1482 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

Omilophile wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

This is almost amusing to read.  No, you don't need a special forces background to do your job, get screwed over for doing your job, and then get sent home.  Serve the front lines, hell, serve the normal ratings that are outside supply in a box, and you'll see that.  

Since you're the one whose acting so tough, you're too important to go sign up for grunt work anyway.  Even Airman or Naval duty. 

I honestly have no idea where you're getting the "acting so tough" part. The only reason I brought up SpecFor was because of the way you brought on the question of whether or not I had served. It was as though you were trying to act tough yourself and act as though the only way to know anything at all was to "walk a mile in your shoes". I've dealt with that kind of person before, and I'm none too fond of them. Whether or not this was your intention, I don't know, but that was how I perceived it. 

Had you took the time to make a better joke, then I would have not assumed you're a moraly high and pompous person who would make base judgements on their own without experiencing something out of the ordinary. 

[DJBare]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't think I'd have to. Given whats at stake

In other words you expect them to volunteer, but what if they do not want to be melted down into dna sludge?, come on, you've been pretty straight with your opinion to this point, why waver now?

[AlexXIV]

incinerator950 wrote...

The human race is at stake, you need to accomplish that goal of saving them first.  Going back to the Alliance would have done nothing.  Shepard would have been imprisoned for six months like the Investigative committee anounced to Hacket.  Hacket denied that request because he knew Shepard would get it done.  If anything, turning himself in would have progressed nothing.  Cerberus had to happen, stop omitting the possibilities, and accept what already happened.  Accepting that what happened doesn't mean you have to like it.  

Shepard was dead, Cerberus revived him.  Alliance was either rebuilding, or not in a political position to accept its colonies. 

ME 1's colonies are in Alliance Space.  Terminus Human Colonies do not fit in that role.  The Turians would not come to the rescue of a Turian colony attacked by pirates in the Terminus systems.  Its politics, and its the system that stabilizes that region of space.  You don't have to like it, you have to save people in whatever way you can.  Cerberus has the intel and the resources to do it outside the Council authority. 

When is the human race at stake? Because colonies are disappearing in the Terminus which isn't Council/Alliance territory? Why does it concern a council Spectre (actually former Spectre) if it doesn't concern the Council? Why would it concern an Alliance secret service if it doesn't concern the Alliance? I don't care what the official policy is. They meet in secret. They could have confirmed Shepard's mission to stop the Collectors but they don't. Also you don't explain that neither Alliance nor the Council are worried about the new Normandy, EDI or ... actually a Spectre that returns from the dead with the help of Cerberus, who are supposedly terrorists and supposedly enemies to both the Council or the Alliance.

Shep's main problem is what happened to him, not what happens to some colonies in a system that is mostly run by criminals. Of course TIM says the Reapers are behind it. But honestly, to jump his bandwagon is borderline obsession. I don't see why Shep would believe anything TIM tells him about anything. I mean as a former soldier more than anyone you know that there is a line of command and how decisions are made. Certainly not by just deciding to believe a stranger and supposed terrorist leader without checking back with your actual superiours (Council). Or the actual faction you are working for (Alliance).

[incinerator950]

AlexXIV wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

The human race is at stake, you need to accomplish that goal of saving them first.  Going back to the Alliance would have done nothing.  Shepard would have been imprisoned for six months like the Investigative committee anounced to Hacket.  Hacket denied that request because he knew Shepard would get it done.  If anything, turning himself in would have progressed nothing.  Cerberus had to happen, stop omitting the possibilities, and accept what already happened.  Accepting that what happened doesn't mean you have to like it.  

Shepard was dead, Cerberus revived him.  Alliance was either rebuilding, or not in a political position to accept its colonies. 

ME 1's colonies are in Alliance Space.  Terminus Human Colonies do not fit in that role.  The Turians would not come to the rescue of a Turian colony attacked by pirates in the Terminus systems.  Its politics, and its the system that stabilizes that region of space.  You don't have to like it, you have to save people in whatever way you can.  Cerberus has the intel and the resources to do it outside the Council authority. 

When is the human race at stake? Because colonies are disappearing in the Terminus which isn't Council/Alliance territory? Why does it concern a council Spectre (actually former Spectre) if it doesn't concern the Council? Why would it concern an Alliance secret service if it doesn't concern the Alliance? I don't care what the official policy is. They meet in secret. They could have confirmed Shepard's mission to stop the Collectors but they don't. Also you don't explain that neither Alliance nor the Council are worried about the new Normandy, EDI or ... actually a Spectre that returns from the dead with the help of Cerberus, who are supposedly terrorists and supposedly enemies to both the Council or the Alliance.

