411 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

Sauronych wrote...

I'm just gonna wait for an in-game explanation. Surely it can't be more nonsensical than the human reaper.

We can but hope.

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

So... it's fine if it contradicts everything established in the previous other two games and the novels, including the comic book... because they've attacked Shepard?

Indoctrination tends to do that.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Indoctrination tends to do that.

And it also happens to be a ****** poor explanation without players being able to forsee it, you know... the types of things writers try to avoid.

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

And it also happens to be a ****** poor explanation without players being able to forsee it, you know... the types of things writers try to avoid.

Because it's so wrong of the Reapers to use the weapon that worked for them for millions of years and in countless cycles before, right?

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Because it's so wrong of the Reapers to use the weapon that worked for them for millions of years and in countless cycles before, right?

You don't have to make the organization you're possibly working for become indocrinated to demonstrate the Reapers have indocrination at their disposal? Because they can show human soldiers from the Alliance get indocrinated, Citadel soldiers get indocrinated and still have it's impact without having a poor reasoning to turn your potential ally against you and completely negate a morality choice with unforseen consequences and go "Lol you're an idiot"?

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You don't have to make the organization you're possibly working for become indocrinated to demonstrate the Reapers have indocrination at their disposal? Because they can show human soldiers from the Alliance get indocrinated, Citadel soldiers get indocrinated and still have it's impact without having a poor reasoning to turn your potential ally against you and completely negate a morality choice with unforseen consequences and go "Lol you're an idiot"?

I hope you realize that the Reapers aren't indoctrinating people just because it's fun.

[Dave of Canada]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Why Cerberus? Why not the Alliance, or the Council, or the Sirta Foundation?

Because people want to kill Cerberus, might as well get rid of them.

[Massadonious1]

If you did enough side missions in ME1, you could see the logical progression. It was ME2 that muddied the waters.

I would of gladly accepted a scenario where I could of just accepted their intel without being a full fledged lackey. Or, at least I could of had the option to decline their sales pitch.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 13 juillet 2011 - 09:49 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Maybe it gets a little stale, Someone With Mass, and also robs its victims of any real depth.

With indoctrination you can make anyone an enemy regardless of their motives, goals, and beliefs.

Why Cerberus? Why not the Alliance, or the Council, or the Sirta Foundation?

Indoctrination was, frankly, overdone when it was invoked on the Reaper derelict. It was especially overdone in Arrival. It is VERY overdone now.

Because the Alliance isn't as small and versatile as Cerberus, the Council is at the heart of the Citadel, so there's no point in trying to indoctrinate them when they can just take over the Citadel directly instead and I can't see what use they could have of the Sirta Foundation.

[Phaedon]

Hydrosphere wrote...
Actually not all test subject die. The survivors are given some drug that gives them amnesia or erases their memories and then sent to the Alliance. The sciencist are then forcefully retired for effing up so badly. 

First off, define forcefully retired.

Other than that, thanks for the correction, but it doesn't change the outcome.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Why Cerberus? Why not the Alliance, or the Council, or the Sirta Foundation?

First off, Sirta Foundation is not a very formidable opponent. Why would the Reapers indoctrinate them.

You can't indoctrinate the Alliance as a whole. They are a federation, or that federation's government. Activision tried to do something similar in MW3, where the Russian president is being "threatened" by terrorists and his own people. Do I need to say that it makes no damn sense?

Why Cerberus? It may have something to do with them being the only reason to be created in the first place. To become the allies in ME2, and the antagonists in ME3.

Modifié par Phaedon, 13 juillet 2011 - 09:52 .

[Phaedon]

hhh89 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Oh, and something some people seem to be forgetting.

The Alliance, and possibly the Council as well, are democratically elected governments, not mere organizations.

EDIT: Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow. I can compile a list of Cerberus' crimes and failures, if you wish.

Being an organization doesn't mean they they are evil though.

Doing immoral acts does mean that they are evil, normative ethics-wise.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Haven't you heard? If somebody is immoral, it means they are evil and should die!

It does, if the morals we are talking about  are normative ethics. They are evil, by the definition of the term.

Besides, I once thought that TIM was  a utilitarianist. I was an idiot.

TIM doesn't care for the greater good, he cares for the good of humanity, and humanity alone, and a specific portion of humanity at that.

TIM is as machiavellanist as he can get.

[alperez]

Dave of Canada wrote...

So... it's been in the cards that Cerberus is working with the Reapers by actively working against the Reapers, the entire reason for Cerberus to exist is to combat the Reapers and that they've brought Shepard back to fight the Reapers?

Well yes.

We still don't know Cerberus's motivations for doing anything other than TIM's explantion which considering the source could be BS.

If Tim had other reasons to do what he did, would he A.Tell Shepard those reasons or B. Tell Shepard exactly what he needs in order for Shepard to do what he may want.

