535 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroVoid]

I can at least respect Xen's ambition though I disagree. Recontrolling the Geth would give them back their homeworld while also making them a viable threat in the galaxy which would in turn allow them to be taken seriously again. Even if they get Rannoch back and can work out something with the Geth, alone, they really won't have any say with the council or the rest of the galaxy.

[Cpt-Brit]

I'm still holding out hope that not all of Cerberus has turned "Bad" in ME3...

By "Bad" of course I mean the ones trying to kill Humanity's Savior/Founder of Heart Breakers Anonymous

Modifié par Cpt-Brit, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:43 .

[PurePareidolia]

The problem is, what they say isn't what you see in-game. No matter the justification they give, it's always either a lie, poorly thought out, or exposes some other flaw.

In-game they're stupid, needlessly chaotic evil, and they're the only human supremacist group to have a 100% human kill count. They're poorly organized - TIM can't keep track of the numerous rogue cells permeating his organization, which at last count is pretty much every Cerberus operative you've ever encountered, including the Normandy if you pick the Paragon ending to ME2. They're laughably incompetant - branding all their merchandise with their logo, allowing you to be identified by literally anyone with a passing familiarity with them. And you do get identified by everyone who has even a passing familiarity with them. Their intel is essentially useless for all intents and purposes, and often drastically incomplete (sometimes intentionally), causing unnecessary danger for Shepard and co. Basically, the fact they could reconstruct Shepard and the Normandy can only be explained through divine intervention because this is the same group who decided to test the effects of thresher maws on colonists in order to find out what happens if you feed colonists to thresher maws.

Basically even if you grant that everything they do had the best of intentions or was just portrayed badly, they're still dangerously incompetant and needlessly cruel for no good reason. Basically, no amount of philosophy excuses the fact that whatever their goals, the only reason they haven't self destructed is because the writers love them so much.

[Aeowyn]

Excellent OP. I especially like the point of "Trying too hard", because they really are. It would be interesting to here from Walters and Hudson what their vision for Cerberus really is, because they've been all over the map now.

[HiroVoid]

Cerberus pretty much succeeds or fails by whatever the plot demands at the time. If Shepard's involved, they're obviously going to fail it's because he's Shepard, and everyone fails against Shepard.

I also can't remember who it was between, but I remember hearing about two devs or writers where one stated they pretty much had different visions on how to portray TIM or Cerberus.  The other one obviously outranked the person in question though.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:55 .

[sponge56]

PurePareidolia wrote...

The problem is, what they say isn't what you see in-game. No matter the justification they give, it's always either a lie, poorly thought out, or exposes some other flaw.

In-game they're stupid, needlessly chaotic evil, and they're the only human supremacist group to have a 100% human kill count. They're poorly organized - TIM can't keep track of the numerous rogue cells permeating his organization, which at last count is pretty much every Cerberus operative you've ever encountered, including the Normandy if you pick the Paragon ending to ME2. They're laughably incompetant - branding all their merchandise with their logo, allowing you to be identified by literally anyone with a passing familiarity with them. And you do get identified by everyone who has even a passing familiarity with them. Their intel is essentially useless for all intents and purposes, and often drastically incomplete (sometimes intentionally), causing unnecessary danger for Shepard and co. Basically, the fact they could reconstruct Shepard and the Normandy can only be explained through divine intervention because this is the same group who decided to test the effects of thresher maws on colonists in order to find out what happens if you feed colonists to thresher maws.

Basically even if you grant that everything they do had the best of intentions or was just portrayed badly, they're still dangerously incompetant and needlessly cruel for no good reason. Basically, no amount of philosophy excuses the fact that whatever their goals, the only reason they haven't self destructed is because the writers love them so much.

This, its hard to say Bioware make them delibretly evil in some cirumstances when in almost every circumstance they have been portrayed as morally loose morons.

[Aeowyn]

HiroVoid wrote...

Cerberus pretty much succeeds or fails by whatever the plot demands at the time. If Shepard's involved, they're obviously going to fail it's because he's Shepard, and everyone fails against Shepard.

I also can't remember who it was between, but I remember hearing about two devs or writers where one stated they pretty much had different visions on how to portray TIM or Cerberus.  The other one obviously outranked the person in question though.

I think it was Drew K who said that Cerberus and TIM were evil, whereas Mac Walter has said that they're more "grey". Personally I don't believe they've succeded with the grey part.

[HiroVoid]

Since Drew only wrote ME1, and you could originally join Cerberus in ME1, that makes me think the P/R system was originally a lot closer to the Light/Dark scale than I thought.

Also, a good example of not having a trilogy story guide would be how ME1 ended with the council, or Udian and Anderson discussiong about dealing with the Reaper threat, and just making it so nobody believes Shepard in the second one.  They obviously thought at the time they were going to follow up with people believing the reapers, but changed their minds in development of ME2.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:07 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

you don't seriously believe the ME team would allow such a message in their video games, do you?

