1476 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

[quote]
whywhywhywhy wrote...
Let's examine what you've said here first.  "but it's shepard!!!" what does this mean?[/quote]

It means that because Shepard Is So Awesome, he doesn’t have to answer for things that lesser characters would be raked over the coals for. Because Shepard is YOU, and YOU are Shepard, you don’t have to follow the rules, and you don’t have to face the music when you break the rules.

[quote]
If you had any grasp on the situation you'd understand I look at the situation as a whole and simply disagree with you.[/quote] 

And yet everything you state only makes sense from Shepard’s skewed and subjective point of view.

[quote]
It should be evident because I can point out flaws in the rationale of the VS and defend the position of Shepard because I find no flaws in his position given the flow of the game.[/quote] 

See, it’s statements like this that make no sense. “Flow of the game?” What does that even mean? That because the events in the game “prove” Shepard is right to work with Cerberus, it makes it okay for Shepard to agree to work with Cerberus BEFORE those events come to pass? Because “everything turned out okay in the end”?

[quote]
Shepard even says something similiar to Jack that supports my claims(and others) of why he works with them if you talk to her after taking Miranda's side.   Choose the paragon option.  That's a big hint as to why he doesn't run off, who will fund his mission ?[/quote]

What Shepard says to Jack is only relevant when we’re talking about Jack. What’s important here is what Shepard says to the VS.

[quote]
your pov comes across incredibly subjective when viewed in the full context of the game's story and events that happen up to and including Horizon.  Not to mention the events that happen afterwards.[/quote]

And your point of view comes across as incredibly “meta”. I’m evaluating the situation based on what each character knows AT THAT MOMENT on Horizon. Not events that happen later, not events they have no direct knowledge of, not events that only the player has knowledge of. You throw whatever seems to fit whatever point you want to make into the pile. You can’t use events that happen later in the game to justify ANYTHING that happens on Horizon.

[quote]
You keep saying all these emotional outbursts as if that will make you right. But all I see is the lack of a rational argument concisely ordered by logic based on the events and contextual hints and clues the story presents within itself.  [/quote]

How very nebulous. A lot of words, no actual meaning. What “hints and clues” and from what point in the story do these come in? And what bearing do these “hints and clues” have on what Kaidan/Ashley knows on Horizon at that moment when he/she runs into Shepard?


[quote]You consider him a traitor, I ask how ?  [/quote]

He is working with CERBERUS. CERBERUS, as you may recall, is an anti-Alliance criminal organization. Many people call them terrorists. Working for THE ENEMY is A BETRAYAL. How much more clear do I have to make this very simple statement?

[quote]While I contend giving them classified info, detail talks of alliance military structural weaknesses and capabilities, revealing top secret plans and all that to be a betrayal.  Shpard did none of this and gave no indication he would be willing to. [/quote] 

Well, isn’t that convenient. You have a different standard for what constitutes a betrayal. Sorry, but that’s not how it works. You don’t get to work for the Evil Organization “as long as you respect your non-disclosure agreement” or whatever it is you’re trying to say here.

[quote]In your mind simply being with Cerberus is a betrayal. [/quote]

Because it IS. It isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. You know, facts? Those things you say I don’t use in my arguments? That’s a fact.

[quote]Working to stop the collectors from abducting further colonies is not a good enough reason.  Working with them to defeat agents of the reapers is not a good enough reason.[/quote]

Nope. Not good enough reasons. Because there’s no evidence (outside of Cerberus) that the Collectors are involved UNTIL Horizon. The VS doesn’t know squat about the Collectors and what they are or are not doing when the attack begins. The VS spends the entire time the attack is happening in stasis. All the VS sees is the seeker swarms, from what we can tell. And then, at the end of the fight, there’s Cerberus—just like Alliance intel said they would be. It looks suspicious.

[quote]Yes Shepard was made aware of the connection to the reapers on horizon.[/quote] 

But the Illusive Man is the one who first told Shepard of the connection. But this is also the same Illusive Man who leaked the location of the VS on Horizon to lure the Collectors there. I know, I know, “the ends justify the means”. I’m sure Lilith would be glad to know that when she was processed into Reaper Food, that it was because the Illusive Man thought he might get some strategic advantage from the gambit. How very noble of the Illusive Man to sacrifice civilians for his own purposes. That’s sarcasm, by the way.

[quote]Saving the lives of the colonists on horizon is not a good enough reason.   Saving Ash's life wasn't a good enough reason for Shepard to work with Cerberus.  How could he have possibly been there if he didn't use their resource(the only thing he's guilty of) Spectres aren't funded, the alliance only cared after they found out Cerberus was involved.  What was his alternative ?  Send a letter and wait for the reapers ?  I consider the Cerberus debacle laid to rest.[/quote]

Because you see Cerberus as just another faction, just another resource, just another employer. THEY’RE NOT. They’re an ANTI-ALLIANCE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION. That whole “anti-Alliance” part by definition makes them more than just another resource. Insert list of Cerberus atrocities here.

[quote]As far as the VS point of view ? How do I come up with so many reasons in this thread and the other ashely thread if I'm not considering the VS's pov. [/quote]

I dunno, Blood Magic? Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn’t it. You don’t come up with arguments based on the VS’ point of view, you simply dismiss them as invalid when other people point them out.

[quote]I've considered it and feel they are in the wrong and their stance makes little sense. [/quote]

Well, you would think that. Because to you, Shepard being with Cerberus is no big deal. To you, Shepard should be able to do whatever he wants, because later in the game in turns out he was right all along. That is not logical. That is not rational.

[quote] How can one scrutinize anything without critiquing it ?  I've laid out my critisms you've yet to respond to them.  [/quote]

I missed a few wall-of-text posts, that’s true, but tell me, what pearls of wisdom did I overlook? What game-changers did you offer up that clearly show that the VS was smoking crack and that Shepard is bulletproof? Because I would really like you to repost those.

[quote]You said I was off the mark that my conclusion was false. I didn't think it would bother you unless it was true.
I'll stop since I know it bothers you. [/quote]

You think you have the power to “bother” me, child? Dream on.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 02 août 2011 - 02:09 .