Shep's main problem is what happened to him, not what happens to some colonies in a system that is mostly run by criminals. Of course TIM says the Reapers are behind it. But honestly, to jump his bandwagon is borderline obsession. I don't see why Shep would believe anything TIM tells him about anything. I mean as a former soldier more than anyone you know that there is a line of command and how decisions are made. Certainly not by just deciding to believe a stranger and supposed terrorist leader without checking back with your actual superiours (Council). Or the actual faction you are working for (Alliance).

I did, I made the judgement call as Shepard.  Being MIA/KIA can have a lot of benefits, and working for Cerberus wasn't bad when you had the leeway to cancel programs like Overlord.  Make a difference in an organization that wants to make them, and a lot of them in a bad way.

Edit: Miranda could have had you in restraint for Cerberus, TIM rejected that claim.  TIM had the concept down that the Collectors were pawns for the Reapers.  Judging from the Husk technology the Collectors had, he was right on the money the first time.  More than the council would have, something was wrong.  The Collector threat was very real. 

Modifié par incinerator950, 29 janvier 2012 - 12:51 .

[Omilophile]

incinerator950 wrote...

Had you took the time to make a better joke, then I would have not assumed you're a moraly high and pompous person who would make base judgements on their own without experiencing something out of the ordinary. 

Well, as I said, it's a forum for a video game, so making sure my joke was funny enough really wasn't high on my list of important things. I don't know if you've served or not, but if you have, you have my thanks. I normally don't argue about such petty things, but this was my first night off in weeks, so I suppose I had a bit of steam to blow off.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on Cerberus and hope we never have to make an important decision together. 

[AlexXIV]

incinerator950 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

The human race is at stake, you need to accomplish that goal of saving them first.  Going back to the Alliance would have done nothing.  Shepard would have been imprisoned for six months like the Investigative committee anounced to Hacket.  Hacket denied that request because he knew Shepard would get it done.  If anything, turning himself in would have progressed nothing.  Cerberus had to happen, stop omitting the possibilities, and accept what already happened.  Accepting that what happened doesn't mean you have to like it.  

Shepard was dead, Cerberus revived him.  Alliance was either rebuilding, or not in a political position to accept its colonies. 

ME 1's colonies are in Alliance Space.  Terminus Human Colonies do not fit in that role.  The Turians would not come to the rescue of a Turian colony attacked by pirates in the Terminus systems.  Its politics, and its the system that stabilizes that region of space.  You don't have to like it, you have to save people in whatever way you can.  Cerberus has the intel and the resources to do it outside the Council authority. 

When is the human race at stake? Because colonies are disappearing in the Terminus which isn't Council/Alliance territory? Why does it concern a council Spectre (actually former Spectre) if it doesn't concern the Council? Why would it concern an Alliance secret service if it doesn't concern the Alliance? I don't care what the official policy is. They meet in secret. They could have confirmed Shepard's mission to stop the Collectors but they don't. Also you don't explain that neither Alliance nor the Council are worried about the new Normandy, EDI or ... actually a Spectre that returns from the dead with the help of Cerberus, who are supposedly terrorists and supposedly enemies to both the Council or the Alliance.

Shep's main problem is what happened to him, not what happens to some colonies in a system that is mostly run by criminals. Of course TIM says the Reapers are behind it. But honestly, to jump his bandwagon is borderline obsession. I don't see why Shep would believe anything TIM tells him about anything. I mean as a former soldier more than anyone you know that there is a line of command and how decisions are made. Certainly not by just deciding to believe a stranger and supposed terrorist leader without checking back with your actual superiours (Council). Or the actual faction you are working for (Alliance).

I did, I made the judgement call as Shepard.  Being MIA/KIA can have a lot of benefits, and working for Cerberus wasn't bad when you had the leeway to cancel programs like Overlord.  Make a difference in an organization that wants to make them, and a lot of them in a bad way.

Edit: Miranda could have had you in restraint for Cerberus, TIM rejected that claim.  TIM had the concept down that the Collectors were pawns for the Reapers.  Judging from the Husk technology the Collectors had, he was right on the money the first time.  More than the council would have, something was wrong.  The Collector threat was very real. 

