1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

008Zulu wrote...
It'd be an ironic twist if saving them was the reason for their demise.

Heh, now that I'd totally get behind on. I think the universe needs more ironic twists. I guess the danger would be too many 'ironic twists.'

008Zulu wrote...
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.

While it's true that a Dreadnought could put more firepower behind a Thanix shot, current technology (aka; as of the events of ME2) puts a Thanix as an impossibility for a Dreadnought main cannon. At least, that's what the in-game Codex tells us. Particle weapons in the ME universe does seem to be a problem (primarily through miniaturization though I believe, on this I'm actually a bit hazy upon) to manufacture if what I recall about the Collector Beam Rifle is right (i.e., power systems and making sure that the firing mechanisms don't melt under the strain).

While EDI did run through the Collector's databanks (presumably at some time), I think it's 'safer' from a hindsight sort of viewpoint to keep it around if only for the manufacturing processes as well (presumably at some point the Reapers will hit our actual ability to manufacture war material, especially if the war drags on). Also, EDI didn't pop up and tell you that she discovered the Human-Reaper until you actually did, so for all I know there could be limitations to her data-mining (disregarding of course the usage of the surprise as a thematic element). I like cold hard evidence mainly. If you blast it to smithereens it's impossible to verify data too of course.

008Zulu wrote...
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.

Funny story actually; I think the Reapers want Shephard primarily as some sort of 'central mind' to which the Reaper can control it's 'essence.' If that makes any sense. For all intents and purposes, Shephard becomes the new Reaper, although Shephard is obviously a different 'person' with different thoughts (aka; a Reaper mind and view, but one based on our hero).

My theory as to why TIM wants Shephard is because he knows the Reapers want Shephard, and makes a bargain with the Reapers so to speak to say that they'll get our hero for them, in exchange for the Reapers to slow their 'consumption' of Earth and to keep the majority in orbit on our homeworld. TIM then subtly underminds his own teams by trading their information to Shephard. The reason why TIM's doing this? From Cerberus' point of view, it's to buy time for Shephard to enact his plans against the Reapers. Why do the Reapers agree? What keeps the Reapers 'honest'? Conservation of energy mainly. What makes TIM confident of his success? Because he knows that the Reapers, if they get what they want, will not honor their 'bargains' because why would they?

008Zulu wrote...
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.

I don't deny that Cerberus' actions have made them saints or well-to-dooers. I have issues against some (but certainly not all) and I think they should answer for their crimes (eventually at a more opportune time). But that's all they are -- crimes. Cerberus isn't the manifestation of the devil, nor are they representative of all that is 'evil' that exists within the ME universe. Your usage of 'evil' is what got me and what I objected too, because of it's implications.

Cerberus can be bastards... but they aren't evil bastards.

[Dean_the_Young]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Bad King wrote...

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.

But to be a VA, you need to have an insight into the character

To an extent. Thane and Tali being bisexual love interests never made it past recording.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

008Zulu wrote...
It'd be an ironic twist if saving them was the reason for their demise.

Heh, now that I'd totally get behind on. I think the universe needs more ironic twists. I guess the danger would be too many 'ironic twists.'

I'd certainly be pleased it it turned out that way, and we were given a second chance in ME2 by way of insisting on the more invasive tests. Sure the tests weren't pleasant. Neither is dental work, but the consequences of not doing unpleasant things can sometimes be much more unpleasant things.

I don't deny that Cerberus' actions have made them saints or well-to-dooers. I have issues against some (but certainly not all) and I think they should answer for their crimes (eventually at a more opportune time). But that's all they are -- crimes. Cerberus isn't the manifestation of the devil, nor are they representative of all that is 'evil' that exists within the ME universe. Your usage of 'evil' is what got me and what I objected too, because of it's implications.

Cerberus can be bastards... but they aren't evil bastards.

Hitler was a defender of animal rights. The suggestion that to be evil someone has to the devil or the representation of all that is evil is just a straw man. Russia under Stalin contributed significantly to the defeat of Germany, not to mention considerable contributions to art. Does the good done mean the evil is not there at all?

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Hitler was a defender of animal rights. The suggestion that to be evil someone has to the devil or the representation of all that is evil is just a straw man. Russia under Stalin contributed significantly to the defeat of Germany, not to mention considerable contributions to art. Does the good done mean the evil is not there at all?