[whywhywhywhy]

jeweledleah wrote...

whywhywhy... you do realize that shepard is either a man OR a woman. its still shepard though with the same lines and same options for actions. implying man hate, just because someone finds fault with Shepard's actions? consider thinking that one through, please.

lol, I was responding to Siansonea II and the context Siansonea II presents Shepard is male.  Despite this because this thread deals with both I try to catch myself and say VS and he/she but at times between posting in this thread and the other strictly ashley one I sometimes forget.  But make no mistake about it the Shepard that was being talked about between us was indeed male.  
I invite you to consider that and look forward to further debate. Thanks.
http://social.biowar...6216/12#7918490

jeweledleah wrote...
you know have read the transcript without the voice behind it, VS's words actually sounds a lot more reasonable and not over emotional at all. in Kaidan's case I'm almost starting to wonder if all those Carth accusations ended up with giving him a bit too much of Carth like direction? Shepard gives more of an explanation to Tali and Garrus then to VS. Shepard has a choice to specify that Cerberus is not trusted, but they are necessary evil. Shepard on horizon instead either outright defends Cerberus or goes "but you know me! just trust me!"

Vs matter how read words sound....interesting lol.(I had to)  Spoken words add tone and inflection which reinforces a spoken words meaning.  This is why actors can read the same script and give several different interpretations.  So imo looking at it from a written view gives it a wider scope of interpretation and a larger margin of error as to the speakers intent.  While examining the spoken word proves a narrower interpretation and less of a margin of error and thus brings you closer to the speakers intent.  Anyway Thanks that was a new view.

jeweledleah wrote...
and paraphrases don't help. at all. you think you are about to say something that actualy makes sence but what comes out of Shepard's mouth? it does make you wonder about control chips, because for the first few times I played through that scene, the only thing I could think was - what the hell did Shepard just say? that's not what I thought that paraphrase meant?

paraphrase issue though is prevalent through entire game, not just horizon :/

I'd like specific examples to the issues you feel are prevalent in the game that affected the effects in question as it pertains to the thread. thanks.

[Siansonea]

MyOpinionSucks wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Stubborn ignorance ≠ disagreeing with you because you're WRONG.

"You betrayed everything we stood for!"

You did.

"I know where my loyalties lie."

He does. Your loyalty is to Cerberus? Really? Something tells me the Illusive Man is going to betray YOU in 3...2...1...

I'm afraid I take exception to that, unless you'd care to define exactly what your Shepard stood for.

As an Alliance marine my Shepard stood for the defence of humanity and her interests, and as a Spectre it was to 'preserve and protect galactic stability at all costs'.

And frankly, I'm having a hard time trying to see how he turned his back on that. I think the key difference between the VS and Shepard is scale. The VS is loyal to the Alliance whereas Shepard is loyal to what the Alliance (or more broadly the Council, I think) is supposed to represent. If the Alliance is supposed to be protecting these colonies and they're not managing to do it, then Shepard is going to go and take care of it himself.

These aren't Alliance colonies though. They're human colonies that were established in the Terminus Systems to get away from Alliance influence. Lilith even says "people around here don't trust the Alliance". In spite of that, the Alliance sent an operative to Horizon to help them defend themselves if they are attacked. They probably sent other operatives to other colonies. Horizon happened to be the colony that the VS was assigned to, and because TIM got wind of it and leaked the info to the Collectors, that's the colony that got hit. All so TIM could prove his theory that the Collectors were interested in people close to Shepard. 

Garrus puts it nicely, actually; 'When it comes down to it I don't think I'm a very good Turian. When a good Turian hears a bad order he follows it. He might complain, but he knows his place. I just don't see the point in staying quiet and polite, not when the galaxy's at stake.'

Garrus and Tali have fewer restrictions, they're not Alliance personnel. Cerberus doesn't mean a whole lot to aliens, it's considered a pro-human splinter group and that's about it (though naturally the quarians have a bit more of a 'tude when it comes to Cerberus). So non-Alliance people are understandably less concerned about Shepard's new employer.

The logical conclusion to this, as I see it, is that no party's really in the wrong. At the very least it's not black and white, and for that reason I don't think trust is real crux of the issue. I think even the most spiteful Shepard knows that if they go into combat together the VS has his back and vice versa. The real problem is just personality. Can Shepard bring himself to like the VS on a personal level after they justifiably (if not quite accurately) called him a traitor? That's something that every player has to decide for themself because it's totally subjective. I also don't think it'll be an issue for the VS, as I imagine they'll have been filled in by ME3.

For my part I thought it was kind of a slap in the face, even if Shepard did do a remarkably ****** poor job of explaining himself. I think the VS had every reason to ask Shepard what the hell he thought he was playing at and I'd by no means expect them to swallow whatever Shepard tells them without question (if they did so they wouldn't be the same characters that made ME1 so great, especially given the pretty suspect company Shepard now keeps), but I thought it was pretty out of order not to at least give Shepard the benefit of the doubt given their history and the immediate circumstances of their reunion. Doubly so when you consider that literally every other person in the galaxy does. Hell, you can blow up an entire star system and Hackett just says 'Hey bro it's cool, you gotta do what you gotta do'.

Hackett and Anderson know a lot more about what's going on than the VS does on Horizon. That's not the VS's fault. And furthermore, Anderson isn't exactly spilling all the Alliance's secrets when Shepard runs into him on the Citadel. Anderson is rather cool toward Shepard, in fact. And Hackett—who knows what his agenda is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's "indoctrinated" or something .

In the end though I think it's rather childish to expect either side to apologise. It's an issue that needs to be resolved (mostly because it's drama, and drama makes a story rather than any in-universe operational problems the schism could create) but an apology is not the way to do it; rather the overt demonstration that both parties are still the same people they used to be and the realisation of that fact on both parts. Which is something I don't think can feasibly happen in a single conversation. Actions speak louder than words.

Apologies if I let myself ramble on a little there. I'm a perennial lurker but this topic is so ripe for discussion it's hard to keep things brief.

