1939 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Medhia Nox wrote...

That's your prerogative Saphra - but many wildly successful people do think, at least sometimes, with their gut.

I imagine if you talked to many soldiers - thinking "with their gut" is a common activity.

Not a soldier myself, though I've got a few cousins/friends who've went to the (not taken seriously) Canadian military and they were essentially teaching soldiers (at least that group) to remain cool and make logical decisions rather than have your feelings involved in the matter.

I forget the expression he told me, though it was something like they had to use common sense and logic rather than feelings or they might get themselves killed.

[Fixers0]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

How would you otherwise describe a group that attacks Goverment troops?

Insurgents? Geurrillas? Rebels?

It still ends up being an act of terrorism against the state.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jedierick wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jedierick wrote...

Keeping the base presents the player with the unknown, just like destroying it. Nobody knows what the collectors base would have revealed, or if it would reveal more than what EDI found while connected to the collectors ship. Keeping it presented more of a risk than destroying it for me.

Bollocks. I cna't believe the stupidity of this argument.

The base was used to BUILD A REAPER. The things one can pull from it are homongous for that very reason. The thing you cna pull out of  a computer in a few minutes are insignificant compared to that.
The base is, in essence,  a friggin shipyard. To get ones hand on the materials and machienery, and all the lovely reaper tech can very well tip the balance of the conflict.

And no matter how bad Cerberus MIGHT screw it up, nothing can be worse than total anihilation by the reapers.
So yes, blowing the base up = stupid.

Well Bollocks right back at ya. I cant bevlive the stupidity of your statements. 

An AI such as EDI works light years faster than any team of humans could. So to say that she couldnt gather data from the both the base and the ship she was connected to is a bunch of boshdat.  Humans would take weeks researching and gathering data that she could get in a few minutes. And just becasue the base COULD, not necessarily WILL, provide an benfit  shouldnt negate the fact that TIM screwed up with the derelict reaper.

I destroyed the base becasue I dont think TIM or Cerberus has what it takes to get anything usefull out of it, not in any time frame that would help me. And I dont trust him, regardless of what he has done for me. Seeing as though cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3, I guess my line of thining was correct, cause if Cerberus allowed itself to be indoctrinated some other way, without the base, then they would have screwed up the base for sure.

If the base coudl build a reaper, who is to say what else it coudl do, destroying the base was the right choice.

You can't honestly belive that?
Having access to machienery and equipment is way better.
First of all, we don't know how much data EDI got.
Secondly, I really doubt construction plans for every piece of equipment are in the computer EDI broke into. Last time I checked, no shipyard hold plans for every piece of equipment used in it. Neither to nucler power plants hold plans and detiled data for everything.
The idea that a 5-minute comper hack can get you everything that you can possibly learn is the stuff of fairytales. It doens't even matter how advanced EDI is.
Not to mention, with the base in tact, you get construction infrastructure for free.

Second, Cerberus is the only one actively doing something against the repaers. And there is no strict timeframe for the Reaper arrival. How can Sheppard know TIM can't get anythining usefull in time? Based on WHAT?

Again, the base is the best bet at defeating the reapers, and simply destroying it is short-sighted and stupid, even moreso since you dont' havea back-up plan!
Even if you don't trust TIM, destroying it is stupid. You could just tell the Alliance it's location later!

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:01 .

[Dave of Canada]

Fixers0 wrote...

How would you otherwise describe a group that attacks Goverment troops?

A lot of things other than terrorist? Attacking government anything doesn't make one a terrorist, only one's tactics can properly have someone identify as such. Which Cerberus has never used.

They are criminal, they just aren't terrorists.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 04:51 .

[Medhia Nox]

I'd like them to show that Cerberus is actually part of the Alliance giving them a level of immunity against many of the criminal activities they've committed against human soldiers.

====

@Fixers0 = not taking the Thanix, that's a bold choice and not one I even considered. I think it was because it's a Turian weapon based off of Reaper tech. It's not like someone took Sovereign's arm and wanted to strap it to the side of the Normandy.

What do you lose because of the lack of the Thanix weaponry?

====

@Saphra - what is Cerberus rebelling against? They're mostly just performing experiments on people... who don't agree to the experiments.

They're not terrorists, because they don't make the terror they cause public. A terrorist wants to cause fear - very few people even know Cerberus exists - and most of them don't fear Cerberus.

TIM is like Cobra Commander however... and his group is like Cobra, but they're less militant (at least in the first two games) and more - "evil scientists perform evil experiments - mwahahaah!"

[Fixers0]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

How would you otherwise describe a group that attacks Goverment troops?

A lot of things other than terrorist? Attacking government anything doesn't make one a terrorist, only one's tactics can properly have someone identify as such. Which Cerberus has never used.

They are criminal, they just aren't terrorists.