There are no gay people in Mass Effect because the likely result of genetic engineering, designer babies if you will, would mean the exclusions of genes which can cause homosexuality.

True story.

Also, furries are illegal.

No reason designer babies would result in the exclusion of genes which can cause homosexuality

Especially when homosexual couples will be amongst those lining up to design babies (meaning that they are less likely to see heterosexuality as a desirable feature meriting genetic engineering)

 That and the link between 'gene' and sexuality is such a tenuous and complicated one that the chances of it being removed by such methods within the next few centuries is a stretch to say the least

[Ieldra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
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.

I enjoy that, too. It only gets problematic if the game tries to invoke emotions opposite to the one I'm actually feeling. Such as "you should feel this is bad", where I actually feel "this is very desirable". This only works when thinking it through, there's actually a point in invoking "this feels bad". But if you think things through and find that no, there is no reason to feel "this is bad" and you actually find it desirable, then it feels like the game is, irrationally, promoting an ideology hostile to your own.

It is, thrice damn it, not evil to seek radical technological advancement. And it's not evil to seek power for your faction. Everyone does it. Every single faction or country in the whole world tries to get more powerful than its neighbors. Would you say that, for instance, promoting European integration because the EU would have more political weight that way is evil?

So anything that attempts to make me feel bad about "human advancement" as such isn't just doomed to fail, it's bound to backfire, and backfire badly. I wouldn't have such a problem if the Alliance had made it their cause. I could be done with Cerberus and man, would that be a relief of epic proportion. But as long as Cerberus is the only group that makes human advancement their cause they have some credit with me. I'll destroy projects like Pragia and anything else of the kind I meet, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

Unfortunately, it appears as if Cerberus will have gone even more off the deep end in ME3. That will leave my Shepard a man with no faction. I guess he'll leave Citadel space with Miranda and a few ten-thousand like-minded individuals.

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.

I'd like to be directed there. Link?

[Cpt-Brit]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Fighting on the same side as Shepard doesn't make one good any more than fighting against Shepard makes someone bad.

I class my Shepard as "Good" because hes fighting to stop the destruction of all organic life... if you don't class that as a "Good" goal then you are quite frankly a moron not that I'm trying to insult you at all but I just personally count "Saving all that is alive" as "Good"

Anyone that is trying to stop me doing this is "Bad" or "Uninformed"

[Ieldra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...
I think it was Drew K who said that Cerberus and TIM were evil, whereas Mac Walter has said that they're more "grey". Personally I don't believe they've succeded with the grey part.

Casey Hudson tells Walters how to write TIM. That's what was being referred to.

That's unfortunate. I like Jack Harper in ME:Evolution and would totally subscribe to the Cerberus manifesto of 2157, at least the part we get to read.  You cannot but notice that things could've gone differently from there.

[Kaiser Shepard]

HiroVoid wrote...

Since Drew only wrote ME1, and you could originally join Cerberus in ME1, that makes me think the P/R system was originally a lot closer to the Light/Dark scale than I thought.

The main difference being that in Mass Effect, you ultimately can't choose to join the local Dark Side/Sith expy, which strangely (and sadly) enough leaves Kotor as the superior experience when it comes to player agency.

Also, a good example of not having a trilogy story guide would be how ME1 ended with the council, or Udian and Anderson discussiong about dealing with the Reaper threat, and just making it so nobody believes Shepard in the second one.  They obviously thought at the time they were going to follow up with people believing the reapers, but changed their minds in development of ME2.

Agreed.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 22 novembre 2011 - 02:02 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Cruetly without a point undermines the use of cruelty, and the point.


But I do think you missed an important fifth point, Ieldra: relativism compared to other groups and species, especially the established galactic order. No criticism of Cerberus bioweapons can stand without recognition of the Salarian genophage. No condemnation of the nature of the goals, of economic/cultural dominance can miss the Asari. No argument against the conduct in a fight can ignore Turian doctrine.

And no denouncement of the 'mission first' mentality can ignore the Spectres.

QFT!!!

[HiroVoid]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Since Drew only wrote ME1, and you could originally join Cerberus in ME1, that makes me think the P/R system was originally a lot closer to the Light/Dark scale than I thought.

The main difference being that in Mass Effect, you ultimately can't choose to join the local Dark Side/Sith expy, which strangely (and sadly) enough leaves Kotor as the superior experience when it comes to player agency.

This is also a reason i'm not a fan of the import system so far.  It feels like it limits our ability to make choices than it does to have them count.

[FlyinElk212]

While that was a great read, I must say that I believe support for Cerberus is much more simplistic than that.

The whole Pro-Anti Cerberus debate stems from the philosophical question of "Which is more important: morality, or efficiency?" While Cerberus does have a fair share of failures, they are the only active party to make efficient strides against the main threat of the game, the Reapers.

So if you value morality over efficiency, bam, anti-Cerberus. If you value efficiency over morality, bam, pro-Cerberus.

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...


