535 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Really cool OP, Ieldra. A few points:

- I agree with you that, most of the time, tech isn't bad. It's just a tool, you know? A hammer isn't a murder weapon until you kill someone with it. And genetic engineering or more capable infantry are definitely not "evil" pursuits. But when you go about obtaining these tools in naughty ways in order to do naughty things, things become... problematic.

- On Miranda: I never saw her gene mods as a bad, evil thing. If anything, it was an example of the rich/poor gap; she gets to live a longer, healthier life with better education and more luxuries because she has the means to do so. As for her infertility, I saw that less as a side effect from her engineering and more as a parting shot from her father--she's his legacy, after all, and that legacy only continues on his terms.

- There were definitely some points where you could say Bioware "tried too hard" to make Cerberus look all nasty and sinister and stuff (Overlord, especially, jumps out as a blatant example). However, it never really broke my suspension of disbelief because Cerberus was pretty much constantly pointlessly reckless and destructive. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, story-wise, as Cerb sort of serves as a cautionary tale: what starts out as a really good plan with a noble goal can get out of hand if you're not careful. At what point do your own selfish desires begin to substitute for the "greater good," and how far can you stray from your own values before you leave them behind forever? This, I think, is one of the underlying themes of Mass Effect--where do you draw the line? When do the ends justify the means? It's up to the player to decide, and the entire series is built in such a way that it reinforces the player's own beliefs and morals by allowing him or her to act them out in a simulated scenario.

So really, it's not bashing consequentialism, but allowing you to experiment with it.

Well, it would be if it weren't for the frickin' paragon/renegade system. Oh well, no one's perfect.

- A good story is supposed to manipulate you emotionally. It's only when it blatantly fails that it sucks. Unfortunately, the boundary between success and failure is different for everyone (and BW failed to impress me more than once *coughBENEZIAcough*). I actually really enjoy tracking and projecting the author's intent in a sort of "I see what you did there" exercise.

And if you're wondering where the line between success and failure lies for me in terms of how well the story toys with my feelings, allow me to direct you to Why James Cameron's Avatar Sucked, #56.

[Drone223]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Really cool OP, Ieldra. A few points:

- I agree with you that, most of the time, tech isn't bad. It's just a tool, you know? A hammer isn't a murder weapon until you kill someone with it. And genetic engineering or more capable infantry are definitely not "evil" pursuits. But when you go about obtaining these tools in naughty ways in order to do naughty things, things become... problematic.

- On Miranda: I never saw her gene mods as a bad, evil thing. If anything, it was an example of the rich/poor gap; she gets to live a longer, healthier life with better education and more luxuries because she has the means to do so. As for her infertility, I saw that less as a side effect from her engineering and more as a parting shot from her father--she's his legacy, after all, and that legacy only continues on his terms.

- There were definitely some points where you could say Bioware "tried too hard" to make Cerberus look all nasty and sinister and stuff (Overlord, especially, jumps out as a blatant example). However, it never really broke my suspension of disbelief because Cerberus was pretty much constantly pointlessly reckless and destructive. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, story-wise, as Cerb sort of serves as a cautionary tale: what starts out as a really good plan with a noble goal can get out of hand if you're not careful. At what point do your own selfish desires begin to substitute for the "greater good," and how far can you stray from your own values before you leave them behind forever? This, I think, is one of the underlying themes of Mass Effect--where do you draw the line? When do the ends justify the means? It's up to the player to decide, and the entire series is built in such a way that it reinforces the player's own beliefs and morals by allowing him or her to act them out in a simulated scenario.

So really, it's not bashing consequentialism, but allowing you to experiment with it.

Well, it would be if it weren't for the frickin' paragon/renegade system. Oh well, no one's perfect.

- A good story is supposed to manipulate you emotionally. It's only when it blatantly fails that it sucks. Unfortunately, the boundary between success and failure is different for everyone (and BW failed to impress me more than once *coughBENEZIAcough*). I actually really enjoy tracking and projecting the author's intent in a sort of "I see what you did there" exercise.

And if you're wondering where the line between success and failure lies for me in terms of how well the story toys with my feelings, allow me to direct you to Why James Cameron's Avatar Sucked, #56.

^This

[trackboy186]

In the context of only the games, I might agree. Within the context of the larger universe from the novels, comics, etc. I would have to vehemently disagree. Deliberate torture, cruel experiments, and ingraining racism and species superiority into your people move you away from groups I could ever possibly support. Especially when the experiments are upon the people you look to be the vanguard of.