Tell that to the marines on Akuze, Edolus, the inhabitants of the colony of yandoa, the crew of the SSV Geneva, or  that of the SSV Normandy SR 1 and 2

[Dave of Canada]

Fixers0 wrote...

Tell that to the marines on Akuze, Edolus, the inhabitants of the colony of yandoa, the crew of the SSV Geneva, or  that of the SSV Normandy SR 1 and 2

That doesn't counter my point? Killing soldiers, innocent people and crew is still a crime but isn't terrorism.

Killing those people for fun doesn't make one a terrorist, it makes one a psychopath.
Killing those people for science doesn't make one a terrorist, it makes one unethical and criminal.
Killing those people to cause fear to serve their political / religious / ideology agenda does make one a terrorist.

Saying "I hate Cerberus, they are bad/criminal/unethical" is fine, though using terrorist incorrectly (and using it mostly since it's an emotionally charged word in today's present world) doesn't work.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:07 .

[Fixers0]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Tell that to the marines on Akuze, Edolus, the inhabitants of the colony of yandoa, the crew of the SSV Geneva, or  that of the SSV Normandy SR 1 and 2

That doesn't counter my point? Killing soldiers, innocent people and crew is still a crime but isn't terrorism.

Killing those people for fun doesn't make one a terrorist, it makes one a psychopath.
Killing those people for science doesn't make one a terrorist, it makes one unethical and criminal.
Killing those people to cause fear to serve their political / religious / ideology agenda does make one a terrorist.

Saying "I hate Cerberus, they are bad/criminal/unethical" is fine, though using terrorist incorrectly (and using it mostly since it's an emotionally charged word in today's present world) doesn't work.

I consider that one is terrorising the state if he/she/they are :

1. Attacking it's civilians.
2. Assaulting it's armed forces.
3. Damages it's infrastructure.

These are all actions Cerberus has committed , actions that were aimed against the state.

Modifié par Fixers0, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

by that definition any hostile force is comprised of terrorists.

EDIT:
Regarding the best choice - no, I don't think destroying the bease should be a game over. It would depend on other things you did. If you gathered enough allies tehn you can do wihout the best. If not...
Either way, I don't wantt the game to hand-hold me, and allow me to win regardless of my choices. But I don't think EA will allow for that.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:19 .

[Raiil]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

I'd like them to show that Cerberus is actually part of the Alliance giving them a level of immunity against many of the criminal activities they've committed against human soldiers.

I'd like them to undo the recent retcons and have Cerberus go back to being an Alliance black ops group that went rogue only a few months before ME1.

It's a much more interesting origin for them and gives the Alliance more depth too.

Agreed. I tangled my brain trying to figure out a way to put all the pieces together in ME2.... gave up and went back to warping people after some point.

I want the Alliance to not be some shining example of humanity. I don't like Cerberus, but I don't think the Alliance is a lot better in most respects.

[Dave of Canada]

Fixers0 wrote...

I consider that one is terrorising the state if he/she/they are :

1. Attacking it's civilians.
2. Assaulting it's armed forces.
3. Damages it's infrastructure.

These are all actions Cerberus has committed , actions that were aimed against the state.

They weren't "aimed against the state", nor do any of those things count as terrorism is the goal isn't terrorism. Considering almost everybody in the Alliance doesn't know what Cerberus is and don't know about their involvement in any of those events, it kind of doesn't work.

Unless you're saying any group that kills anybody, attacks anybody or destroys any building is considered terrorist. Then you'd be hard pressed to find any group that doesn't fit that definition.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:18 .

[Fixers0]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

I consider that one is terrorising the state if he/she/they are :

1. Attacking it's civilians.
2. Assaulting it's armed forces.
3. Damages it's infrastructure.

These are all actions Cerberus has committed , actions that were aimed against the state.

They weren't "aimed against the state", nor do any of those things count as terrorism is the goal isn't terrorism. Considering almost everybody in the Alliance doesn't know what Cerberus is and don't know about their involvement in any of those events, it kind of doesn't work.

Unless you're saying any group that kills anybody, attacks anybody or destroys any building is considered terrorist. Then you'd be hard pressed to find any group that doesn't fit that definition.

If they weren't aimed against the state then was there purpose? and don't tell me it's about the strenght of humanity, cause no judge ever will by that kind of nonsense, fact is those marines and civilians are dead, and nothing is going to talk that right considering that not one of all those deaths leads to any kind of advancement of humanity.

I also have to remind you that Council and the Alliance have declared cerberus to be a terrorist group, so for them there was enough evidence to do so.

[Dave of Canada]

Fixers0 wrote...

If they weren't aimed against the state then was there purpose?

Depends on the project, each had different goals. In short, science.