Actually, this was a really good post. Your opinion doesn't suck.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 02 août 2011 - 02:50 .

[Iakus]

Siansonea II wrote...


Well, regardless of Shepard's motivations, the end result is the same. Shepard is working with Cerberus. For whatever reason. And that is a BIG DEAL. It's not like Shepard switched car insurance companies. Shepard switched sides. At least, that's what it looks like. And nothing Shepard says really does anything to dispel that notion.

Yes.  It is a big deal.  And the VS doesn't wonder why.  Why is Aragorn riding into battle with orcs?  Why is Honor Harrinton leading a Havenite fleet?  Why is Han Solo leading a platoon of stormtroopers? They just assume.  Which is extremely odd, given they worked closely with Shepard from Eden Prime right up to the day of Shepard's death.  

And Shepard's response is why I assert that the scene was a failure from both their perspectives.  There wasn't a single good thing about the scene.  The VS should have been more trusting.  Shepard should have been  more open.

Modifié par iakus, 02 août 2011 - 02:39 .

[Siansonea]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

whywhywhy... you do realize that shepard is either a man OR a woman. its still shepard though with the same lines and same options for actions. implying man hate, just because someone finds fault with Shepard's actions? consider thinking that one through, please.

lol, I was responding to Siansonea II and the context Siansonea II presents Shepard is male.  Despite this because this thread deals with both I try to catch myself and say VS and he/she but at times between posting in this thread and the other strictly ashley one I sometimes forget.  But make no mistake about it the Shepard that was being talked about between us was indeed male.  
I invite you to consider that and look forward to further debate. Thanks.
http://social.biowar...6216/12#7918490

Actually, I never meant to single out ManShep. FemShep is just as idiotic in that situation. But I thought it was understood that we were talking about both versions of Shepard. Did you really think that because I used ManShep as my example that I only feel that ManShep is to blame for much of the failure to communicate on Horizon? I just didn't feel like typing him/her and he/she and his/her all the time. Don't read too much into that. I'll use FemShep as my example from now on, K?

jeweledleah wrote...
you know have read the transcript without the voice behind it, VS's words actually sounds a lot more reasonable and not over emotional at all. in Kaidan's case I'm almost starting to wonder if all those Carth accusations ended up with giving him a bit too much of Carth like direction? Shepard gives more of an explanation to Tali and Garrus then to VS. Shepard has a choice to specify that Cerberus is not trusted, but they are necessary evil. Shepard on horizon instead either outright defends Cerberus or goes "but you know me! just trust me!"

Vs matter how read words sound....interesting lol.(I had to)  Spoken words add tone and inflection which reinforces a spoken words meaning.  This is why actors can read the same script and give several different interpretations.  So imo looking at it from a written view gives it a wider scope of interpretation and a larger margin of error as to the speakers intent.  While examining the spoken word proves a narrower interpretation and less of a margin of error and thus brings you closer to the speakers intent.  Anyway Thanks that was a new view.

Well, that's awfully convenient. Now we get to play the "Tone Of Voice Analysis" game. It all boils down to the fact that Kaidan and Ashley called Shepard out on the questionable decision to work with Cerberus, Shepard didn't offer any compelling rebuttal, and now we're dissecting what the VS "implied" with their "tone". Really, if THIS is an example of the type of confrontation that gets you kids' blood up, you are going to have a complete meltdown when someone actually does get in your face and read you the riot act.

jeweledleah wrote...
and paraphrases don't help. at all. you think you are about to say something that actualy makes sence but what comes out of Shepard's mouth? it does make you wonder about control chips, because for the first few times I played through that scene, the only thing I could think was - what the hell did Shepard just say? that's not what I thought that paraphrase meant?

paraphrase issue though is prevalent through entire game, not just horizon :/

I'd like specific examples to the issues you feel are prevalent in the game that affected the effects in question as it pertains to the thread. thanks.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 02 août 2011 - 02:38 .

[Siansonea]

iakus wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...


Well, regardless of Shepard's motivations, the end result is the same. Shepard is working with Cerberus. For whatever reason. And that is a BIG DEAL. It's not like Shepard switched car insurance companies. Shepard switched sides. At least, that's what it looks like. And nothing Shepard says really does anything to dispel that notion.

Yes.  It is a big deal.  And the VS doesn't wonder why.  Why is Aragorn riding into battle with orcs?  Why is Honor Harrinton leading a Havenite fleet?  Why is Han Solo leading a platoon of stormtroopers? They just.  Which is extremely odd, given they worked closely with Shepard from Eden Prime right up to the day of Shepard's death.  

And Shepard's response is why I assert that the scene was a failure from both their perspectives.  There wasn't a single good thing about the scene.  The VS should have been more trusting.  Shepard should have been  more open.

And I posit that the VS WAS trusting. They said "I don't trust Cerberus". They stated that they felt that Shepard might be manipulated by Cerberus, NOT that Shepard was willfully flouting the Alliance and gleefully doing Cerberus' dirty work. They WERE giving Shepard the benefit of the doubt. If they thought Shepard was just a straight up Cerberus sympathizer rather than a pawn, the conversation would have gone very differently. And the VS doesn't ever threaten Shepard, they just tell Shepard that he/she betrayed everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, and that they can't join Cerberus because they're loyal to the Alliance. I don't think that's so awful.

[Iakus]

Siansonea II wrote...

And I posit that the VS WAS trusting. They said "I don't trust Cerberus". They stated that they felt that Shepard might be manipulated by Cerberus, NOT that Shepard was willfully flouting the Alliance and gleefully doing Cerberus' dirty work. They WERE giving Shepard the benefit of the doubt. If they thought Shepard was just a straight up Cerberus sympathizer rather than a pawn, the conversation would have gone very differently. And the VS doesn't ever threaten Shepard, they just tell Shepard that he/she betrayed everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, and that they can't join Cerberus because they're loyal to the Alliance. I don't think that's so awful.

Oh, is that all? 

How can the VS trust someone who "betrayed everything they stood for"?  If they played up the "maybe you're being manipulated" rather than the "betrayal" angle, I could maybe buy it.