[Blacklash93]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Oddly, Kaiser wasn't doing that.

He said a fan knows better than Bioware about its own creation, which means he thinks he knows what's better for the story. He doesn't.

Can Bioware do no wrong? How did you become so mindless?

Bioware can do wrong and probably has, but it's his attitude and not the opinion itself. As I said in later post, it's how he treats it as some sort of final verdict and shoving it down everyone's throat that that irks me.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 22 novembre 2011 - 03:18 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Saphra Deden wrote...
After all, the devs have admitted they often rely on the wiki. 

Erm, isn't that the sort of thing an internal story bible should exist for? Please tell me they have one of those.

[Silent X]

Excellent and very interesting post, Ieldra. While I'm firmly in the anti-Cerberus camp, I have to agree that you have a point about both the inconsistency in how Cerberus is portrayed and BioWare's trying too hard to hammer home that they're evil.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Which, yet again, is another thing I’m highly allergic against: using emotional manipulation to drive a moral point home. As a result of this, after UNC: Missing Marines, I was absolutely determined to give Cerberus as much benefit of the doubt as I could.

I get what you're saying, and I understand wanting to act in a contrary way when presented with something that feels patronizing, but a knee-jerk reaction against an attempted emotional manipulation is still an emotional reaction. Being unsure what to think about the mission at this point would be rational, but being determined to give Cerberus the benefit of the doubt as much as possible still strikes me as an emotional response. . . just not the one the game was going for.

Ieldra2 wrote...

But it doesn’t end here. Although not directly Cerberus-related, Bioware tried this again with Miranda’s genetic engineering. The "genetic aristocracy supremacism agenda" hinted at when Miranda spoke of her father was being used to morally discredit Miranda’s genetic engineering, driven home by her infertility in LotSB as some sort of "nothing good can come of it" message.

I can see how Miranda could be read that way, but if that was the writers' intent, I'm afraid it was lost on me. I took her genetic modification as chiefly relevant to her character as an individual. It explains both her general arrogance and her underlying insecurity. She knows that she has above-average abilities in some ways and as such feels that she's better than others, but this has also made her prey to a fierce perfectionism that makes her feel she has absolutely no excuse for ever failing at anything. I also agree with AdmiralCheez's point about Miranda's "genetic perfection" being a commentary on class divisions.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Overlord is another example. I don’t know how others reacted, but when I saw the image of David in that contraption, my reaction wasn’t a horrified "That’s….monstrous", but rather "You don’t *seriously* expect me to take that at face value. Right?"

I can't really argue with this. I did find the presentation of David shocking, and it did get the desired gut reaction from me, but at the same I was thinking, "Why does this experiment necessitate holding his eyes open Clockwork Orange-style? And what are those tubes for?" There are definitely ways in which the presentation of Cerberus doesn't make total sense.

Iedra2 wrote...

As for what *would* have worked: imagine if you had found this log on Pragia: "I noticed you’ve scheduled another round of experiments on Zero...yes, I know you’re pressed for time and we’ve run out of sedatives, but can you do it somewhere else? The screaming makes the other children nervous, and that skews the results of our psychological evaluations." I believe that would’ve been quite a bit more chilling because of the ruthlessly plausible reasoning. And in Overlord, the scene would have worked better if David was sitting in a chair. Or does anyone think what was done to his eyes and the force-feeding tubes weren’t enough to show what we were dealing with?

You're absolutely right on this point.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Of course, Cerberus does quite obviously not represent that face as a whole, but since you can, for various reasons already mentioned, dismiss the more monstrous acts as "not being the real Cerberus", it becomes possible to posit that Cerberus advances a desirable agenda, and that apart of a few "accidents", it goes about it by means that are, if morally problematic, nonetheless justified.