Plus since we still only have some info regarding indoctrination and how it works, there is also the possibility that TIM's actions where as were Sarens the last actions of someone being indoctrinated.

From the very first mentions of cerberus in me1 they were portrayed as an ends justify the means organisation, they did things with great risks in order to aquire info/tech whatsoever all in the course of making Humanity the strongest most dominant force in the galaxy. Were they doing this because A. that was thier goal or B. because an indoctrinated TIM not knowing he was indoctrinated was directed to? either way bringing Shepard back would still fit into both of those scenarios.

[Phaedon]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Are you for real, kid? The Alliance or Council would be far more useful as indoctrinated agents than Cerberus would be.

Though that wasn't the point of my post, not by a long shot.

You can't indoctrinate the Alliance as a whole. They are a federation, or that federation's government. Activision tried to do something similar in MW3, where the Russian president is being "threatened" by terrorists and his own people. Do I need to say that it makes no damn sense?

Why Cerberus? It may have something to do with them being the only reason to be created in the first place. To become the allies in ME2, and the antagonists in ME3.

[alperez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Maybe it gets a little stale, Someone With Mass, and also robs its victims of any real depth.

With indoctrination you can make anyone an enemy regardless of their motives, goals, and beliefs.


Indoctrination was, frankly, overdone when it was invoked on the Reaper derelict. It was especially overdone in Arrival. It is VERY overdone now.

Finally something i can agree with you wholeheartedly on.

I would much prefer a different explanation one that showed TIM to be as machiavellian as he could have been portrayed, a TIM like a chessmaster planning and executing moves so far in advance thar its only when you reach the end of his arc you completely understand him and what his motivations actually were.

But alas it seems that's not what's been planned and instead we'll get a much more simple explanation and since indoctrination has been thier go to excuse to explain why a character is bad "saren" then it makes sense they would stick with it to the end.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Are you for real, kid? The Alliance or Council would be far more useful as indoctrinated agents than Cerberus would be.

Though that wasn't the point of my post, not by a long shot.

Or not, since the Alliance spread troughout the whole galaxy. And it's made out of entire nations. If you're honestly trying to tell me that they're easier to indoctrinate than Cerberus, which is lead by only one man, then we have nothing to talk about. 

And I don't care if I missed your point, whatever that might be, because you're taking things out of context all the time.

[Phaedon]

And yet we don't know if TIM is indoctrinated.

Besides, indoctrination doesn't just cause a 180 turn. It feeds upon your darkest qualities, and brings them to surface.

Saren was a utilitarianist, and see what indoctrination did to him. He still sounds rational till the end, though, no?

TIM is a machiavellian, just wait to see what a monster he'll be in ME3, indoctrinated or otherwise.

[Phaedon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


You can't indoctrinate the Alliance as a whole. They are... blah blah blah blah, I totally missed the point.

You people really drive me nuts sometimes.

I disagree with you! I obviously must have missed the point.

The Alliance is not an organization, and it isn't even an oligarchy. They don't have full control over the Alliance, unlike TIM. Besides, to indoctrinate them, you would have to reach Earth or the Arcturus Station for starters, which kind of defeats the point, since you will have to attack their military if you do so.

A bit counter-productive, that is.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You people really drive me nuts sometimes.

Oh, just shut up with the elitism, you little twerp and just tell us the point instead of pretending that you're on a higher intellectual level than any of us all the time, because it's getting really tiresome.

[Phaedon]

Here is a question for you;

why NOT Cerberus?

If TIM isn't a great antagonist, then who is?

[Dave of Canada]

alperez wrote...

Plus since we still only have some info regarding indoctrination and how it works, there is also the possibility that TIM's actions where as were Sarens the last actions of someone being indoctrinated.

So the Reapers, who've had TIM as their indocrinated puppet from the start, have been actively working against themselves for decades now and...
1. Brought back one of the only people who could stop them.
2. Supplied them with all the equipment, crew and intel that was necessary. Including EDI.
3. Sent them on a mission to stop the Reapers from doing their plan B.

[Revelation]
1. Was experimenting with indocrination technology to see what would happen.
2. Ran away from Cerberus operatives who tried to kill Reaper-Grayson.
3. Assisted in the death of Reaper-Grayson, an avatar of the Reapers.

Either the Reapers are extremely bad at influencing people with indocrination, are the best at hiding their intentions with convoluted plans or the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.

[Dave of Canada]

Phaedon wrote...

If TIM isn't a great antagonist, then who is?

The Reapers destroying the galaxy and turning entire civilizations against each other.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I don't mind Cerberus being a villain... it was even expected. But you've got to admit, having them as enemies right out of the gate is a big story continuity break so far for those who chose to save the Collector Base.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juillet 2011 - 10:21 .