I say the conversation went pretty much exactly as if the VS believed that Shepard was in fact a straight up Cerberus sympathizer.  It doesn't help that some of Shepard's lines sound exactly like that though.

Note also, that they say they can't join Shepard because they are loyal to the Alliance.  Not because they have a duty to the Alliance.  Shepard's mission factors not at all into the equation.  The Alliance and Council's actions or inaction don't factor at all.  It's purely us vs them.  There is no room in it for, Shepard's motivations, Shepard's reasons, Shepard's wishes.

[AVPen]

Siansonea II wrote...

Garrus and Tali have fewer restrictions, they're not Alliance personnel. Cerberus doesn't mean a whole lot to aliens, it's considered a pro-human splinter group and that's about it (though naturally the quarians have a bit more of a 'tude when it comes to Cerberus). So non-Alliance people are understandably less concerned about Shepard's new employer.

....... are you serious?
....... no, really, are you freaking serious? <_<

[Siansonea]

iakus wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

And I posit that the VS WAS trusting. They said "I don't trust Cerberus". They stated that they felt that Shepard might be manipulated by Cerberus, NOT that Shepard was willfully flouting the Alliance and gleefully doing Cerberus' dirty work. They WERE giving Shepard the benefit of the doubt. If they thought Shepard was just a straight up Cerberus sympathizer rather than a pawn, the conversation would have gone very differently. And the VS doesn't ever threaten Shepard, they just tell Shepard that he/she betrayed everything they stood for by working with Cerberus, and that they can't join Cerberus because they're loyal to the Alliance. I don't think that's so awful.

Oh, is that all? 

How can the VS trust someone who "betrayed everything they stood for"?  If they played up the "maybe you're being manipulated" rather than the "betrayal" angle, I could maybe buy it.

I say the conversation went pretty much exactly as if the VS believed that Shepard was in fact a straight up Cerberus sympathizer.  It doesn't help that some of Shepard's lines sound exactly like that though.

Note also, that they say they can't join Shepard because they are loyal to the Alliance.  Not because they have a duty to the Alliance.  Shepard's mission factors not at all into the equation.  The Alliance and Council's actions or inaction don't factor at all.  It's purely us vs them.  There is no room in it for, Shepard's motivations, Shepard's reasons, Shepard's wishes.

If Shepard WAS loyal to the Alliance, she wouldn't be with Cerberus, now would she? And being with Cerberus is a betrayal. So why is that the VS fault?

[Siansonea]

AVPen wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Garrus and Tali have fewer restrictions, they're not Alliance personnel. Cerberus doesn't mean a whole lot to aliens, it's considered a pro-human splinter group and that's about it (though naturally the quarians have a bit more of a 'tude when it comes to Cerberus). So non-Alliance people are understandably less concerned about Shepard's new employer.

....... are you serious?
....... no, really, are you freaking serious? <_<

I don't recall very many aliens going "OMG Cerberus". Sure Prazza had a conniption, but I don't recall many turians, salarians, etc. even batting an eyelash or membrane or whatever. So yeah, I'm freaking serious. What's the problem?

[redbaron76]

In ME 3 Cerberus is enemy. So in ME 2 shepard was wswoking for or with enemy. Last time I checked working with enemy is a high treason, capital crime punishable by death. SO anybody justifying Shepard working with cerberus as not treason is either a five year old child or to stubborn to admit that their pro cerberus stance is all wrong.They blame VS for Horizon when the whole scene was engenered by TIM of cerberus for his own purpose. People lets face it Shepard wa sworking for the wrong side in ME2 that is why my shepard blew up collector base. That is why my shepard cut all contact with cerberus and passed on all cerberus information to Alliance HQ, hopefully they will find it in their hearths not to excute my shepard for working with terrorists. AS to VS I hope we get a spectacular scene where the whole horizon scene is mulled over and my shepard and Ashley can kiss and make up and the go kill some reapers, to save the galaxy for the third time.

[Siansonea]

Cerberus is also the enemy in ME1.

[redbaron76]

@ Siansone II

Absolutely, And afterf puking my guts out in ME2 working with them, i finally get the oportuniyu to continue what I was doing in ME 1, exterminating Cerberus.

[Siansonea]

redbaron76 wrote...

@ Siansone II

Absolutely, And afterf puking my guts out in ME2 working with them, i finally get the oportuniyu to continue what I was doing in ME 1, exterminating Cerberus.

I had a hard time with ME2's story mainly because of Cerberus. I felt like Shepard fell in with Cerberus far too quickly and easily. Paragon Shepard should have had a much harder time with the necessity of working with Cerberus, but she was smokin' some kind of derp.

[Iakus]

Siansonea II wrote...

If Shepard WAS loyal to the Alliance, she wouldn't be with Cerberus, now would she? And being with Cerberus is a betrayal. So why is that the VS fault?

It depends.  

if the galactic extinction event known as the Reapers takes place, there won't be an Alliance.  Or a Council.  Or a Migrant Fleet.  Or a Cerberus.  Shepard has already averted one catastophe that no one saw coming, or wanted to see coming.  And using questionable tactics I might add.  If Shepard were to somehow tumble onto another such event, one that, once again no one saw coming, or wanted to see coming, and had no allies whatsoever, what is the "loyal" thing to do?  

Which is more "loyal" to the Alliance?  To do nothing, and watch the end happen, or to accept aid from a truly loathsome organization which, if nothing else, is at least willing to defend humanity?  Is it a betrayal when all other options lead to the destruction of the Alliance, and a dozen other races as well?  Is it a betrayal if Shepard accepts Cerberus' aid without stooping to their methods?

Believe me, I would have felt much, much better about it if the game had allowed Shepard to go to Anderson and the Council before accepting help from The Illusive Man, rather than after.  I'd feel a lot better if the Reaper connection was made apparant before Horizon.  Oddly enough, I'd feel better if I thought SHepard had done something to truly deserve to be called a "betrayal" like give EDI Alliance access codes to take control of the  GARDIAN cannon, or break into an Alliance facility for information.  I could understand that kind of reaction here.  But Shepard just saved a colony, and is treated with an extreme case of "guilt by association" for his efforts.