Brutal science isn't something that's new only to the Mass Effect universe either, it existed in real life. They were trialed as war criminals, not terrorists. And you can't ignore the "advancement of humanity" aspect of it because

• in real life, quite a lot of knowledge was gained from these brutal experiments. Which we know is also applied to the Mass Effect universe as Cerberus advancements are applied to the Alliance.
• it's one of the main points of the entire organization, you can't ignore it.

I also have to remind you that Council and the Alliance have declared cerberus to be a terrorist group, so for them there was enough evidence to do so.

Or it's a buzzword to try and shy away the public from the group?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:40 .

[celuloid]

Ehm, sorry to interrupt discussion about what constitutes terrorism.

Could someone explain to me why Shepard could not give the base to Alliance or any of the Council species?

[Dave of Canada]

celuloid wrote...

Could someone explain to me why Shepard could not give the base to Alliance or any of the Council species?

Multiple reasons have been brought up in past discussions, though the one that's most often brought up: The Alliance and the Council are incapable of letting their reach branch into the Terminus systems or they risk causing a war, think of it as a similar scenario to Ilos and the Council not wanting to involve themselves off one (wo)man's rantings about the Reapers.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:46 .

[Frostmourne86]

Fixers0 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

I consider that one is terrorising the state if he/she/they are :

1. Attacking it's civilians.
2. Assaulting it's armed forces.
3. Damages it's infrastructure.

These are all actions Cerberus has committed , actions that were aimed against the state.

They weren't "aimed against the state", nor do any of those things count as terrorism is the goal isn't terrorism. Considering almost everybody in the Alliance doesn't know what Cerberus is and don't know about their involvement in any of those events, it kind of doesn't work.

Unless you're saying any group that kills anybody, attacks anybody or destroys any building is considered terrorist. Then you'd be hard pressed to find any group that doesn't fit that definition.

If they weren't aimed against the state then was there purpose? and don't tell me it's about the strenght of humanity, cause no judge ever will by that kind of nonsense, fact is those marines and civilians are dead, and nothing is going to talk that right considering that not one of all those deaths leads to any kind of advancement of humanity.

I also have to remind you that Council and the Alliance have declared cerberus to be a terrorist group, so for them there was enough evidence to do so.

If you check, its not like Cerberus was attacking Council -member colonies with Rachni or Thorian Creepers (they were experiments that either got out of hand or were used in backwater human colonies) and also remember that at that point humanity was still considered a loaded pistol by the Council races.  As for the "advancement of humanity", those experiments - like the Thresher Maw on Akuze - gave Cerberus a valuable insight in how to improve weaponry and armor; might I remind you about the Bahtia assignment in the first game?  Studying her body would've given the Alliance ideas about how to minimize damage to Geth weaponry.  

Blowing up a building to kill one person, regardless of the collateral damage - a la Tela Vasir - seems more like the M.O. of the Council than Cerberus. 

[Dave of Canada]

Frostmourne86 wrote...

Blowing up a building to kill one person, regardless of the collateral damage - a la Tela Vasir - seems more like the M.O. of the Council than Cerberus. 

Technically, while the Council wouldn't surprise me by doing it (considering they have Tela as a Spectre), Cerberus have done something similar when trying to retrieve Gillian Grayson. Though trying to eliminate/retrieve one target in , regardless of the collateral damage, still doesn't really fit the terrorist term simply because there's an end goal that isn't to cause fear/emotions among the people for their agenda or whatever.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juillet 2011 - 05:51 .

[Fixers0]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

If they weren't aimed against the state then was there purpose?

Depends on the project, each had different goals. In short, science.

Brutal science isn't something that's new only to the Mass Effect universe either, it existed in real life. They were trialed as war criminals, not terrorists. And you can't ignore the "advancement of humanity" aspect of it because

• in real life, quite a lot of knowledge was gained from these brutal experiments. Which we know is also applied to the Mass Effect universe as Cerberus advancements are applied to the Alliance.
• it's one of the main points of the entire organization, you can't ignore it.

I also have to remind you that Council and the Alliance have declared cerberus to be a terrorist group, so for them there was enough evidence to do so.

Or it's a buzzword to try and shy away the public from the group?

And yet all of this does not alter the fact that actions against multiple states were commited (Alliance, Asari Rebublics, Quarian migrant fleet) by this group  and the fact that their leader is untrustworthy , that this renders me incapable  of bringin allready dangerous and unpredictable technology at their disposal.

[jedierick]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jedierick wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jedierick wrote...

Keeping the base presents the player with the unknown, just like destroying it. Nobody knows what the collectors base would have revealed, or if it would reveal more than what EDI found while connected to the collectors ship. Keeping it presented more of a risk than destroying it for me.

Bollocks. I cna't believe the stupidity of this argument.

