3618 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

I don't see anything Cerberus has done as being particularly evil and certainly none of it is terrorism as I understand it. The Council can far more easily be handed the terrorist label considering they use intimidation to achieve their ends on a regular basis. They just dress it up in pretty language.

Your perfecty entitled to take that pov from everything you believe and know about cerberus, it doesn't mean that anyone else has to though or that they have to agree with your understanding or beliefs about what cerberus are, represent or whether or not they are trustworthy enough to do buisness with (voluntary buisness, unlike the me2 scenario where its forced upon you).

Someone disagreeing with your interpretation of events and your understanding of the motivations of an organisation, however doesn't make yours or their logic or argument any more sound.

[Pulletlamer]

Medhia Nox wrote...

What I'd be interested in knowing, from those who destroyed the base:

How many of you factored Cerberus strongly into your decision?

I personally, when I was given the choice, the first thing I thought was: "But If I give the base to Cerberus, they will have more power, and I don't want them to have more power since they want to exterminate or dominate the alien races in the galaxy" then I thought he (TIM) might help with it against the Reapers, but since I didn't trust TIM and his call was very desesperated and precipitated I said I'd blew it up since the risk was too great for letting it intact, and Cerberus probably would have misused it.

So basically, I took Cerberus into consideration, but more than anything for the trouble they could cause with it to other alien races. Not because I'm Anti-Cerberus or something. Besides I only knew the information about them from the games.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 02 août 2011 - 06:53 .

[alperez]

HomelessGal wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
And - if it doesn't - the designers completely disagree with your point of view.

I still kinda wonder what their point of view is.

On one hand, we have squadmate reaction to keeping/destroying the base. On the other, they seem to have given the base to Cerberus regardless of your decision.

Its because of this i'm even more convinced that the choice has nothing to do with what use the base has in terms of stopping the reapers and was always meant to be whether or not you believed you could trust cerberus.

[alperez]

AlanC9 wrote...

alperez wrote...
If Shepard is supposed to be a representation of You the player, then surely Shepard should also represent your morality as well?

That's hardly necessary. Many of my Shepards have different moral outlooks from my personal one.

I did say if right?

But even if you roleplayed shepard's with different moral outlooks than your own, then the argument still carries weight, albeit it slightly differently phrased.

The different Shepards you roleplay with different moral outlooks, would still i assume follow a moral code particular to how you were trying to portray them?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Well - this thread has devolved.

"Renegade: You're a dumb idealist!"

"Paragon: You're a terrorist!"

Well,it was going smashingly well before

Paragon:I accept your judgement is sound,but I beleive my reasons to be just.
Renegade:You're an idealistic,delusional,illogical spoot and I hate that Paragons always get taken care of.<_<

More like:

"I accept your judgment is sound, by I believe my reasons to be just. And I also expect you to accept my judgment is sound, and if you don't then you're a moron!"

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I expect you to accept my judgment is sound, and if you don't then you're a moron!

This is pretty much the renegade stance...

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 02 août 2011 - 07:11 .

[Aumata]

That both paragon and renegade stance. I kept the base for my main paragon playthrough, need the advantage for the reapers, and Cerberus wasn't that much of a big deal as I can always kill them and keep the base for the Alliance anyway, well if given that choice. Tech is still tech, and I rather have any advantage than none, and rely the finale giving me a dues ex machnia. Besides this still leads to humans having the advantage on the tech usage than the other guys. Besides if I was willing to trust the Rachni then I can stand to trust Cerberus.

[Medhia Nox]

@Pulletlamer: Do you think you would have given it (the Collector Base) to the Alliance or the Council?

The question is still out there for people who chose to destroy the base (note: I don't care if you're a "paragon" or a "renegade").

How much, if at all, did Cerberus and your opinion of Cerberus factor into your decision to destroy the base?

----

@Aumata: I am primarily a paragon, and I don't think people who keep Collector Bases, let the Council die, and destroy the heretic Geth (I actually did this) or any other renegade choice - are stupid or wrong.

Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as deciding that they're stupid and illogical. ((I'd also like to see proof of how many people have taken at least one course in Logic - a lot of experts here.))

[AlanC9]

alperez wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

alperez wrote...
If Shepard is supposed to be a representation of You the player, then surely Shepard should also represent your morality as well?

That's hardly necessary. Many of my Shepards have different moral outlooks from my personal one.

I did say if right?

Yep, you did. Since the if clause isn't true, and so neither is the following clause.

The different Shepards you roleplay with different moral outlooks, would still i assume follow a moral code particular to how you were trying to portray them?

Sure, in the sense that any consistent pattern of behavior can be expressed as a moral code. I don't think too many of us play Shepards who act randomly.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 août 2011 - 08:15 .

[alperez]

Alan

I'm not sure if i'm misunderstanding you or if your misunderstanding me, or if we're actually even disagreeing.

But if i'm getting it right your saying that because some of your Shepard's don't neccessarily follow the same moral code as you personal, then what i said wouldn't equate to how you play the game?

[sg1fan75]

The base was evil I blow up evil things!