I think that if you thought I really was comparing it to the devil incarnate or whatever, and wasn't actually using a metaphor, then I think you've missed the point entirely.

Other than that though; I don't feel the need to re-iterate my position for the billionth time.

Modifié par Arijharn, 13 mai 2011 - 02:55 .

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

Bad King wrote...

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.

But to be a VA, you need to have an insight into the character

To an extent. Thane and Tali being bisexual love interests never made it past recording.

Tali still talks about the intimacy of suit linking to femshep though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sure: but it's also an aspect of Quarian culture she's explaining to an outsider. It's the foot in the door for the male romance, but that doesn't mean it was made with romantic intent.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

I think that if you thought I really was comparing it to the devil incarnate or whatever, and wasn't actually using a metaphor, then I think you've missed the point entirely.

Other than that though; I don't feel the need to re-iterate my position for the billionth time.

Fair enough. Your other posts usually more reasonably worded. That particular post did come across more as a straw man than a metaphor though.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sure: but it's also an aspect of Quarian culture she's explaining to an outsider. It's the foot in the door for the male romance, but that doesn't mean it was made with romantic intent.

Indeed, she might even have just been shy and nervous about it and thus just babbling.

[Arijharn]

You know why I think calling Cerberus (or any organisation for that matter) evil is ridiculous though? Because I don't think there's such thing as moral absolutes. Maybe that's just me though.

As for Tali, well... she was babbling, but she is so obviously gunning for maleShep that it seems like anything you say could be construed as a 'foot in the door' (I may be exaggerating).

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

You know why I think calling Cerberus (or any organisation for that matter) evil is ridiculous though? Because I don't think there's such thing as moral absolutes. Maybe that's just me though.

Where each person draws the lines is subjective and at a societal level is an ongoing exercise in philosophy, but that doesn't mean good and evil don't exist, merely that reality is complex and often difficult to measure.

Two people watching a car go by having different opinions of its speed doesn't change the fact it has a fixed speed at any given point in time. Society as a whole has seen a lot of lives go by though, and from that cumulative experience, our ability to measure what is good and what is evil evolves. Again, though, just like those watching the cars go by, we are still always estimating. That doesn't invalidate the conclusions, merely requires us to remember not to rush to judgement.

Based on TIM's own words though, we do know that Cerberus is almost certainly just as evil as it appears based on what we saw in ME1.

[008Zulu]

Arijharn wrote...
While it's true that a Dreadnought could put more firepower behind a Thanix shot, current technology (aka; as of the events of ME2) puts a Thanix as an impossibility for a Dreadnought main cannon. At least, that's what the in-game Codex tells us. Particle weapons in the ME universe does seem to be a problem (primarily through miniaturization though I believe, on this I'm actually a bit hazy upon) to manufacture if what I recall about the Collector Beam Rifle is right (i.e., power systems and making sure that the firing mechanisms don't melt under the strain).

While EDI did run through the Collector's databanks (presumably at some time), I think it's 'safer' from a hindsight sort of viewpoint to keep it around if only for the manufacturing processes as well (presumably at some point the Reapers will hit our actual ability to manufacture war material, especially if the war drags on). Also, EDI didn't pop up and tell you that she discovered the Human-Reaper until you actually did, so for all I know there could be limitations to her data-mining (disregarding of course the usage of the surprise as a thematic element). I like cold hard evidence mainly. If you blast it to smithereens it's impossible to verify data too of course.

Making a power generator small enough was the limitation I read, but I read it once, and only on my first playthrough.

If the Dreadnaught had a dozen frigate sized Thanix firing as a  concentrated broadside, it might have the power to punch through a Reaper's shields.

Arijharn wrote...
Funny story actually; I think the Reapers want Shephard primarily as some sort of 'central mind' to which the Reaper can control it's 'essence.' If that makes any sense. For all intents and purposes, Shephard becomes the new Reaper, although Shephard is obviously a different 'person' with different thoughts (aka; a Reaper mind and view, but one based on our hero).