The base was used to BUILD A REAPER. The things one can pull from it are homongous for that very reason. The thing you cna pull out of  a computer in a few minutes are insignificant compared to that.
The base is, in essence,  a friggin shipyard. To get ones hand on the materials and machienery, and all the lovely reaper tech can very well tip the balance of the conflict.

And no matter how bad Cerberus MIGHT screw it up, nothing can be worse than total anihilation by the reapers.
So yes, blowing the base up = stupid.

Well Bollocks right back at ya. I cant bevlive the stupidity of your statements. 

An AI such as EDI works light years faster than any team of humans could. So to say that she couldnt gather data from the both the base and the ship she was connected to is a bunch of boshdat.  Humans would take weeks researching and gathering data that she could get in a few minutes. And just becasue the base COULD, not necessarily WILL, provide an benfit  shouldnt negate the fact that TIM screwed up with the derelict reaper.

I destroyed the base becasue I dont think TIM or Cerberus has what it takes to get anything usefull out of it, not in any time frame that would help me. And I dont trust him, regardless of what he has done for me. Seeing as though cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3, I guess my line of thining was correct, cause if Cerberus allowed itself to be indoctrinated some other way, without the base, then they would have screwed up the base for sure.

If the base coudl build a reaper, who is to say what else it coudl do, destroying the base was the right choice.

You can't honestly belive that?
Having access to machienery and equipment is way better.
First of all, we don't know how much data EDI got.
Secondly, I really doubt construction plans for every piece of equipment are in the computer EDI broke into. Last time I checked, no shipyard hold plans for every piece of equipment used in it. Neither to nucler power plants hold plans and detiled data for everything.
The idea that a 5-minute comper hack can get you everything that you can possibly learn is the stuff of fairytales. It doens't even matter how advanced EDI is.
Not to mention, with the base in tact, you get construction infrastructure for free.

Second, Cerberus is the only one actively doing something against the repaers. And there is no strict timeframe for the Reaper arrival. How can Sheppard know TIM can't get anythining usefull in time? Based on WHAT?

Again, the base is the best bet at defeating the reapers, and simply destroying it is short-sighted and stupid, even moreso since you dont' havea back-up plan!
Even if you don't trust TIM, destroying it is stupid. You could just tell the Alliance it's location later!

Having access to machinary is not always better, you cannot always reverse engineer something based on having it in front of you. 

Your comment on not knowing how much data EDI got is spot on,we dont know, just like we dont know if the reaper base had ANYTHING in it of value, everyone is making assumptions. For all we know the reaper base was there to create a new reaper, and huse the collectors. Nobody knows, you cannot say for sure what the reaper base woudl have given them just like I cannot say for sure that the data EDI got, if any, was good.

Second, the stuf of fairytakes comment, do you even want me to go there, in the Mass Effect universe it is possible for an AI to take tons of information in a short few seconds, just like when the Normandy was taken over in a short period of time when the IFF was installed. So yes, it is possible for EDI to take loads more than any human could get in a short few seconds. And yes, this game is the stuff of fairytales in case you were wondering, so it is possible, very very very very possible.

And your second, second, Shepard is doing something about the reapers, he is not cerberus,  so your wrong there, Anderson belives Sheaprd and has done what he can to help, our new shadow broker is working to help shepard, she's not cerberus. Cerberus is not the only one doing soemthing. 

And as far as a time frame, didnt Arrival give us a time frame to follow? Based off of that I dont think TIM coudl give me anything usefull without screwing it up.

The one thing we can base on fact is that Cerberus (not necessarily TIM) has been indoctorinated, with that known, we know somewhere TIM screwed up. With this information known, I think I can apply that to the fact that somehow TIM would have screwed up and the collectors base woudl be used agaisnt me rather than for me.

[CuseGirl]

jedierick wrote...

Seeing as though cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3, I guess my line of thining was correct, cause if Cerberus allowed itself to be indoctrinated some other way, without the base, then they would have screwed up the base for sure.

I just can't believe Cerberus is indoctrinated regardless of whether we destroyed or kept the base? Story wise, how does this come to be? What other massive Reaper tech did they find that got them into this mess that Shep has to clean up?

[Barquiel]

Dave of Canada wrote...

celuloid wrote...

Could someone explain to me why Shepard could not give the base to Alliance or any of the Council species?

Multiple reasons have been brought up in past discussions, though the one that's most often brought up: The Alliance and the Council are incapable of letting their reach branch into the Terminus systems or they risk causing a war, think of it as a similar scenario to Ilos and the Council not wanting to involve themselves off one (wo)man's rantings about the Reapers.

"According to Anderson (or the Council if they were saved in Mass Effect), groups that ventured to Ilos following Shepard's visit found that Vigil had shut down (possibly due to full power loss)."

They have no problems operating in the Terminus Systems, if necessary.