You know, no need to give me a rundown on the game. I played it, I know the plot. I question Shepard's and the Council's/Alliance's actions in ME2 because they don't make sense. For you maybe a plot makes sense if you start at A, run over B and end at C, because that's all you are asking for. I mean video games can obviously be successful with a minimum of story. Story has never really been a selling argument for videogames if we are honest. Just that I am more or less an old school RPGer. So it is imporant for me, personally. If they just want to make shooters or hack and slash with a neglectable storyline then I am not their target audience anymore.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 janvier 2012 - 12:58 .

[incinerator950]

Omilophile wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Had you took the time to make a better joke, then I would have not assumed you're a moraly high and pompous person who would make base judgements on their own without experiencing something out of the ordinary. 

Well, as I said, it's a forum for a video game, so making sure my joke was funny enough really wasn't high on my list of important things. I don't know if you've served or not, but if you have, you have my thanks. I normally don't argue about such petty things, but this was my first night off in weeks, so I suppose I had a bit of steam to blow off.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on Cerberus and hope we never have to make an important decision together. 

If there was a co-op feature like AoT TFD, I usually pick the morally good choices knowing that someones family is destroyed and someone ends up dying anyway.  Except the end game, I would not sacrifice my partner.  Unless I disliked playing with them.

My apologies, and thank you.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

DJBare wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't think I'd have to. Given whats at stake

In other words you expect them to volunteer, but what if they do not want to be melted down into dna sludge?, come on, you've been pretty straight with your opinion to this point, why waver now?

They're gone. It's done. Don't waste their life in vain. Focus on Reapers.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And speaking of "nothing justifies killing/murder".

How exactly do you justify the genophage?
Or the Rachnni extinction?
Or what Shep did in Arrival?
Or shooting own a highjacked plane wiht bio-gas?

Either there is no justification - PERIOD... In whihc case shep should kill himself for being an evil bastard.
Or there apparently is one.

It seems apparently only few people understand ...
Beside the necessity of war, killing is justified for self defense, executing dangerous people and many more conditions.

[Goneaviking]

incinerator950 wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Even if one were to concede that a working knowledge of the process were necessary, and that it was vitally important to test on a human specimen; Cerberus essentially chose the douchiest way to go about it. Instead of recruiting the terminally ill and infirm with promises of paying for their relatives (for example) they essentially take the opportunity to enact some petty revenge against someone who tried to leave their group.

Wouldn't they have gotten workable data from the process with animal experimentation? Given the process works on species as diverse as protheans, turians and humans I'm guessing they could have studied the effects on chimps or varren.

Don't know, I'm going off of what we know from ME 2.  I don't read the novels or comics, I read the wikia about it occasionally to get some idea of what Plot IP they wasted for it, but other than that I don't read them.

Besides Grayson and the Omega attacks, I don't know what they've done, but judging from ME 3's report and the Mars Mission, I can already speculate that they switched sides for their own reasons, and I will defend myself accordingly. 

I'm going to live with my decision, and if I get my way, I can shoot TIM in the kneecaps until he see's that my opinion is better than his.  If the script has its own idea, and I can retake the base for my forces, I'll do it.  Otherwise, game on. 

That's about as much as I've read as well. The internet tells they picked Grayson as revenge, which isn't a motive in-line with the survival at all cost one advocated by Cerberus' online activists (it's not mutually exclusive to that goal, but it's not inherently supportive of it either).

At the moment I'm not speculating overmuch on ME3 because I want to go in with as few expectations as I can manage.

My interest in this one is basically about the ethics of Cerberus' methodology, keeping in mind the original post in the thread. Even if someone accepts the "whatever it takes" mantra then not all methods are equal, morally speaking.

[incinerator950]

AlexXIV wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

The human race is at stake, you need to accomplish that goal of saving them first.  Going back to the Alliance would have done nothing.  Shepard would have been imprisoned for six months like the Investigative committee anounced to Hacket.  Hacket denied that request because he knew Shepard would get it done.  If anything, turning himself in would have progressed nothing.  Cerberus had to happen, stop omitting the possibilities, and accept what already happened.  Accepting that what happened doesn't mean you have to like it.  

Shepard was dead, Cerberus revived him.  Alliance was either rebuilding, or not in a political position to accept its colonies. 