Here's hoping that Cerberus data my Shep sent to the Alliance gets decoded in time for the trial.

[Iakus]

Siansonea II wrote...

redbaron76 wrote...

@ Siansone II

Absolutely, And afterf puking my guts out in ME2 working with them, i finally get the oportuniyu to continue what I was doing in ME 1, exterminating Cerberus.

I had a hard time with ME2's story mainly because of Cerberus. I felt like Shepard fell in with Cerberus far too quickly and easily. Paragon Shepard should have had a much harder time with the necessity of working with Cerberus, but she was smokin' some kind of derp.

On this we agree.

Shepard did not have enough opportunities to say "I'm not happy with the situation either"

[whywhywhywhy]

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
It means that because Shepard Is So Awesome, he doesn’t have to answer for things that lesser characters would be raked over the coals for. Because Shepard is YOU, and YOU are Shepard, you don’t have to follow the rules, and you don’t have to face the music when you break the rules.[/quote]What's funny here is those are your words. Not mine, they have no bearing on what I'm saying.  Also a Spectre doesn't have to follow Alliance rules...?  Did you have a point you were trying to make here ? I don't see it.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
And yet everything you state only makes sense from Shepard’s skewed and subjective point of view.
[/quote] This tells me you haven't read what I posted at all.  I would love for you to explain how my view is subjective, it's far from it so I would love for you to show me how.  I'd like to take this moment to point out your continued emotional responses are subjective, you keep pushing your subjective views on as if that's how I feel.  Then try to argue against it as if it's my view, it's absurd.  "but the shepard and blank be hating " all ridiculous.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
See, it’s statements like this that make no sense. “Flow of the game?” What does that even mean?[/quote] Flow of the game, self explanatory, progression or flow of the game.  Their are no player interactions that determine if you die in the beginning.  You have no choice of who will revive you.  So on and so forth.  The game flows in certain areas takes certain choices away from the player which prevent the exploration of alternate actions.  I actually thought flow was a simplier word to use, silly me.

[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
That because the events in the game “prove” Shepard is right to work with Cerberus, it makes it okay for Shepard to agree to work with Cerberus BEFORE those events come to pass? Because “everything turned out okay in the end”?[/quote]So now though we talk of the game in hindsight we aren't allowed to judge the decisions made in the game in the same fashion ?  Interesting.  But I ask you this before Cerberus fed the alliance info were they investigating the disapearing colonies ?  We don't have to even mention the Citadel we know they never do anything like that.  I have to quote MyOpinionSucks "As an Alliance marine my Shepard stood for the defence of humanity and
her interests, and as a Spectre it was to 'preserve and protect galactic stability" Your Shepard would send a letter to the Citadel and I think the counsel's action in me1 and 2 show you where that would lead, to nothing.  What better choice exists ?


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
What Shepard says to Jack is only relevant when we’re talking about Jack. What’s important here is what Shepard says to the VS.[/quote]I don't think so we were talking about Shepard's judgement in being involved with Cerberus not words spoken to the VS.  Nice try.  To quote "Look, unless you've got your own secret network of contacts, I need to give Cerberus-- and Miranda -- a little lip service now and then."  that's the Paragon response I seem to recall you saying "You so Renegade. Look at you go." Apparently not.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
And your point of view comes across as incredibly “meta”. I’m evaluating the situation based on what each character knows AT THAT MOMENT on Horizon. Not events that happen later, not events they have no direct knowledge of, not events that only the player has knowledge of. You throw whatever seems to fit whatever point you want to make into the pile. You can’t use events that happen later in the game to justify ANYTHING that happens on Horizon.[/quote]And what does Shepard know ?  He was dying in space and wakes up on a Cerberus operation table.  Told he was rebuilt and it must have been true unless that suit was made to survive reentry.  Investigate Freedom's progress and found Tali and Veetor's recording which pointed at the Collectors.  On Horizon evidence shows them Reaper involvement with the Collectors.  Now to review.  Cerberus revives you, after all when you stop by the Citadel they don't say you were stolen or snatched away while your unconscious.  What sense does it make for Cerberus to revive Shepard only to trick him ?  If he needed a distraction from the real threat why not wait to revive him or better yet not revive him at all.  The reapers desired his body he's heard this several times from a harbinger controlled Collector.   Why waste all these resources if they are with the Reapers ?  So Shepard can get excersize ?


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
How very nebulous. A lot of words, no actual meaning. [/quote] Or maybe you don't know the meaning.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
What “hints and clues” and from what point in the story do these come in?[/quote] I've demonstrated above if you want more go back and read my posts in the this thread and Is ashley still your girl thread.  A contextual clue and Contextual Hints are also self explanatory, they are pretty much the same one is more evident then the other.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
And what bearing do these “hints and clues” have on what Kaidan/Ashley knows on Horizon at that moment when he/she runs into Shepard?[/quote] In reasoning why they went away, why they said the things they did and why they were so angry they became incapable of listening and even trying to make an attempt to understand.  And to see if their was a good reason for the VS's position. 