My theory as to why TIM wants Shephard is because he knows the Reapers want Shephard, and makes a bargain with the Reapers so to speak to say that they'll get our hero for them, in exchange for the Reapers to slow their 'consumption' of Earth and to keep the majority in orbit on our homeworld. TIM then subtly underminds his own teams by trading their information to Shephard. The reason why TIM's doing this? From Cerberus' point of view, it's to buy time for Shephard to enact his plans against the Reapers. Why do the Reapers agree? What keeps the Reapers 'honest'? Conservation of energy mainly. What makes TIM confident of his success? Because he knows that the Reapers, if they get what they want, will not honor their 'bargains' because why would they?

Perhaps if the game flags you as Cerberus, you automatically volunteer for the procedure and then you have to make a new character regardless. Running around as a Reaper would be fairly one sidded, and a short game.

TIM tricking the Reapers sounds feasable, but the paranoia in me says the Reapers would think he would do something like that unless they can indoctrinate him first.

Arijharn wrote...
I don't deny that Cerberus' actions have made them saints or well-to-dooers. I have issues against some (but certainly not all) and I think they should answer for their crimes (eventually at a more opportune time). But that's all they are -- crimes. Cerberus isn't the manifestation of the devil, nor are they representative of all that is 'evil' that exists within the ME universe. Your usage of 'evil' is what got me and what I objected too, because of it's implications.

Cerberus can be bastards... but they aren't evil bastards.

Kinda why I named the topic "Cerberus is more evil than people realise." and not "Cerberus is evil."

Modifié par 008Zulu, 14 mai 2011 - 12:24 .

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...


Where each person draws the lines is subjective and at a societal level is an ongoing exercise in philosophy, but that doesn't mean good and evil don't exist, merely that reality is complex and often difficult to measure.

Two people watching a car go by having different opinions of its speed doesn't change the fact it has a fixed speed at any given point in time. Society as a whole has seen a lot of lives go by though, and from that cumulative experience, our ability to measure what is good and what is evil evolves. Again, though, just like those watching the cars go by, we are still always estimating. That doesn't invalidate the conclusions, merely requires us to remember not to rush to judgement.

Based on TIM's own words though, we do know that Cerberus is almost certainly just as evil as it appears based on what we saw in ME1.

I think your speed analogy is erroneous to your example if only because It can be observed in 3 different states. Too Slow, Too fast and just right. However, speed is also sign posted, there is a commonly 'accepted' standard to which the law enforces you to travel. Morality isn't that simple example, as morality isn't enforced. The law is enforced, but law and morality aren't necessarily the same thing.

For good or for ill, Cerberus does what it does because they think the actions are needed (or will be), Cerberus may seek to further its own position (and I don't think that's bad in and of itself, if only because I think it's an incredibly 'organic' thing to do), but personally I don't think it does so for itself. Studies to create better and more powerful human biotics would benefit humankind overall far more than say Cerberus' coffers or position within the human military-industrial or even political standing. Why? because Cerberus could only be effected in indirect ways, i.e., a success (and Jack was a success btw, the goal of creating a more capable superbiotic was realised, although it wasn't a runaway success obviously) could guarantee that Cerberus' backers remain backers, and could possibly (although even this may not be a priority for the organisation) attract new backers.

I've seen you moi say in another thread that even if every organisation within ME's universe is evil, and Cerberus' also is evil then it doesn't diminish Cerberus' level of 'evil.' I beg to differ, if only because the lynchword that you cling too ('evil') becomes even more diminished. Cerberus does do criminal things and does need to be curtailed (but not stopped per say altogether imo, because to me at least Cerberus is an ideal as much as it is an organisation), and honestly every other organisation that behaves similarily, but that's it. You can be a criminal without being stylised as 'evil.'

For example; you say that the Genophage wasn't genocide, I and others disagree, seeing not just the Genophage but the harm it has caused the species in tandem with other factors. Morality here is indeed a subjective view. However, I wouldn't resort to calling the Genophage and the work done on it by it's STG (and the Council above them) as being 'evil' in an attempt to swaying the masses, because that's what you are trying to do whenever you label a choice as being either 'good' or 'evil,' it isn't for the act itself, it's to garner supporters to your cause.

[Arijharn]

008Zulu wrote...
Perhaps if the game flags you as Cerberus, you automatically volunteer for the procedure and then you have to make a new character regardless. Running around as a Reaper would be fairly one sidded, and a short game.

Lol... I would actually like to play as a Reaper one day, if only for the variance. Not as 'Shephard-Reaper' but just as a Reaper. 