ME 1's colonies are in Alliance Space.  Terminus Human Colonies do not fit in that role.  The Turians would not come to the rescue of a Turian colony attacked by pirates in the Terminus systems.  Its politics, and its the system that stabilizes that region of space.  You don't have to like it, you have to save people in whatever way you can.  Cerberus has the intel and the resources to do it outside the Council authority. 

When is the human race at stake? Because colonies are disappearing in the Terminus which isn't Council/Alliance territory? Why does it concern a council Spectre (actually former Spectre) if it doesn't concern the Council? Why would it concern an Alliance secret service if it doesn't concern the Alliance? I don't care what the official policy is. They meet in secret. They could have confirmed Shepard's mission to stop the Collectors but they don't. Also you don't explain that neither Alliance nor the Council are worried about the new Normandy, EDI or ... actually a Spectre that returns from the dead with the help of Cerberus, who are supposedly terrorists and supposedly enemies to both the Council or the Alliance.

Shep's main problem is what happened to him, not what happens to some colonies in a system that is mostly run by criminals. Of course TIM says the Reapers are behind it. But honestly, to jump his bandwagon is borderline obsession. I don't see why Shep would believe anything TIM tells him about anything. I mean as a former soldier more than anyone you know that there is a line of command and how decisions are made. Certainly not by just deciding to believe a stranger and supposed terrorist leader without checking back with your actual superiours (Council). Or the actual faction you are working for (Alliance).

I did, I made the judgement call as Shepard.  Being MIA/KIA can have a lot of benefits, and working for Cerberus wasn't bad when you had the leeway to cancel programs like Overlord.  Make a difference in an organization that wants to make them, and a lot of them in a bad way.

Edit: Miranda could have had you in restraint for Cerberus, TIM rejected that claim.  TIM had the concept down that the Collectors were pawns for the Reapers.  Judging from the Husk technology the Collectors had, he was right on the money the first time.  More than the council would have, something was wrong.  The Collector threat was very real. 

You know, no need to give me a rundown on the game. I played it, I know the plot. I question Shepard's and the Council's/Alliance's actions in ME2 because they don't make sense. For you maybe a plot makes sense if you start at A, run over B and end at C, because that's all you are asking for. I mean video games can obviously be successful with a minimum of story. Story has never really been a selling argument for videogames if we are honest. Just that I am more or less an old school RPGer. So it is imporant for me, personally. If they just want to make shooters or hack and slash with a neglectable storyline then I am not their target audience anymore.

I did think of the plot convienance, I thought it was convienant enough.  They make sense to a degree that things change.  If I'm playing the game, I only think far enough to see if its a trap from something, or not.  After the game, it was a necisary precaution.  Also, I saved the Council, and kept the Collector base for reasons of my own.  Had Cerberus done something that hinted a severe betrayal, I would have done something else.  Can't use metagaming or over-critique something.

The Council refused to believe you several times in the first game, and the Alliance has its own channels and authority to go through.  It's more than convincing enough, I personally hated my military experience, and I absolutely love the freedom in this game, enough to accept the Responsibilities I seem to be lacking.  

[incinerator950]

Goneaviking wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Even if one were to concede that a working knowledge of the process were necessary, and that it was vitally important to test on a human specimen; Cerberus essentially chose the douchiest way to go about it. Instead of recruiting the terminally ill and infirm with promises of paying for their relatives (for example) they essentially take the opportunity to enact some petty revenge against someone who tried to leave their group.

Wouldn't they have gotten workable data from the process with animal experimentation? Given the process works on species as diverse as protheans, turians and humans I'm guessing they could have studied the effects on chimps or varren.

Don't know, I'm going off of what we know from ME 2.  I don't read the novels or comics, I read the wikia about it occasionally to get some idea of what Plot IP they wasted for it, but other than that I don't read them.

Besides Grayson and the Omega attacks, I don't know what they've done, but judging from ME 3's report and the Mars Mission, I can already speculate that they switched sides for their own reasons, and I will defend myself accordingly. 

I'm going to live with my decision, and if I get my way, I can shoot TIM in the kneecaps until he see's that my opinion is better than his.  If the script has its own idea, and I can retake the base for my forces, I'll do it.  Otherwise, game on. 

That's about as much as I've read as well. The internet tells they picked Grayson as revenge, which isn't a motive in-line with the survival at all cost one advocated by Cerberus' online activists (it's not mutually exclusive to that goal, but it's not inherently supportive of it either).

At the moment I'm not speculating overmuch on ME3 because I want to go in with as few expectations as I can manage.