[alperez]

Medhia Nox wrote...


The question is still out there for people who chose to destroy the base (note: I don't care if you're a "paragon" or a "renegade").

How much, if at all, did Cerberus and your opinion of Cerberus factor into your decision to destroy the base?

My thoughts originally were that the base itself held inherent problems irresepective of who had control over it.

There are 2 many variables imo, yes studying reaper tech could lead to A,B or even C (or any combination of possible positives), but its also been shown to lead to D (serious negatives) irrespective of who had access or control over it, i always felt the negatives could potentially outweigh the positives.

My feelings on Cerberus though probably sealed the deal, i don't trust that they are the best people to be in control of the base, not just because i disagree with their idealogy or that i personally find TIM to be untrustworthy, although both of these played a factor also.

But their competance in dealing with the base was as big a factor as my distrust of them, most examples we see of how they deal with questionable tech didn't have the best outcomes, so even if they were trustworthy and i believed that the base would only be used for what i hoped it would be, i don't believe they're competent enough to do the job anyway.

On reflection i'd say that the council or alliance wouldn't be any better in regards to controlling the base either, but if i'd been given the option to hand it over to them, i may have done so at the time, i'd probably be kicking myself over it later though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

When did Cerberus ever use high-profile attacks in conjunction with media frenzy scare tactics to influence the actions of governing bodies? 

"Terrorist" and "terrorism" have become emotional buzzwords used to invoke irrational feelings of panic and terror by the very people who bandy the terms about. 

You might as well start posting a color-coded Cerberus Threat Chart next.

That's just childish.

No, it's true.

Cerberus doesn't fit the standard definition of terrorism.

Maybe the council has a different definition?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

What did that matter though? They still actively worked with aliens in both books and in the comics to further their own ends, which ultimately meant fighting the Reapers.

Good luck getting the rest of the galaxy to work with those clowns.

Interestingly enough, those "clowns" were easier to work with and of more use to Sheppard then the Citadel clowns.
Go figure....

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Can anyone prove that destroying the base will end in failure? ((No matter how much you have decided it ought to))

And - if it doesn't - the designers completely disagree with your point of view.

And that's all the affirmation I need for my choice .

So, meta-gaming in other words.

Congratulations, you have contributed nothing to this discussion.

Meta-gaming is the only true way to solve this, though.

No.
This cannot be solved with meta-gaming at all.
Do you realise, that no matter what happens in ME3 that will have NO impact on this discussion?

If you think otherwise, then you never understood what this discussion was about in the firt place.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Pulletlamer wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

My point is that they're still the same xenophobic organization they were before, during, and after working with aliens.

Which means, they're not willing to accept aliens as equals, and I doubt they would actively cooperate with alien races to bring down the Reapers. Cerberus is more of working his own way.

That is frankly, bunk. Cerberus worked with aliens in prior to ME2 and during ME2. You are blatantly ignoring their actions and making up your own portrayal of what they've done.

You're full of it, in other words.

You're blatantly ignoring all the experiments they've done to other races in the galaxy:

Like rachni and thorian creepers, project overlord...

Not to mention nearly all their operatives are xenophobic (from Miranda's words), like Kai Leng.

Also they attacked a ship of the Quarian Fleet, killed it's crew and used it to infiltrate another quarian ship.

Just because they've cooperating on some specific situations with aliens  (and I wouldn't dare even say so, because they mostly gave the instructions and the aliens did the job, like Liara & Feron), doesn't mean they wouldn't dare to let them die or sacrifice them to the Reapers.

The one that is ignoring their past actions and their ideology here is you.

You're basing their ideology and profile on a few remote words and events, while ignoring everything else.

Your bias has been evident from your first post, but you now jsut keep confirming it.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Interestingly enough, those "clowns" were easier to work with and of more use to Sheppard then the Citadel clowns.
Go figure....

Can't work with them if they're already dead.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You're basing their ideology and profile on a few remote words and events, while ignoring everything else.

Your bias has been evident from your first post, but you now jsut keep confirming it.

The whole "Cerberus aren't as bad as they look" gag is just wasted, because everyone knows what they've done.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Medhia Nox wrote...

What I'd be interested in knowing, from those who destroyed the base:

How many of you factored Cerberus strongly into your decision?

I noticed that all of those who blew the base up hate cerberus.....

[Barquiel]

The Systems Alliance and the Citadel Council have declared Cerberus to be a terrorist organization. Cerberus Operative Jacob Taylor and Shepard call them terrorists.

I suppose everyone uses the "wrong" definition? Stupid Mass Effect universe...

[atheelogos]

HomelessGal wrote...

I approve of the title.

I think keeping the base is more interesting in a narrative sense, though Retribution and Invasion seem to make the choice almost irrelevant.

Yes but arguments after the fact don't work so....

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...


I expect you to accept my judgment is sound, and if you don't then you're a moron!

This is pretty much the renegade stance...

Ahh...you see, but you think that because you accepted my stance as reasonable, that I have to accept yours too.

I don't.
And for that you somehow percieve those that don't as sinister.