This is where I have to disagree. I think I get what you're saying, but I don't come to the same conclusion. I've never bought that the experiments at the Teltin facility or Project Overlord were "not the real Cerberus." What I see in those instances is the Illusive Man, an individual wholly focused on results, giving a cell a goal and license to do whateve they see fit in order to achieve that goal. His purported ignorance of just what was going on in these instances strikes me not as innocence but rather as a savvy leader making sure he always maintains plausible deniability. If he really cared what his subordinates were up to, he would pay more attention. By giving them free reign, he maximizes his chances to get what he wants from their operations while keeping a distance that allows him to claim, "I didn't know what they were doing." I'm convinced that he makes a point of not knowing what his cells are doing just so he can pull out that excuse. And yes, I am definitely making an inference here, but it fits the available information, as far as I can see, so I think it's as valid as any other inference.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Now Cerberus was introduced in ME2 a ruthless "result at all costs" type of organization. As which it shouldn’t have been too different from the salarian STG or even the Spectres. Besides, in the ME games we find ourselves in a war for survival of all organic sentient life in the galaxy, which can reasonably be said to justify rather drastic means. Arrival provides the best example.

People may be mislead into believing that Cerberus represents that kind of ruthlessness. If it did, using anything more than the least unacceptable methods to further their goals would make no sense. Still they do. Which should cause people to withdraw their support. So why don't they?

I'm not about to deny that the STG, Spectres, or similar groups may be guilty of the same kind of abuses that we see Cerberus commit. I think what makes the STG, Spectres, etc. seem less objectionable to me is that these groups ultimately have accountability. The STG must answer to the Salarian government, and the Spectres must answer to the Council. This does not prevent wrongdoing, but it does at least mean that these shadowy groups can be taken to task by people who shoulder public responsibility. Saren attacks a colony; once his actions are proven, he is stripped of his Spectre status, delcared a criminal, and another Spectre is sent after him to put a stop to his activities. Cerberus, as I see it, faces essentially no accountability. The only authority anyone in Cerberus answers to is the Illusive Man, who as far as I can judge is ultimately only concerned with garnering power for himself as the man-behind-the-curtain in a galaxy where humans subjugate the other races. (This view of TIM was cemented for me by the paragon ending of ME2, in which he asserts that "Cerberus is humanity." If he believes that Cerberus is humanity, well, the Illusive Man basically is Cerberus, ergo. . . )

Well, those are my thoughts, anyway.

[someone else]

Just a quick note of appreciation for a great OP

bleetman wrote...

The problem - and this has always been a concurrent theme with Cerberus operations, it seems - is that pretty much everything they've ever been specifically described doing has been a complete disaster.

Yup - hard to bet the ranch on this bunch - Lazarus was about all they got really right - so TIM has no army of supersoldiers, no super biotics, no super weapon, and has screwed up his bet on Shep - so if he's got the collector base, that's his best card - otherwise he's kinda out of options 'cept to dance with da debbil...gotta love a loser.

[sevach]

The op makes some very good points, i specially agree with the use of shock value for creating EEEEVIL Cerberus!!!!
Anyway, i supported Cerberus because:

Everyone is out for themselves, be it Council, Alliance, Hierarchy, Migrant fleet... they only care about themselves, which is why you have to run around in ME3 fixing everybody's problems so they help you against the Reapers out of a sense of gratitude.

Cerberus is out for themselves as well, only their objectives suit me just fine, stop the Reapers and advance humanity.
Yep simple as that, no one is "good", no one is "bad"... i align with the group that suits me best.

What i don't understand is, why Bioware is going for shock value with "evil, evil, eeeevil Cerberus" while they keep the others reasonably grey?
The genophage? Has a logical discussion on it.
The Quarian plans? Aren't treated as evil, evil, eeeeevil, rather as stooopid and doomed from the beggining.
Council and Alliance corruption? swept under the rug (like it should honestly, it makes perfect sense for them, Alliance and Council, to sweep every mistake under a big rug).

Yet Cerberus, ultimate shock value EEEEEVIL!!!!!

[sevach]

Good point.

Anyway, i don't have any delusions that Cerberus is good or altruistic, they aren't.
I just don't have the same delusions for the Alliance and Council either, so i decided to go with Cerberus.

I always thought it made perfect sense that somehow, behind the scenes, Cerberus and Alliance are still one and the same, fighting the same cause on different fronts.

Alliance political, Cerberus the behind the scenes "shady" stuff.
It makes no sense that a shady organization like Cerberus doesn't have a strong political side.

[Big I]

There are two ways to analyse Cerberus; firstly from a meta perspective where we ask what the devs were trying to do when they portrayed them the way they did, and secondly from an in universe perspective.


