1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Izhalezan]

Indoctrinated Archdemon, or, The Maker has been indoctrinated all along.

[DrNavi]

Personally I see cerberus as a necessary evil against galaxy destroying sentient spaceships from outside the universe

just saying, shepard has other crap to worry about

[sponge56]

DrNavi wrote...

Personally I see cerberus as a necessary evil against galaxy destroying sentient spaceships from outside the universe

just saying, shepard has other crap to worry about

Except this neccesary evil is working with the sentient spaceships

[Nightwriter]

Dr. Navi, I find your lack of appreciation for indoctrinated archdemons and Reaper abominations disturbing. Don't you know the poor swine flu infected biotic mage children in quarantine need your protection?

[Tasha vas Nar Rayya]

Cerberus' motives aren't as black and white as that.

In different situations, a more harsh method can be the only approach. Not that I support Cerberus, just that you can't claim that they can't be defended.

Different people have these things called 'opinions' you see.

[Aeowyn]

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

Is Cerberus a useful organization? Sure. After all, they brought Shepard back from the dead. Are they by any means a good organization? Hell no, and I would relish the chance to blow it up.

Humanity needs to be on par with the council races, but that will take time, not terrorism and douchebaggery.

Because I'm quite sure that the other Council races don't have anything remotely similar.

I also love how the word "terrorism" is thrown around by people who don't seem to know what it means. 

Modifié par Aeowyn, 16 novembre 2011 - 10:23 .

[Xilizhra]

Aeowyn wrote...

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

Is Cerberus a useful organization? Sure. After all, they brought Shepard back from the dead. Are they by any means a good organization? Hell no, and I would relish the chance to blow it up.

Humanity needs to be on par with the council races, but that will take time, not terrorism and douchebaggery.

Because I'm quite sure that the other Council races don't have anything remotely similar.

I also love how the word "terrorism" is thrown around by people who don't seem to know what it means. 

Those people including Jacob?

[Nightwriter]

Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...

Cerberus' motives aren't as black and white as that.

In different situations, a more harsh method can be the only approach. Not that I support Cerberus, just that you can't claim that they can't be defended.

Different people have these things called 'opinions' you see.

Then do you think they can be successfully defended? 

[didymos1120]

Xilizhra wrote...

Those people including Jacob?

Because Jacob's infallible, right? 

[Arkitekt]

I thought it was a nice touché

[General User]

didymos1120 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Those people including Jacob?

Because Jacob's infallible, right? 

I wouldn't call him infallible by any means, but he's got his head more or less on straight and has been around the block enough times to know what's up.  I trust his judgements and value his opinions more than most.

That said.  Jacob still saw his way to working with/for Cerberus when conditions demanded it.  So I guess you could take that a couple ways.

Modifié par General User, 16 novembre 2011 - 10:49 .

[Tasha vas Nar Rayya]

Nightwriter wrote...

Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...

Cerberus' motives aren't as black and white as that.

In different situations, a more harsh method can be the only approach. Not that I support Cerberus, just that you can't claim that they can't be defended.

Different people have these things called 'opinions' you see.

Then do you think they can be successfully defended? 

My mind could possibly be swayed, but it would have to be a hell of a good argument. But it seems that Cerberus' motives are so hazy, that it is difficult to defend them. They have so many bases that have gone awry (Pragia, for example) that it is hard to look at Cerberus as a whole in an untainted light.

From the vast changes in Cerberus throughout 1 and 2 and what we know from 3, it seems that TIM keeps on changing his ideas and plans. He is extremely unpredictable. It would be hard to defend Cerberus, but not impossible.

[DrNavi]

LiveLoveThaneKrios wrote...

DrNavi wrote...

Personally I see cerberus as a necessary evil against galaxy destroying sentient spaceships from outside the universe

just saying, shepard has other crap to worry about

Words cannot explain how .. silly this is.
Cerberus + Reapers + = A screwed Shepard.
Good day to you sir when this happens :happy:

this was more my shepards thinking for ME2, I don't know what ME3 has in store or how my opinion would change but going from ME2 i'm being logical, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[DiebytheSword]

My Shepard too saw Cerberus as an alliance of convenience in difficult times, but my final quip is always, "You can fall in line or step aside, but don't get in my way."

There's only one leader aboard the Normandy in ME3, and it isn't TIM. Now that he's a problem instead of an ally, the convenience is at an end.