My interest in this one is basically about the ethics of Cerberus' methodology, keeping in mind the original post in the thread. Even if someone accepts the "whatever it takes" mantra then not all methods are equal, morally speaking.

Nothing ever is, and nothing is ever simple. 

[AlexXIV]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't think I'd have to. Given whats at stake

In other words you expect them to volunteer, but what if they do not want to be melted down into dna sludge?, come on, you've been pretty straight with your opinion to this point, why waver now?

They're gone. It's done. Don't waste their life in vain. Focus on Reapers.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And speaking of "nothing justifies killing/murder".

How exactly do you justify the genophage?
Or the Rachnni extinction?
Or what Shep did in Arrival?
Or shooting own a highjacked plane wiht bio-gas?

Either there is no justification - PERIOD... In whihc case shep should kill himself for being an evil bastard.
Or there apparently is one.

It seems apparently only few people understand ...
Beside the necessity of war, killing is justified for self defense, executing dangerous people and many more conditions.

The question whether it is justfied is usually a matter of laws. Cerberus doesn't care about laws. Nobody can kill a person on a whim. We have a system in which you have to explain why your actions were necessary. Cerberus doesn't answer to anyone. You take something that is necessary and regulated in our society and act as if it is an excuse to go on a killing spree for your own personal agenda. Cerberus is the vanity project of one single person, TIM.

[incinerator950]

AlexXIV wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't think I'd have to. Given whats at stake

In other words you expect them to volunteer, but what if they do not want to be melted down into dna sludge?, come on, you've been pretty straight with your opinion to this point, why waver now?

They're gone. It's done. Don't waste their life in vain. Focus on Reapers.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And speaking of "nothing justifies killing/murder".

How exactly do you justify the genophage?
Or the Rachnni extinction?
Or what Shep did in Arrival?
Or shooting own a highjacked plane wiht bio-gas?

Either there is no justification - PERIOD... In whihc case shep should kill himself for being an evil bastard.
Or there apparently is one.

It seems apparently only few people understand ...
Beside the necessity of war, killing is justified for self defense, executing dangerous people and many more conditions.

The question whether it is justfied is usually a matter of laws. Cerberus doesn't care about laws. Nobody can kill a person on a whim. We have a system in which you have to explain why your actions were necessary. Cerberus doesn't answer to anyone. You take something that is necessary and regulated in our society and act as if it is an excuse to go on a killing spree for your own personal agenda. Cerberus is the vanity project of one single person, TIM.

I won't deny that or deny that Cerberus has done terrible things.  However, it has been shown that the Alliance has incriminating evidence about it from other sources of not being totally honest about it.  

At the time, Jack Harper was going something that can be conceived as useful for humanity.  Cerberus has gone overboard, but that is becaus TIM keeps losing control of these Cells.  Had he denounced shutting down Overlord, had he condoned Project Zero, I would be less accepting of the flaws in this.  

He's still human, and he's trying to make a difference.  What is and isn't is the subject of moral objection, the reason why I stayed out of this topic for so long.

[AlexXIV]

incinerator950 wrote...
I did think of the plot convienance, I thought it was convienant enough.  They make sense to a degree that things change.  If I'm playing the game, I only think far enough to see if its a trap from something, or not.  After the game, it was a necisary precaution.  Also, I saved the Council, and kept the Collector base for reasons of my own.  Had Cerberus done something that hinted a severe betrayal, I would have done something else.  Can't use metagaming or over-critique something.

The Council refused to believe you several times in the first game, and the Alliance has its own channels and authority to go through.  It's more than convincing enough, I personally hated my military experience, and I absolutely love the freedom in this game, enough to accept the Responsibilities I seem to be lacking.  

Well that's what I said in one of my posts. The plot makes sense for a renegade personality. But my Shep is paragon. For a paragon it makes no sense to work with Cerberus to begin with.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 janvier 2012 - 01:11 .

[incinerator950]

AlexXIV wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...
I did think of the plot convienance, I thought it was convienant enough.  They make sense to a degree that things change.  If I'm playing the game, I only think far enough to see if its a trap from something, or not.  After the game, it was a necisary precaution.  Also, I saved the Council, and kept the Collector base for reasons of my own.  Had Cerberus done something that hinted a severe betrayal, I would have done something else.  Can't use metagaming or over-critique something.