008Zulu wrote...
TIM tricking the Reapers sounds feasable, but the paranoia in me says the Reapers would think he would do something like that unless they can indoctrinate him first.

Making TIM actually 'indoctrinated' makes him completely unsalvageable as a character imo. I'd be rather disappointed to see such an interesting character be 'liquidated' for such an 'unworthy' cause... hell, I would like TIM to survive the events of ME3 no matter what decision or what alignment Shephard is, if only because I think for all Shephard's strengths, he or she is not actually smarter than Jack Harper.

I don't think it's accurate to say that TIM nor the Reapers are truly tricking each other in my scenario... I think both sides are intelligent enough to realise something fishy is going on, but being in such a precarious position that neither wants to rock the boat so to speak. In the Reapers case; they see someone as doing their job for them and that they agree to it if only because the travel to Earth from dark space must have been at least somewhat taxing and they need to wait for their 'batteries' to recharge and for TIM's part he's okay with keeping the pretense up because it buys Shephard (and possibly himself) time to do their own thing to enact their own respective plans.
I think it works because:
a) TIM is indeed working with the Reapers
It makes his attempts on Shephard's life during ME3 plausible, while also maintaining his actions with Shephard during the entire events of ME2 (i.e., it's not some 'retcon').
c) It makes TIM a little bit more convoluted (I like this one ;D) but maintaining his cold ruthlessness.
d) It works no matter which moral alignment Shephard is.

[Zulmoka531]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sure: but it's also an aspect of Quarian culture she's explaining to an outsider. It's the foot in the door for the male romance, but that doesn't mean it was made with romantic intent.

I always saw FemShep and Tali in a more of a sisterly type pairing to be honest. But that's just me

[Seboist]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sure: but it's also an aspect of Quarian culture she's explaining to an outsider. It's the foot in the door for the male romance, but that doesn't mean it was made with romantic intent.

I always saw FemShep and Tali in a more of a sisterly type pairing to be honest. But that's just me

I wish there was a "friendship" equivalent of a romance path we could take in these games. I'd have femshep and Tali form a "sismance".

[Zulmoka531]

You and I both, Seboist. Nothing like trying to get to know Jack for instance, only to have her tell you to **** off when all conversation points reach their end.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

I think your speed analogy is erroneous to your example if only because It can be observed in 3 different states. Too Slow, Too fast and just right. However, speed is also sign posted, there is a commonly 'accepted' standard to which the law enforces you to travel. Morality isn't that simple example, as morality isn't enforced. The law is enforced, but law and morality aren't necessarily the same thing.

Au contraire, the very fact there is a posted and enforced speed limit is an enforcement of morality. The very existance of laws and the authority to enforce them is derived from the concept of morality, namely that people should drive responsibly and society has estimated that speed limit as one of the criteria of responsible driving. Education of the limit and enforcement thereof derive from the moral imperative to look after each other.

The observers by the roadside might be of limited use in judging the speed of the vehicles, but if there was something noteworthy regarding the speed such as a resulting accident, their observations may take on additional relevance. Just as with more complex moral issues, too slow, too fast and just right depend on weather conditions, road conditions, and traffic conditions, all variables which could influence the observers' judgement.

None of this has any bearing on the reality that there was some speed at which the driver(s) at fault could have retained control and averted the accident. The inability of the observers to measure that by simple unaided observation doesn't change that fact.

Nor is speed the only variable that could have averted the accident. Better control, a different route, different car, many different ways the outcome could have turned out better, but speed just happened to be the easiest to control in this particular example.

Managing an entire race is indeed obviously more complex than driving a car, but the same principles apply. Some routes or speeds have proven over time more productive than others. Our limited ability to assess situations doesn't change the fact that some paths are better than others. Over time, we are constantly refining our understanding of what constitutes the best path.

For good or for ill, Cerberus does what it does because they think the actions are needed (or will be), Cerberus may seek to further its own position (and I don't think that's bad in and of itself, if only because I think it's an incredibly 'organic' thing to do), but personally I don't think it does so for itself. Studies to create better and more powerful human biotics would benefit humankind overall far more than say Cerberus' coffers or position within the human military-industrial or even political standing. Why? because Cerberus could only be effected in indirect ways, i.e., a success (and Jack was a success btw, the goal of creating a more capable superbiotic was realised, although it wasn't a runaway success obviously) could guarantee that Cerberus' backers remain backers, and could possibly (although even this may not be a priority for the organisation) attract new backers.

