wont even affect future playthroughs based on the direction I wont to go. But it will always make me question whether or not I am wasting my time.

Arijharn wrote...
Right, but the only reason I saved the CB for arguments sake is because I could better plot my plan of attack, as it were to defeat the Reapers. It's less about whimsical guess work and more about cold hard pragmatism. I think strategy is needed, and I don't go for some nebulous hand waving which is my position. In short, denying the CB because of a factor just makes the immediate threat (aka; the Reapers) harder to manage and harder to prevail against.

That's not to say though that I don't see Cerberus as a problem that needs solving, just that a problem is of a much lower priority. I still don't see Cerberus as 'evil' though, because honestly I just think to label something 'evil' is nothing more than subscribing a useless buzzword to grandstand your position, it simultaneously casts them down while implying that you are some morale crusading white knight and thus a champion and custodian of 'good.' Thus, I find it utterly political and self-serving, and as about the antithesis to 'good' as can be (without being of course evil

I have never particularly subscribed to Buzz Words either, its your actions that define who you are. Cerberus has been defined by its less than savory actions.

Modifié par 008Zulu, 13 mai 2011 - 04:18 .