The Council refused to believe you several times in the first game, and the Alliance has its own channels and authority to go through.  It's more than convincing enough, I personally hated my military experience, and I absolutely love the freedom in this game, enough to accept the Responsibilities I seem to be lacking.  

Well that's what I said in one of my posts. The plot makes sense for a renegade personality. But my Shep is paragon. For a paragon it makes no sense to work with Cerberus to begin with.

Of course it doesn't.  I'm a Paragade by the looks of my ME 2 Morality.  Even though I like using more Renegade options, I prefer some more Paragon outcomes.  I don't call it neutrality, I call it having an even system of getting ****ed over.  

If it was up to me from the Pro-Cerberus side, I'd rather make an organization called Orthrus based on the same principle of defending Humanity.  During the events of ME 3.

Hint: My Multiplayer designation.  

[Goneaviking]

incinerator950 wrote...

I won't deny that or deny that Cerberus has done terrible things.  However, it has been shown that the Alliance has incriminating evidence about it from other sources of not being totally honest about it.  

At the time, Jack Harper was going something that can be conceived as useful for humanity.  Cerberus has gone overboard, but that is becaus TIM keeps losing control of these Cells.  Had he denounced shutting down Overlord, had he condoned Project Zero, I would be less accepting of the flaws in this.  

He's still human, and he's trying to make a difference.  What is and isn't is the subject of moral objection, the reason why I stayed out of this topic for so long.

I can get behind that. 

But I find myself uncomfortable with the unasked questions, like what is it about Cerberus that keeps attracting the kind of people that take part in those 'rogue' operations. Even the more 'legitimate' Cerberus operations often have their toes over the line morally speaking and seem to behave with a reckless disregard for safety and transparency.

Certainly I agree with you that the Alliance is morally compromised. For my money the primary distinction between the two organisations is that the Alliance is trying to play the game for it's own advantage, whereas Cerberus wants to change the rules to suit itself.

[incinerator950]

Goneaviking wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

I won't deny that or deny that Cerberus has done terrible things.  However, it has been shown that the Alliance has incriminating evidence about it from other sources of not being totally honest about it.  

At the time, Jack Harper was going something that can be conceived as useful for humanity.  Cerberus has gone overboard, but that is becaus TIM keeps losing control of these Cells.  Had he denounced shutting down Overlord, had he condoned Project Zero, I would be less accepting of the flaws in this.  

He's still human, and he's trying to make a difference.  What is and isn't is the subject of moral objection, the reason why I stayed out of this topic for so long.

I can get behind that. 

But I find myself uncomfortable with the unasked questions, like what is it about Cerberus that keeps attracting the kind of people that take part in those 'rogue' operations. Even the more 'legitimate' Cerberus operations often have their toes over the line morally speaking and seem to behave with a reckless disregard for safety and transparency.

Certainly I agree with you that the Alliance is morally compromised. For my money the primary distinction between the two organisations is that the Alliance is trying to play the game for it's own advantage, whereas Cerberus wants to change the rules to suit itself.

Everyone changes the rules to suit themselves if they want to stay in any form of power.  The Alliance isn't focused on the results that Cerberus is getting.  That's what makes them reasonable to several degrees.  Minus the torture and Unethical experiments. 

The funniest thing I've done with the Bioware community is explaining to someone on Gamefaqs that I am not Cerberus Aligned, I am Pro-Cerberus. 

[Goneaviking]

incinerator950 wrote...

Everyone changes the rules to suit themselves if they want to stay in any form of power.  The Alliance isn't focused on the results that Cerberus is getting.  That's what makes them reasonable to several degrees.  Minus the torture and Unethical experiments. 

The funniest thing I've done with the Bioware community is explaining to someone on Gamefaqs that I am not Cerberus Aligned, I am Pro-Cerberus. 

True enough. The Alliance is playing pretty dirty in Arrival as well, and during the first contact war they sent out probes armed with nuclear warheads almost randomly in the direction they thought the Turians had come from.

I appreciate the distinction, it's that those nuances are credible  that keep me coming back to ME1&2 and they're why I pre-ordered the third.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

And you know what the difference is?

Through conversations and his loyalty mission, we can argue with him over the morality of the genophage.  We can learn that hundreds of different scenerios were considered.  Other methods of stopping the war considered.  We learn precisely the intent of the genophage (to stabilize the krogan population at preindustrial levels)  We learn the context and the controversy. 