From a meta perspective it seems to me that if there was an overarching plan for Cerberus from before ME1 it was to present a "working with the enemy" scenario. The portrayal of Cerberus in both games and other media is overwhelmingly negative, and while they are given understandable motives (covertly supporting human interests) I believe that is done merely to make them a more effective antagonist. I do not believe it was to evoke sympathy, only to underscore the seriousness of the situation (i.e. the Collectors/Reapers).


From an in-universe perspective there is no doubt; Cerberus does not deserve support. While it is plausible that there are Cerberus projects that have never been recorded in any mass effect media, from the games etc we know about many of them; we have narrative perspectives from the Illusive Man, we have the Shadow Broker intel on them, etc. Out of all we know there are precisely four things that cannot be classified as overly ruthless, criminally negligent or both: reviving Shepard, giving Shepard the resources and intel for the suicide mission, helping Jacob stop batarians from killing the Council, and relocating Oriana. Everything else we know about Cerberus shows them crossing the line. Killing Kahoku. Detonating drive cores over human worlds. Jack. It all points to an organisation that is suffering from a lack of ethical and logistical oversight. And now in ME3 they're back to trying to kill Shepard. Cerberus is the enemy.

[GodWood]

Love it, especially the bit on technology.
Playing through this series I can't help but think Bioware has this moral lesson to teach that 'technology is bad'.
No Bioware, technology is not 'bad', pull your head out of the dark ages.

Arcian wrote...
People do say why, it's just that people like you dismiss their reasons.

He meant in game nobody says why.

[Ieldra]

bleetman wrote...
The problem - and this has always been a concurrent theme with Cerberus operations, it seems - is that pretty much everything they've ever been specifically described doing has been a complete disaster. With the exception of, I don't know, that time they developed some new guns for Shepard to try out, the only instance that springs to mind whereby they themselves actually accomplished something was the Lazarus project, which ended in the deaths of all but two of the project personnel and the destruction of the entire facility. If that's the standard upon which Cerberus views a successful operation, then that sure explains a few things. Don't even get my started on what they're seemingly up to in ME3, it's beyond asinine.

Which is a bit of a problem. If they were morally dubious but achieved tangible results, that'd be one thing. As it stands, it's less that, more 'morally dubious, and pretty much everything they touch goes horrendously wrong'. It's not much of a complex choice.

The problem with that reasoning is the question: how the hell did they got so influential? To retain any plausibility in their role, you can't avoid the assumption that what we're seeing are the most disastrous failures and that usually their operations are more of a qualified succcess.

That's why I call this apparent incompetence a presentation failure. At least from ME2 onwards, Cerberus was intended to embody Pragmatic Villainy. Only the pointless evil in the Akuze and Pragia incidents together with the on-screen incompetence made it come across as Stupid Evil.

[TobyHasEyes]

 Disagree that the distinction between taxation and a protection racket is an example of consequentialism in play

If you do have a consequentialist view of morality, then the distinction will be in the difference  consequences. However someone might equally question what the different motives are, what type of moral character each one reflects etc. That is not to say that those other views are more or less accurate, but simply to say that if someone supports taxation but doesn't support protection rackets that doesn't show them to be a closet consequentialist

 But I do support the distinction between consequentialism and 'a good end justifies any means'; an important distinction which allows me to broadly be a consequentialist Paragon (and not solely in-game)

[TobyHasEyes]

Arcian wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cerberus has logical reasons for what they do too but the presentation pulls at people's heart-strings too much for most players to look at rationally.

It's the same with the whole "you can't trust Cerberus". Everybody says but nobody ever says why.

People do say why, it's just that people like you dismiss their reasons.

 This

[Kaiser Shepard]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Oddly, Kaiser wasn't doing that.

He said a fan knows better than Bioware about its own creation, which means he thinks he knows what's better for the story. He doesn't.

Can Bioware do no wrong? How did you become so mindless?

Bioware can do wrong and probably has, but it's his attitude and not the opinion itself. As I said in later post, it's how he treats it as some sort of final verdict and shoving it down everyone's throat that that irks me.

You dare question my authority, son? Of course I know better, I am the Kaiser, after all.

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
After all, the devs have admitted they often rely on the wiki. 

Erm, isn't that the sort of thing an internal story bible should exist for? Please tell me they have one of those.

I'm fairly certain they have admitted they're just making it up as they go, which sort of shows.

I think the only thing they knew they were gonna do after ME1 was having things the trilogy end in a huge final space battle with the Reapers, and that's it. Hell, they probably didn't even know what they were gonna do after ME2.