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

Destroy Raiden wrote...

OP, It's amazing what evils a person can defend. It's always going to be like that you will always find someone who sympathizes with mass murders, child abusers, or terrorist and with those you can not reason because it is unconscionable.

Not really sure you can compare Cerberus supporters to murderers and child abusers.

I get the impression that playing Mass Effect as a pragmatist is something of a troubling experience, because much of the game's morality favors the paragon mindset, sometimes in spite of what seems practical. So these pragmatists tend to take refuge in their support of Cerberus, which is perhaps the closest thing to a pragmatic organization there is in the game.

Unfortunately for them, BioWare seems to have no intention of presenting Cerberus as a morally ambiguous and ethically complex organization, and only intends to turn them into the crazy incompetent bad guys we always feared they were.

Well, the problem is is that Renegade actions often don't come across as pragmatic.  You come across as a huge jerk.  Even the "Shoot-the-gasline-while-the-Krogan-is-talking" interrupt is more "Look at me I'm badass!" than pragmatic.

And...it's not a BAD thing that Cerberus isn't morally abiguous or "ethically complex".  Not everything must be so complicated to be well-written.  In ME1, we learned that there's this group called Cerberus who do crazy evil things and whose experiments usually go horribly bad because they're in WAY over their heads.  In ME2 we learned we only met one branch of the group.  We learned that the group's individuals and leaders try to write themselves off as "ethically complex" while still readily engaging in the same horrific experiments as before, status quo hasn't changed, they just try to give it a fresh coat of paint

And in ME3 we learn that, oh yeah, we were right, they are a bunch of jerks who try to rationalize their actions as being beneficial for the rest of humanity with one hand while the other still readily tortures people for whatever new experiment they're coming up with.  But this ISN'T bad writing.  They don't have to be gray to be good villains.  And I think so far they're exactly the kind of villains we should've expected.  Yes, it's predictable.  But that doesn't make it poor writing.

[Nightwriter]

Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Tasha vas Nar Rayya wrote...

Cerberus' motives aren't as black and white as that.

In different situations, a more harsh method can be the only approach. Not that I support Cerberus, just that you can't claim that they can't be defended.

Different people have these things called 'opinions' you see.

Then do you think they can be successfully defended? 

My mind could possibly be swayed, but it would have to be a hell of a good argument. But it seems that Cerberus' motives are so hazy, that it is difficult to defend them. They have so many bases that have gone awry (Pragia, for example) that it is hard to look at Cerberus as a whole in an untainted light.

From the vast changes in Cerberus throughout 1 and 2 and what we know from 3, it seems that TIM keeps on changing his ideas and plans. He is extremely unpredictable. It would be hard to defend Cerberus, but not impossible.

But what could this hell of a good argument possibly be? Given their ME1 presentation, their ME2 presentation, what we know about their ME3 presentation -- the whole shebang? Is there really a line of argument that could successfully defend every twist and turn of BioWare's narrative of Cerberus?

[Arkitekt]

And what do you know about their ME3 presentation?

I'd guess next to zero.

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Destroy Raiden wrote...

OP, It's amazing what evils a person can defend. It's always going to be like that you will always find someone who sympathizes with mass murders, child abusers, or terrorist and with those you can not reason because it is unconscionable.

Not really sure you can compare Cerberus supporters to murderers and child abusers.

I get the impression that playing Mass Effect as a pragmatist is something of a troubling experience, because much of the game's morality favors the paragon mindset, sometimes in spite of what seems practical. So these pragmatists tend to take refuge in their support of Cerberus, which is perhaps the closest thing to a pragmatic organization there is in the game.

Unfortunately for them, BioWare seems to have no intention of presenting Cerberus as a morally ambiguous and ethically complex organization, and only intends to turn them into the crazy incompetent bad guys we always feared they were.

Well, the problem is is that Renegade actions often don't come across as pragmatic.  You come across as a huge jerk.  Even the "Shoot-the-gasline-while-the-Krogan-is-talking" interrupt is more "Look at me I'm badass!" than pragmatic.