True, but that doesn't change the actions which occurred. Unless you are asserting that TIM's only goal in any of these sick experiments was for fun, I think (based on our interactions with him) we can conclude there's always a greater plan in sight. It may be human-focused, but he has motivation. TIM simply doesn't take the time to mourn over the hard choices, which I think speaks to his resolve more than his cruelty. Ultimately, in terms of actions, we can look at the Salarians and Turians as having caused greater atrocities than all of Cerberus put together.

Advancing a primitive race before their time to fight an enemy you can't defeat, then turning around and infecting them with a sterility plague is getting a tad close to genocide. Even worse, since you're responsible for introducing them to your conflict.

That's also why I'm somewhat skeptical of these claims regarding how Bioware transformed Cerberus in ME2. Not to fall back to the shades of grey analogy, but anyone can be made to look like a villain when painted as such from a certain point of view. That includes Cerberus.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 janvier 2012 - 01:41 .

[incinerator950]

Reading the Shadow Broker's file on Mordin is amusing on how he established that Mordin's team returned the Krogan Genophage levels to over 90%.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And speaking of "nothing justifies killing/murder".

How exactly do you justify the genophage?
Or the Rachnni extinction?
Or what Shep did in Arrival?
Or shooting own a highjacked plane wiht bio-gas?

Either there is no justification - PERIOD... In whihc case shep should kill himself for being an evil bastard.
Or there apparently is one.

It seems apparently only few people understand ...
Beside the necessity of war, killing is justified for self defense, executing dangerous people and many more conditions.

The question whether it is justfied is usually a matter of laws. Cerberus doesn't care about laws. Nobody can kill a person on a whim. We have a system in which you have to explain why your actions were necessary. Cerberus doesn't answer to anyone. You take something that is necessary and regulated in our society and act as if it is an excuse to go on a killing spree for your own personal agenda. Cerberus is the vanity project of one single person, TIM.

Is it? What if you don't agrtee wiht the law?
No, laws are there to give legitimacy/sanction to an action. They don't justify something by themselves.

And juse because Cerberus doesn't explain, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.
Was anyone asking Tela Vassir why she killed X people? Nope.

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

The coloony was attacked before Shepard/Toombs's unit was deployed.  They were sent in to investigate.  Whether the colony was destroyed by Cerberus or not, the unit sent to investigate was.

You're missing the point. The reasoning behind the why Cerberus set up the Akuze trap is likely tied to just what sequence of events led to Akuze being destroyed.

Umm, they were subjecting him to painful experiments without his consent.

Duh. This isn't in dispute.

 For information, among other things, how thresher acid worked..  Ergo "torture"

Ergo umpalumpah, if you want to selectively hear things. The information they were seeking isn't something Toombs knew and they were getting him to divulge until he told them.

Ergo, unethical science experiment, not interrogation.

Again, if they knew enough to lure a unit of marines to the nest.  Without warning them what they'd be up against..

The results, however, are not an implicit foreknowledge.

If you frame the problem as 'we need to see how well a cutting-edge military unit would do when taken by surprise, just like our colony', foreknowledge would risk the objective but total casualties wouldn't be an intent. 

The desired end state could be 'modern tactics and equipment make Thresher Maws a negligable threat.' The Cerberus trap could well have wanted a victory by the Akuze group.

What lie?  He was injected with thresher venom.  To see what would happen.  That's not nice.

And we're back to assigning intent without knowledge. There is a difference between open ended 'cause stimuli, see what happens' with no idea what follows versus a targetted experiment with predicted intents.

Your description implies the former. You do not know that.

They shouldn't be testing it on innocent victims kidnapped and subjected to these tests against their will.  If Cerberus personel want to die painfully for the betterment of mankind, let em.  At least they're walking into it with their eyes open.

Not really challenging what I said, so we can move on.

So Cerberus will kidnap you and kill you painfully over several years of unethical medical experimentation.  But they have a really really good reason for it?

Yeah that's much better than someone who'll do the same thing just for the lolz:mellow:

An American soldier will blow up your house. A terrorist will blow up your house. The reasons behind it are what distinguish the two.


If you intend to make an absolute 'anyone who does this is evil', that's your perogative. But I'm not convinced you'll hold that equally: you've yet to utter one word about the Council, who reserves the right to do anything and everything Cerberus has done legally and has set up the institutions to do it. Torture, lawless and unethical sciences and even slavery, assassinations, bioweapons on enemies... the Council system makes caveats to allow these things, and they do happen. And in great scale than Cerberus.