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
He is working with CERBERUS. CERBERUS, as you may recall, is an anti-Alliance criminal organization. Many people call them terrorists. Working for THE ENEMY is A BETRAYAL. How much more clear do I have to make this very simple statement?[/quote]According to who ?  You or the VS ?  So you or the VS define what the Allaince considers betrayal ?  I was under the impression by Hackett he was going to get the call to answer for killing 300k Batarians to stop the reaper invasion.  Where'd you get your info.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Well, isn’t that convenient. You have a different standard for what constitutes a betrayal. Sorry, but that’s not how it works. You don’t get to work for the Evil Organization “as long as you respect your non-disclosure agreement” or whatever it is you’re trying to say here.[/quote] Well as pointed out above Hackett didn't seem to have a problem with it and he outranks the VS, he also prevented the alliance from Detaining Shepard for debriefing.  Next you'll be telling me Hackett is part of Cerberus.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Because it IS. It isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. You know, facts? Those things you say I don’t use in my arguments? That’s a fact. [/quote] What makes it a fact ?  Your opinion ? Show me where this fact is proven in game that the alliance considers Shepard a traitor.  At any point in the game and if your so confident before Horizon.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Nope. Not good enough reasons. Because there’s no evidence (outside of Cerberus) that the Collectors are involved UNTIL Horizon. The VS doesn’t know squat about the Collectors and what they are or are not doing when the attack begins. The VS spends the entire time the attack is happening in stasis. All the VS sees is the seeker swarms, from what we can tell. And then, at the end of the fight, there’s Cerberus—just like Alliance intel said they would be. It looks suspicious.[/quote]Not good enough reasons for you but Shepard was never approached by any alliance personal with the calim that he was a traitor all we have is your word.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
But the Illusive Man is the one who first told Shepard of the connection. But this is also the same Illusive Man who leaked the location of the VS on Horizon to lure the Collectors there. I know, I know, “the ends justify the means”. I’m sure Lilith would be glad to know that when she was processed into Reaper Food, that it was because the Illusive Man thought he might get some strategic advantage from the gambit. How very noble of the Illusive Man to sacrifice civilians for his own purposes. That’s sarcasm, by the way.[/quote]I never said I agreed with it but your "meta" gaming we didn't know about that fact until after Horizon not before we met the VS. 

Anyway to answer your rhetoric directly I make no claim in defense of TIM, I don't agree with his actions.  What does this have to do with Shepard ?  You seem to be grasping at straws.  No one has claimed Cerberus to be anything but what they are.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Because you see Cerberus as just another faction, just another resource, just another employer. THEY’RE NOT. They’re an ANTI-ALLIANCE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION. That whole “anti-Alliance” part by definition makes them more than just another resource. Insert list of Cerberus atrocities here. [/quote]I don't consider them an Employer but I do consider them a resource and as I pointed out earlier Paragon shepard does as well.  I'm not trying to defend Cerberus stop pretending that I was.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I dunno, Blood Magic? Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn’t it. You don’t come up with arguments based on the VS’ point of view, you simply dismiss them as invalid when other people point them out.[/quote] Right that's why despite emotional your response are or subjective their content,  I always respond with a Logical rebuttal. Try it sometime.



[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
Well, you would think that. Because to you, Shepard being with Cerberus is no big deal. To you, Shepard should be able to do whatever he wants, because later in the game in turns out he was right all along. That is not logical. That is not rational.[/quote]Who said it was no big deal ?  I said Shepard has no choice if he wants to combat the threat, what other options are presented to fight the threat ?  I pointed out why.  Are you even reading the posts or are you doing this on purpose because you can't bring up a good point ?


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
I missed a few wall-of-text posts, that’s true, but tell me, what pearls of wisdom did I overlook? What game-changers did you offer up that clearly show that the VS was smoking crack and that Shepard is bulletproof? Because I would really like you to repost those. [/quote]No.  If your trying to argue I have no proof or I've made weak arguments the burden of proof is on you.


[quote]Siansonea II wrote...
You think you have the power to “bother” me, child? Dream on.[/quote] Then why the derogatory response ?  I could go further into and provide you an actual assestment but no worries I'll drop it. 

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 02 août 2011 - 04:46 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Siansonea II wrote...
Actually, I never meant to single out ManShep. FemShep is just as idiotic in that situation. But I thought it was understood that we were talking about both versions of Shepard. Did you really think that because I used ManShep as my example that I only feel that ManShep is to blame for much of the failure to communicate on Horizon? I just didn't feel like typing him/her and he/she and his/her all the time. Don't read too much into that. I'll use FemShep as my example from now on, K?

I don't care either way.  It's Irrelevant I said I'd leave it alone.

Siansonea II wrote...
Well, that's awfully convenient. Now we get to play the "Tone Of Voice Analysis" game. It all boils down to the fact that Kaidan and Ashley called Shepard out on the questionable decision to work with Cerberus, Shepard didn't offer any compelling rebuttal, and now we're dissecting what the VS "implied" with their "tone". Really, if THIS is an example of the type of confrontation that gets you kids' blood up, you are going to have a complete meltdown when someone actually does get in your face and read you the riot act.

you can claim whatever you like but so basic I'm surprised you bring it up.  Tone and inflection matter and affects verbal communication it's not something you can attempt to argue and ridiculous for me to defend.(no need)  So I won't.  You just keep claiming it doesn't matter maybe someday you'll believe it.

[Made Nightwing]

@whywhywhywhy, hold on, just want to clarify something. What is your opinion of Cerberus?

[paul165]

I suspect my response to Ashley should she continue to argue that working with Cerberus was absolutely unjustifiable given the Collectors would be something along the lines of:

"The traitor to Humanity is the traitor most accursed; Man is more than Constitutions; better rot beneath the sod, Than be true to Church and State while we are doubly false to God."

After all she does so love her poets; given her promotion to Lt. and seeming dismissal of the Reapers there is also a cheap shot about 30 pieces of silver (compare to Gabby and Ken).

However neither of those responses really act to restore trust I suspect that restoring trust will require making an unequivocal stand against Cerberus which is likely to cause problems with Miranda/Jacob should either of them rejoin the squad even temporarily. After all given the VS's response on Horizon nothing what so ever excuses Cerberus even briefly - not your previous history, not that you have just saved their life (again), not even the imminent destruction of all organic life justifies taking funding from Cerberus.

Of course should the VS retain their 'nothing justifies Cerberus stance' it will generate problems with not only significant numbers of Shepards and Miranda/Jacob (should, as seems extremely likely, at least one of them reappear) it will also create problems with one of the confirmed squad mates who also made a deal with Cerberus in the service of what she considers to be a greater good.

As Cerberus provides the data to allow her to take her revenge and rescue one of her friends as well as resurrects her lover/friend (delete as appropriate) I really can't Liara just passively permitting the VS's attitude to go unchallenged especially as the epilogue of LotSB seems to indicate that she is disappointed with the VS about Horizon anyway. ALthough Garrus has less at stake he is also unlikely to be entirely blase about the VS's attitude.