And...it's not a BAD thing that Cerberus isn't morally abiguous or "ethically complex".  Not everything must be so complicated to be well-written.  In ME1, we learned that there's this group called Cerberus who do crazy evil things and whose experiments usually go horribly bad because they're in WAY over their heads.  In ME2 we learned we only met one branch of the group.  We learned that the group's individuals and leaders try to write themselves off as "ethically complex" while still readily engaging in the same horrific experiments as before, status quo hasn't changed, they just try to give it a fresh coat of paint

And in ME3 we learn that, oh yeah, we were right, they are a bunch of jerks who try to rationalize their actions as being beneficial for the rest of humanity with one hand while the other still readily tortures people for whatever new experiment they're coming up with.  But this ISN'T bad writing.  They don't have to be gray to be good villains.  And I think so far they're exactly the kind of villains we should've expected.  Yes, it's predictable.  But that doesn't make it poor writing.

There are many pragmatic renegade moments.

Black and white is boring. It stimulates no thought. Cerberus's appeal as an organization was in its ambiguity. It is a bad thing if they are not presented in this light because ME2 seems to want us to take a second look at Cerberus, and second looks are meaningless if they simply confirm the conclusion we drew from our first look. Cerberus doesn't need to be infinitely complex, they just need to have a few projects that aren't Shepard related go right in a visually appreciable way. This inspires conflict, and conflict is aces.

If BioWare wanted to keep Cerberus as cut-and-dry villains, why reinvent them from their ME1 incarnations at all?

Modifié par Nightwriter, 16 novembre 2011 - 11:41 .

[DiebytheSword]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Destroy Raiden wrote...

OP, It's amazing what evils a person can defend. It's always going to be like that you will always find someone who sympathizes with mass murders, child abusers, or terrorist and with those you can not reason because it is unconscionable.

Not really sure you can compare Cerberus supporters to murderers and child abusers.

I get the impression that playing Mass Effect as a pragmatist is something of a troubling experience, because much of the game's morality favors the paragon mindset, sometimes in spite of what seems practical. So these pragmatists tend to take refuge in their support of Cerberus, which is perhaps the closest thing to a pragmatic organization there is in the game.

Unfortunately for them, BioWare seems to have no intention of presenting Cerberus as a morally ambiguous and ethically complex organization, and only intends to turn them into the crazy incompetent bad guys we always feared they were.

Well, the problem is is that Renegade actions often don't come across as pragmatic.  You come across as a huge jerk.  Even the "Shoot-the-gasline-while-the-Krogan-is-talking" interrupt is more "Look at me I'm badass!" than pragmatic.

And...it's not a BAD thing that Cerberus isn't morally abiguous or "ethically complex".  Not everything must be so complicated to be well-written.  In ME1, we learned that there's this group called Cerberus who do crazy evil things and whose experiments usually go horribly bad because they're in WAY over their heads.  In ME2 we learned we only met one branch of the group.  We learned that the group's individuals and leaders try to write themselves off as "ethically complex" while still readily engaging in the same horrific experiments as before, status quo hasn't changed, they just try to give it a fresh coat of paint

And in ME3 we learn that, oh yeah, we were right, they are a bunch of jerks who try to rationalize their actions as being beneficial for the rest of humanity with one hand while the other still readily tortures people for whatever new experiment they're coming up with.  But this ISN'T bad writing.  They don't have to be gray to be good villains.  And I think so far they're exactly the kind of villains we should've expected.  Yes, it's predictable.  But that doesn't make it poor writing.

That sums up my feelings on the group pretty well, well said!

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

There are many pragmatic renegade moments.

Black and white is boring. It stimulates no thought. Cerberus's appeal as an organization was in its ambiguity. It is a bad thing if they are not presented in this light because ME2 seems to want us to take a second look at Cerberus, and second looks are meaningless if they simply confirm the conclusion we drew from our first look. Cerberus doesn't need to be infinitely complex, they just need to have a few projects that aren't Shepard related go right in a visually appreciable way. This inspires conflict, and conflict is aces.

If BioWare wanted to keep Cerberus as cut-and-dry villains, why reinvent them from their ME1 incarnations at all?

Black and white isn't boring.  Okay, maybe to you it is.  But generally speaking it's not.  It's a very simple and baseline conflict, yes, but there's all sorts of award-winning literature that is simply black-and-white.