As far as I'm concerned, the "overlapping desires" are:  The Reapers will kill us all.  Council, Alliance, and Cerberus.  Just because Superman and Lex Luthor might team up to fight off an alien invasion doesn't make Luthor any less a villain.

It does, however, distinguish him from the Joker or any of the nihilist villains who might just like to watch the world burn. The question is always 'is it worth it to work with them', and that depends on their objectives and desires.

Cerberus didn't work with Shepard in ME2 because it was the end of the world. The Collectors were not an existential threat. No one else viewed them as a significant threat at all. We still considered them a problem worth making unpleasant allies for.

Wait wait, I know this one!

"I am forging an alliance between us and the Reapers.  Between organics and machines.  And in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed!"

Oh, wait, that was Saren:lol: 

In Shepard's case, it's forging an alliance between genocidal powers, slavers and conspirators who have willfully held back the galaxy since the start of modern civilization, military authoritarian states, and the collective whole of a racial caste system that legalizes all of the above.

And those are the good guys.

[Poison_Berrie]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eh? Grayson was a good candidate. Healthy and strong-willed. That way indoctriation would take longer to take hol,d giving you more time to study it.

Than why drug him to make it go faster?
Fact is Grayson was choosen for petty revenge and most of their test subjects are abducted.
They don't go to someone associated with the organization, they can't find a volunteer or trick one of them into volunteering? 

They go to pretty low tricks to get their subjects and than go to extremes in their experiments in what comes across as more of a gambit than actual methodic research.
And considering his own information network rivals that of the Shadow Broker I really think it's too easy to say that all those experiments went so bad behind his own back.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Il Divo wrote...
True, but that doesn't change the actions which occurred. Unless you are asserting that TIM's only goal in any of these sick experiments was for fun, I think (based on our interactions with him) we can conclude there's always a greater plan in sight. It may be human-focused, but he has motivation. TIM simply doesn't take the time to mourn over the hard choices, which I think speaks to his resolve more than his cruelty. Ultimately, in terms of actions, we can look at the Salarians and Turians as having caused greater atrocities than all of Cerberus put together.

Advancing a primitive race before their time to fight an enemy you can't defeat, then turning around and infecting them with a sterility plague is getting a tad close to genocide. Even worse, since you're responsible for introducing them to your conflict.

QFT.
Yet the paragons will never condemn them, or refuse to work with them, or questio ngiving hte CB to them....

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...


And you know what the difference is?

Through conversations and his loyalty mission, we can argue with him over the morality of the genophage.  We can learn that hundreds of different scenerios were considered.  Other methods of stopping the war considered.  We learn precisely the intent of the genophage (to stabilize the krogan population at preindustrial levels)  We learn the context and the controversy.

 And in the end, Mordin even admits that  "Modified genophage project great in scope. Scientifically brilliant.  But...ethically difficult.  Krogan reaction visceral.  Tragic.  Not guilty.  But responsible.  Trained as doctor.  Genophage affects fertility.  Doesn't kill.  Still, caused this.  Hard to see big picture behind pile of corpses."  To this day, Mordin struggles with the guilt over what he's done.  As he should

Also keep in mind, Mordin also finds such live experimentation to be repugnant "Disgusting.  Unethical.  Sloppy.  Used by brute force researchers.  Not thinkers.  No place in proper science" 

With Cerberus, we don't see any moral wrestling.  We don't see Cerberus trying to find other ways to perform research.  We don't see the necessity of their actions, only the actions themselves.  We don't know why marines were lured to their deaths, or many other unethical experiments were performed.  All we have are "maybes" and "what ifs" and head-canoning possible excuses for these actions.  I certainly can't head-canon a reason that would justify it, at least.

Given Bioware went out of their way to show a "kinder, gentler Cerberus" in ME2, but conveniently overlooked several of their more egregious crimes, I wonder if there was no exscuse.  Or none that most people would find acceptible.  

So, basically, because we haven't been given a look at the actors behind various projects to see their thoughts, they didn't have thoughts. Besides the ones who did, at least, like Archer.


Well, that convinced me. If Bioware didn't make a plot point out of it, then the secretive, little-seen organization even when we're in it (like the one cell we're a part of) couldn't have had internal debates about such things. And since Mordin did have significant thought about it, that makes it alright.


Well, that settles it. We just need some more morally conflicted Cerberus personnel, and all will be forgiven.