I've seen you moi say in another thread that even if every organisation within ME's universe is evil, and Cerberus' also is evil then it doesn't diminish Cerberus' level of 'evil.' I beg to differ, if only because the lynchword that you cling too ('evil') becomes even more diminished. Cerberus does do criminal things and does need to be curtailed (but not stopped per say altogether imo, because to me at least Cerberus is an ideal as much as it is an organisation), and honestly every other organisation that behaves similarily, but that's it. You can be a criminal without being stylised as 'evil.'

With due respect, but TIM doesn't just lament people considering them criminal. He also laments people considering them unethical and amoral and does not deny Cerberus being engaged in activities that would be seen as such. He laments the Alliance being bound by public opinion, being bound by laws. He doesn't believe in being questioned, but acts as if he has infinite wisdom, as if he is the absolute arbtier of morality.

Note that he was expressing those opinions before he even heard of Reapers. All he knew at the time was that there was a major battle at the Citadel with great losses and that there was more to it that the public were told, so it is really hard to argue any absolute need or great impending threat as justification.

For example; you say that the Genophage wasn't genocide, I and others disagree, seeing not just the Genophage but the harm it has caused the species in tandem with other factors. Morality here is indeed a subjective view. However, I wouldn't resort to calling the Genophage and the work done on it by it's STG (and the Council above them) as being 'evil' in an attempt to swaying the masses, because that's what you are trying to do whenever you label a choice as being either 'good' or 'evil,' it isn't for the act itself, it's to garner supporters to your cause.

The genophage isn't genocide any more than any other form of birth control. If you feel birth control is genocide, that is a debate for other boards. Regardless of whether it was genocide or not, there were and remain other immediate factors justfying it that are not there with respect to Cerberus' methods.

Just as 'safe speed' varies with road and weather conditions, morality is likewise situational. It is deemed ok to kill if you need to do so in defense of other lives, but not so if there is no such need. It is ok to speed in a designated vehicle if it is to save a patient's life, or suppress a fire. Researching virulant diseases that would otherwise be considered WMD's is deemed ok under controlled conditions to develop vaccines, but the controls have to be in place, and weaponizing them is considered immoral, and non-lethal chemical weapons such as tear gas are considered fair game.

For all the arms race of the cold war, it ended without a shot, on economics and culture.

[008Zulu]

Arijharn wrote...
Making TIM actually 'indoctrinated' makes him completely unsalvageable as a character imo. I'd be rather disappointed to see such an interesting character be 'liquidated' for such an 'unworthy' cause... hell, I would like TIM to survive the events of ME3 no matter what decision or what alignment Shephard is, if only because I think for all Shephard's strengths, he or she is not actually smarter than Jack Harper.

I don't think it's accurate to say that TIM nor the Reapers are truly tricking each other in my scenario... I think both sides are intelligent enough to realise something fishy is going on, but being in such a precarious position that neither wants to rock the boat so to speak. In the Reapers case; they see someone as doing their job for them and that they agree to it if only because the travel to Earth from dark space must have been at least somewhat taxing and they need to wait for their 'batteries' to recharge and for TIM's part he's okay with keeping the pretense up because it buys Shephard (and possibly himself) time to do their own thing to enact their own respective plans.
I think it works because:
a) TIM is indeed working with the Reapers
It makes his attempts on Shephard's life during ME3 plausible, while also maintaining his actions with Shephard during the entire events of ME2 (i.e., it's not some 'retcon').
c) It makes TIM a little bit more convoluted (I like this one ;D) but maintaining his cold ruthlessness.
d) It works no matter which moral alignment Shephard is.

Shepard is only as smart as Bioware needs him to be, which given some of the conversation options must indicate they don't think too highly of him.

Perhaps not trick, not in the literal sense, but more like two chess players. Move and counter move.

A thought just occured. TIM joins with the Reapers because they made him an offer, or he proposed it to them. Instead of building the Human Reaper around Shepard, they build it around TIM. If as a few suspect, a Reaper based of the species it was designed around is a storehouse for that species knowledge and collective intelligence, then it could be seen as TIM saving and preserving humanity. Atleast in some form.