On a related but mildly OT note I would argue that it is entirely in character for paragon Shepards to take help from reviled organisations - from what the VS would know Shepard has been willing to accept help from the krogan and the quarians neither of which are exactly welcome in Council space. Paragon Shepard then proceeds to release the Rachni who at the height of their power made Cerberus look like a schoolyard bully.

Of course in ME2 it gets worse as you can proceed to advocate curing the genophage unleashing the spectre of a second Krogan Rebellion and make at the very least an alliance of convenience with the Geth. Compared to either of them Cerberus just ain't that scary (much as they may wish they were).

[whywhywhywhy]

Made Nightwing wrote...

@whywhywhywhy, hold on, just want to clarify something. What is your opinion of Cerberus?

Should be obvious.  I don't like Cerberus.

[Siansonea]

iakus wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

If Shepard WAS loyal to the Alliance, she wouldn't be with Cerberus, now would she? And being with Cerberus is a betrayal. So why is that the VS fault?

It depends.  

if the galactic extinction event known as the Reapers takes place, there won't be an Alliance.  Or a Council.  Or a Migrant Fleet.  Or a Cerberus.  Shepard has already averted one catastophe that no one saw coming, or wanted to see coming.  And using questionable tactics I might add.  If Shepard were to somehow tumble onto another such event, one that, once again no one saw coming, or wanted to see coming, and had no allies whatsoever, what is the "loyal" thing to do?  

Which is more "loyal" to the Alliance?  To do nothing, and watch the end happen, or to accept aid from a truly loathsome organization which, if nothing else, is at least willing to defend humanity?  Is it a betrayal when all other options lead to the destruction of the Alliance, and a dozen other races as well?  Is it a betrayal if Shepard accepts Cerberus' aid without stooping to their methods?

Believe me, I would have felt much, much better about it if the game had allowed Shepard to go to Anderson and the Council before accepting help from The Illusive Man, rather than after.  I'd feel a lot better if the Reaper connection was made apparant before Horizon.  Oddly enough, I'd feel better if I thought SHepard had done something to truly deserve to be called a "betrayal" like give EDI Alliance access codes to take control of the  GARDIAN cannon, or break into an Alliance facility for information.  I could understand that kind of reaction here.  But Shepard just saved a colony, and is treated with an extreme case of "guilt by association" for his efforts.

Here's hoping that Cerberus data my Shep sent to the Alliance gets decoded in time for the trial.

My big problem is that Shepard believes everything the Illusive Man says, even though he has "I'm a bastard, don't trust me" written all over his face. When Ashley/Kaidan asks Shepard "What if they're manipulating you?" I wanted Shepard to wonder the same thing, but she doesn't. Even after Shepard finds out all the shenanigans the Illusive Man pulls on Horizon and the Collector Ship, she still stays on the Cerberus Railroad Plot. The Illusive Man WAS manipulating Shepard, and even though she could see several examples of it, she still didn't bother to do anything about it, or even question TIM's motives and agenda. How could she possibly think that she could know everything she needs to know about Cerberus, or trust that they're sending her where she needs to go? For all Shepard knows, the creepy guy with the freaky Husk eyes and the cigarettes is doing all of this just to keep her busy on some fool's errand, while the Reapers are planning something even more sinister somewhere else. Maybe they "brought her back" to be a tool for the Reapers. Maybe all those "upgrades" are just like Saren's, something that will allow a Reaper to "assume direct control" of her body at the right moment. But that never occurs to Shepard, she just does whatever TIM says. Because she's Shepard, I guess. Because she just "automatically knows" what the best course of action is. Or because she has a control chip that turns off her ability to reason as soon as something blatantly obvious happens.

[Siansonea]

In the interest of having smaller walls of texts, I'll respond to these in parts.

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
*snip*.

What's funny here is those are your words. Not mine, they have no bearing on what I'm saying.  Also a Spectre doesn't have to follow Alliance rules...?  Did you have a point you were trying to make here ? I don't see it.

Just because you don't have to follow the rules doesn't mean you should break every rule you come across, or toss loyalties aside just because you 'can'.

Siansonea II wrote...
And yet everything you state only makes sense from Shepard’s skewed and subjective point of view.

 
This tells me you haven't read what I posted at all.  I would love for you to explain how my view is subjective, it's far from it so I would love for you to show me how.  I'd like to take this moment to point out your continued emotional responses are subjective, you keep pushing your subjective views on as if that's how I feel.  Then try to argue against it as if it's my view, it's absurd.  "but the shepard and blank be hating " all ridiculous.

Flow of the game, self explanatory, progression or flow of the game.  Their are no player interactions that determine if you die in the beginning.  You have no choice of who will revive you.  So on and so forth.  The game flows in certain areas takes certain choices away from the player which prevent the exploration of alternate actions.  I actually thought flow was a simplier word to use, silly me.

So, because the game has a railroad plot, Shepard is Just and Right to follow the railroad without question?

So now though we talk of the game in hindsight we aren't allowed to judge the decisions made in the game in the same fashion ?  Interesting.  But I ask you this before Cerberus fed the alliance info were they investigating the disapearing colonies ?  We don't have to even mention the Citadel we know they never do anything like that.  I have to quote MyOpinionSucks "As an Alliance marine my Shepard stood for the defence of humanity and her interests, and as a Spectre it was to 'preserve and protect galactic stability" Your Shepard would send a letter to the Citadel and I think the counsel's action in me1 and 2 show you where that would lead, to nothing.  What better choice exists ?

Who knows? Shepard never tries to find out.

I don't think so we were talking about Shepard's judgement in being involved with Cerberus not words spoken to the VS.  Nice try.  To quote "Look, unless you've got your own secret network of contacts, I need to give Cerberus-- and Miranda -- a little lip service now and then."  that's the Paragon response I seem to recall you saying "You so Renegade. Look at you go." Apparently not.

Well, if Shepard had articulated anything like that to the VS, I could see somebody calling the VS obstinate. But Shepard does not explain herself well at all to the VS, and it's no wonder the VS isn't too receptive to what she's saying.