No reason designer babies would result in the exclusion of genes which can cause homosexuality

What parent is going to choose to have a gay kid? Homosexuals are rare enough as it is. In a world in which parents can choose to have normal children there will be even fewer homosexuals. They'll become increasingly rare.

 Putting aside the aforementioned complexities of a gene-sexuality relationship..

 Is the issue whether people will choose to have gay kids, or not choose to have the sexuality be so decided? Unless you are suggesting a program where the entire genome is constructed from blank, any other program would involve altering a base genome at desired zones

 I am sure many people would choose not to have that part decided. It may not be your view, but there is a multitude of people out there.. many who wouldn't adopt the 'heterosexuality is normal' stance

[Ieldra]

FlyinElk212 wrote...
While that was a great read, I must say that I believe support for Cerberus is much more simplistic than that.

The whole Pro-Anti Cerberus debate stems from the philosophical question of "Which is more important: morality, or efficiency?" While Cerberus does have a fair share of failures, they are the only active party to make efficient strides against the main threat of the game, the Reapers.

So if you value morality over efficiency, bam, anti-Cerberus. If you value efficiency over morality, bam, pro-Cerberus.

You're talking about consequentialism - which I covered. Most people value both morality and pragmatism, and which will win out depends on the situation. The interesting thing about Cerberus is that the Reaper threat does indeed justify drastic means, as Arrival shows. so that they become acceptable - to a agree - in the current situation. The problem is that the Akuze and Pragia incidents feature *pointless* cruelty - the question is how can you remain pro-Cerberus in the face of that. That's where the points (1) to (3) from the OP come in.

[Kaiser Shepard]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...


No reason designer babies would result in the exclusion of genes which can cause homosexuality

What parent is going to choose to have a gay kid? Homosexuals are rare enough as it is. In a world in which parents can choose to have normal children there will be even fewer homosexuals. They'll become increasingly rare.

 Putting aside the aforementioned complexities of a gene-sexuality relationship..

 Is the issue whether people will choose to have gay kids, or not choose to have the sexuality be so decided? Unless you are suggesting a program where the entire genome is constructed from blank, any other program would involve altering a base genome at desired zones

 I am sure many people would choose not to have that part decided. It may not be your view, but there is a multitude of people out there.. many who wouldn't adopt the 'heterosexuality is normal' stance

When you get to the point where people are able and willing to decide their upcoming child's features, there's no reason to doubt they'll have its sexuality be fixed if able to. I mean, if you care enough to have your own genes be customised to "perfection", you'd want the resulting child to eventually pass those on as well, right?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 22 novembre 2011 - 03:43 .

[CptData]

Need to read OP ... however, I don't think there's much stuff that will justify some of Cerberus' actions.

The thing is - and that's a bit political here - we have an history of bloodshed and wars because a lot of guys wanted the best and did the worst to achieve that goal. Cerberus follows this rule: as long as it looks like a good idea for the goal, they'll even start a war, violate ethics and whatnot.

Will read the OP later, but there's no good in Cerberus. That's just my imagination from what I read in the lore.

[CrutchCricket]

I guess I'm still wondering why we need to classify Cerberus as good or evil to begin with...

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 22 novembre 2011 - 03:43 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Ieldra2 wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...
While that was a great read, I must say that I believe support for Cerberus is much more simplistic than that.

The whole Pro-Anti Cerberus debate stems from the philosophical question of "Which is more important: morality, or efficiency?" While Cerberus does have a fair share of failures, they are the only active party to make efficient strides against the main threat of the game, the Reapers.

So if you value morality over efficiency, bam, anti-Cerberus. If you value efficiency over morality, bam, pro-Cerberus.

You're talking about consequentialism - which I covered. Most people value both morality and pragmatism, and which will win out depends on the situation. The interesting thing about Cerberus is that the Reaper threat does indeed justify drastic means, as Arrival shows. so that they become acceptable - to a agree - in the current situation. The problem is that the Akuze and Pragia incidents feature *pointless* cruelty - the question is how can you remain pro-Cerberus in the face of that. That's where the points (1) to (3) from the OP come in.

 This, to me, is the frustrating false dilemna of how they issue is usually presented.. morality vs pragmatism

 Pragmatism is just judging what is the most likely way to bring about certain ends.. morality usually decides on those ends and consequentialism is a way of thinking which very closely links those ends as the moral truths of the situation.. although really as term consequentialism can be a bit loose (it entails a LOT of viewpoints)

 And yes, in my eyes the question for a consequentialist is.. to what extent are the actions of Cerberus a) necessary, or conducive, to tackling the Reaper threat

 But that is not a choice between morality and pragmatism.

 Neither, incidentally, would be a viewpoint which said it was wrong to, as an example, torture someone with a mental condition, and as such they disagreed with Overlord. It just means that the end they are seeking to bring about is 'no torture of people with mental conditions'.. so rejecting Overlord would be a  very pragmatic way of achieveing that! You could object, and I would, that they haven't quantified the moral outcome i.e no torture of people with mental conditions may result in more pain in others, so have they considered that. But that does not mean they have chosen morality over pragmatism