And really?  Cerberus ambiguity?  In my mind the appeal was that no matter how much damage you did to them, you couldn't stop them.  Sure, we blasted their military branch in ME1.  Did it do much of ANYTHING to slow them down or stop them?  Hell no.  They toss tens of billions of credits into remaking Shepard and remaking the Normandy in ME2.  Sure, we learn that not everyone in their group is just a mindless human-centric bigot, but really?  Overlord and Jack didn't tell you that they're still not the same group as before?

And the whole thing with ME2 was that you're "making a deal with a devil" not because you want to, but because there isn't any other choice.  As for their projects, that's just the thing.  How many of their projects would have to go "right" before is outdid the ones that went "bad"?  And really, define "right" for me.  Because given their methods, I'm not sure a project of theirs going "right" is anymore more helpful to their cause.

Edit: Also, maybe what ME2 didn wasn't a "reinvention" at all?  Perhaps you were just persuaded to sympatheize with them because they happened to recruit members with less extreme ideals in the hopes you'd forget what it is they ACTUALLY do.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 16 novembre 2011 - 11:53 .

[GodWood]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Well, the problem is is that Renegade actions often don't come across as pragmatic.  You come across as a huge jerk.

Pretty much every renegade decision is pragmatic. You're just too ignorant to see it.

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

There are many pragmatic renegade moments.

Black and white is boring. It stimulates no thought. Cerberus's appeal as an organization was in its ambiguity. It is a bad thing if they are not presented in this light because ME2 seems to want us to take a second look at Cerberus, and second looks are meaningless if they simply confirm the conclusion we drew from our first look. Cerberus doesn't need to be infinitely complex, they just need to have a few projects that aren't Shepard related go right in a visually appreciable way. This inspires conflict, and conflict is aces.

If BioWare wanted to keep Cerberus as cut-and-dry villains, why reinvent them from their ME1 incarnations at all?

Black and white isn't boring.  Okay, maybe to you it is.  But generally speaking it's not.  It's a very simple and baseline conflict, yes, but there's all sorts of award-winning literature that is simply black-and-white.

And really?  Cerberus ambiguity?  In my mind the appeal was that no matter how much damage you did to them, you couldn't stop them.  Sure, we blasted their military branch in ME1.  Did it do much of ANYTHING to slow them down or stop them?  Hell no.  They toss tens of billions of credits into remaking Shepard and remaking the Normandy in ME2.  Sure, we learn that not everyone in their group is just a mindless human-centric bigot, but really?  Overlord and Jack didn't tell you that they're still not the same group as before?

And the whole thing with ME2 was that you're "making a deal with a devil" not because you want to, but because there isn't any other choice.  As for their projects, that's just the thing.  How many of their projects would have to go "right" before is outdid the ones that went "bad"?  And really, define "right" for me.  Because given their methods, I'm not sure a project of theirs going "right" is anymore more helpful to their cause.

Edit: Also, maybe what ME2 didn wasn't a "reinvention" at all?  Perhaps you were just persuaded to sympatheize with them because they happened to recruit members with less extreme ideals in the hopes you'd forget what it is they ACTUALLY do.

Pretty much. Essentially I felt like they were showing me that even though Cerberus had questionable methods, it was motivated to protect humanity just as much as Shepard, and that there were people in it with good intentions. They don't negate all the nasties, but they negate the conclusion that everyone in Cerberus is 100% bad.

Unfortunately this doesn't really say anything about TIM himself, and TIM pretty much is Cerberus.

[didymos1120]

GodWood wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Well, the problem is is that Renegade actions often don't come across as pragmatic.  You come across as a huge jerk.

Pretty much every renegade decision is pragmatic. You're just too ignorant to see it.

"Coming across as" is not the same thing as "is".  What the Renegade choices actually are (or are not) is rather irrelevant to how they're presented.  But feel free to keep castigating people for being ignorant.

[GodWood]

didymos1120 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Well, the problem is is that Renegade actions often don't come across as pragmatic.  You come across as a huge jerk.

Pretty much every renegade decision is pragmatic. You're just too ignorant to see it.

"Coming across as" is not the same thing as "is".  What the Renegade choices actually are (or are not) is rather irrelevant to how they're presented.  But feel free to keep castigating people for being ignorant.

I'm confident his intent was to criticise the choices themselves and not simply 'how they come across' despite his wording.

Either way, I fail to see how most of the major renegade decisions make Shepard come across as a huge jerk unless you have some self righteous stick up their arse.