And what does Shepard know ?  He was dying in space and wakes up on a Cerberus operation table.  Told he was rebuilt and it must have been true unless that suit was made to survive reentry.  Investigate Freedom's progress and found Tali and Veetor's recording which pointed at the Collectors.  On Horizon evidence shows them Reaper involvement with the Collectors.  Now to review.  Cerberus revives you, after all when you stop by the Citadel they don't say you were stolen or snatched away while your unconscious.  What sense does it make for Cerberus to revive Shepard only to trick him?  If he needed a distraction from the real threat why not wait to revive him or better yet not revive him at all.  The reapers desired his body he's heard this several times from a harbinger controlled Collector.   Why waste all these resources if they are with the Reapers ?  So Shepard can get excersize?

Any number of scenarios can fit these circumstances. The Reapers wanted Shepard's body, but Cerberus took it. Maybe they rebuilt Shepard with all those handy dandy cybernetic implants to use as a bargaining chip with the Reapers. But anyone who trusts Cerberus is a fool, and Shepard clearly trusts them to some extent, she buys their story hook, line, and sinker. She doesn't ever strike out on her own and verify anything TIM says.

I've demonstrated above if you want more go back and read my posts in the this thread and Is ashley still your girl thread.  A contextual clue and Contextual Hints are also self explanatory, they are pretty much the same one is more evident then the other.

And yet, I think that if there truly was something earthshakingly profound, you'd simply copy and paste it here. Or link to the post in question. By vaguely gesturing toward some "other post" you're just trying to distract me, while cheaply stealing some "credibility" for your argument. It's easy to say "Oh, I refuted everything already in another post. You didn't read it? You should read it. Go find it." How about you point to the exact post in question?

[Siansonea]

And part 2...

Siansonea II wrote...
And what bearing do these “hints and clues” have on what Kaidan/Ashley knows on Horizon at that moment when he/she runs into Shepard?

In reasoning why they went away, why they said the things they did and why they were so angry they became incapable of listening and even trying to make an attempt to understand.  And to see if their was a good reason for the VS's position. 

I can't even guess at what you're trying to say here. I'm sure it made sense in your head, but the words on the page in this order in this context don't make any sense to me. You think this is some kind of awesome rebuttal, you think it's reasonable, and rational and logical, but it's incoherent. Who is "they"? How about using names instead of pronouns? It starts out sounding like you're talking about the VS, but the last line sounds like you're talking about Shepard—it's a mess.

Siansonea II wrote...
He is working with CERBERUS. CERBERUS, as you may recall, is an anti-Alliance criminal organization. Many people call them terrorists. Working for THE ENEMY is A BETRAYAL. How much more clear do I have to make this very simple statement?

According to who?  You or the VS?  So you or the VS define what the Allaince considers betrayal?  I was under the impression by Hackett he was going to get the call to answer for killing 300k Batarians to stop the reaper invasion.  Where'd you get your info.

From the events of the first game. From Admiral Kahoku, in life and in death. From all the data found on Edolus, Binthu and Nepheron. From Corporal Toombs. From every thing and every person touched by Cerberus in the first game. From the Council when Shepard arrives there early in ME2 before Horizon. From Captain Anderson. From everything in the game. That's where I get the FACT that working for CERBERUS is a BETRAYAL. You can try to construct some fuzzy logic ends-justify-the-means badass douchebag Renegade fantasy that Cerberus is "misunderstood", but the rest of the galaxy ain't buyin' it.

Siansonea II wrote...
Well, isn’t that convenient. You have a different standard for what constitutes a betrayal. Sorry, but that’s not how it works. You don’t get to work for the Evil Organization “as long as you respect your non-disclosure agreement” or whatever it is you’re trying to say here.

Well as pointed out above Hackett didn't seem to have a problem with it and he outranks the VS, he also prevented the alliance from Detaining Shepard for debriefing.  Next you'll be telling me Hackett is part of Cerberus.

Wouldn't surprise me. He's a massive douche. He sent Shepard on all sorts of questionable missions in the first game, and the whole Arrival mission was fishy from the word "go". Seriously, Shepard had to go alone? WTF?

Siansonea II wrote...
Because it IS. It isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. You know, facts? Those things you say I don’t use in my arguments? That’s a fact.

What makes it a fact?  Your opinion? Show me where this fact is proven in game that the alliance considers Shepard a traitor.  At any point in the game and if your so confident before Horizon.

When Shepard shows up on the Citadel, there is a quite tense exchange between Shepard and the Council, and Captain Anderson is rather reticent with Shepard too. He won't tell her anything about what Kaidan/Ashley is doing, for instance. Not exactly the same level of camaraderie that they shared in the first game. Anderson is keeping Shepard at arm's length. Shepard isn't immediately clapped in irons because of her erstwhile Spectre status and her role in saving the Council from Sovereign, but they are very suspicious of her and basically tell Shepard to stay out of Council space if she wants to play nice with Cerberus.

Siansonea II wrote...
Nope. Not good enough reasons. Because there’s no evidence (outside of Cerberus) that the Collectors are involved UNTIL Horizon. The VS doesn’t know squat about the Collectors and what they are or are not doing when the attack begins. The VS spends the entire time the attack is happening in stasis. All the VS sees is the seeker swarms, from what we can tell. And then, at the end of the fight, there’s Cerberus—just like Alliance intel said they would be. It looks suspicious.

Not good enough reasons for you but Shepard was never approached by any alliance personal with the calim that he was a traitor all we have is your word.

So, even though the Alliance thinks Shepard is dead, they're supposed to know that Cerberus has been experimenting on Shepard, bringing her back to life using who-knows-what technology for who-knows-what ultimate purpose, then "approach" the reawakened Shepard and tell her "don't you dare work for Cerberus?" The Alliance doesn't even know that Shepard is alive until her working with Cerberus is established. They don't have a chance to make a pitch to her. And I think that the Council, Captain Anderson and Tali make it VERY clear to Shepard that showing up in the company of Cerberus does NOT look good for her.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 02 août 2011 - 04:04 .