1482 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
A hypothetical scenario. Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Good things may be the result of the actions of bad people. But it doesn't mean we should tolerate or support bad people or bad actions. I mean, remember how Hawke unearthed the ancient relic? It's like that (just the other way round). We will never know if Cerberus helped or hindered our success because if there had not been Cerberus the whole story would be different to a point where someone else would have stepped in Cerberus' place. And maybe have done better or worse. It's the same as to speculate what would have happened without Shepard. Maybe other heroes save the day, maybe not. It was Shepard's saving of the Citadel who even enabled Cerberus to work against the Reapers. Before that they were no help at all.

[DJBare]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Actually, find one instance where TIM imployed useless torture. I don't recall any.

There is no evidence of TIM ever torturing, nor do I believe he has ever tortured anyone personally, he's too much of a coward to do his own dirty work.

[AlexXIV]

DJBare wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Actually, find one instance where TIM imployed useless torture. I don't recall any.

There is no evidence of TIM ever torturing, nor do I believe he has ever tortured anyone personally, he's too much of a coward to do his own dirty work.

Not sure if it is cowardice or clever. If you let people act on their own responsibility and just put the necessary pressure on them so they cross lines on their own account it is rather easy to distance yourself from their actions saying you never asked for it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 31 janvier 2012 - 03:20 .

[General User]

Does it take more courage to face torture or to conduct it?

[AlexXIV]

General User wrote...

Does it take more courage to face torture or to conduct it?

Depends. If you are sociopath/sadist then probably not. But if you are person with a conscience then executing torture is harder than just ordering it.

[WaffleCrab]

Face it people, they do bad things, as well as good things. like Any other corporation today.

[Poison_Berrie]

Dave of Canada wrote...

While it does include Cerberus, I'd say making most characters which the Paragon playerbase dislikes into antagonists through indoctrination as harmful to the integrity of the story. A lot of segments feel included simply for pandering.

I think it's hard to say whether it's pandering to the "paragons" (like not liking Cerberus is only a paragon thing) or the story as they envisioned it.
I've kept mostly away from spoilers and I think it might be best to dissapear from the thread from now on, but from what I've heard the Leak is hardly the be all end source of information people are making it out to be. I don't think I've seen Cerberus soldiers fighting along side Husk and Reapers, though.

That said I find it odd that a lot of people here treat indoctrination as something that Cerberus is immune to.

[General User]

AlexXIV wrote...

General User wrote...

Does it take more courage to face torture or to conduct it?

Depends.  If you are sociopath/sadist then probably not. But if you are person with a conscience then executing torture is harder than just ordering it.

Is TIM a sociopath/sadist?

And what aboot facing torture? Is there no courage to be found in a man who places himself in the line of fire to defend that which he holds dear?

Modifié par General User, 31 janvier 2012 - 03:31 .

[DJBare]

AlexXIV wrote...
Not sure if it is cowardice or clever. If you let people act on their own responsibility and just put the necessary pressure on them so they cross lines on their own account it is rather easy to distance yourself from their actions saying you never asked for it.

Very true, TIM is a typical politician, but I call him a coward because he is continually  in hiding while others take the risks on his behalf, I don't buy his line "When people already percieve you as a threat"; he is nothing more than a coward, and that's the reason he wants power, to cover his own rear end.

Modifié par DJBare, 31 janvier 2012 - 03:32 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Every situation needs its own morality. Like Fallout situation morality, Peace-Time morality and wartime morality. In Fallout and wartime many deeds are allowed which aren't in peace time. Even in peace time there is differences between politicians morality and crowd morality. Certainly, monks and saints are superior in morality but mostly useless in action.

About T.I.M. I find him very clever. He puts the responsibility on his corporations and laboratories and has only few red lines. He didn't ask for Project Overlord or Subject Zero to be performed like what we observed in the game.

[General User]

DJBare wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Not sure if it is cowardice or clever. If you let people act on their own responsibility and just put the necessary pressure on them so they cross lines on their own account it is rather easy to distance yourself from their actions saying you never asked for it.

Very true, TIM is a typical politician, but I call him a coward because he is continually  in hiding while others take the risks on his behalf, I don't buy his line "When people already percieve you as a threat"; he is nothing more than a coward, and that's the reason he wants power, to cover his own rear end.

TIM is a war vet and spent several years as a mercenary.  In the personal courage department, it's not like he hasn't paid his dues.

[Dave of Canada]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

I think it's hard to say whether it's pandering to the "paragons" (like not liking Cerberus is only a paragon thing) or the story as they envisioned it.

They haven't envisioned anything, they wouldn't have built the storyline in ME3 had they done so (A character which mentions an event in ME2 was suddenly part of that event in ME3, a poor attempt to tie it together). To stay on topic, I'll only discuss the Cerberus aspect of it without specifying spoilers.

Every single NPC character in the game speaks ill of Cerberus, everyone. Those who speak fondly of them are immediately killed off by them just to rub in that they're evil irredeemable monsters, something which is Cerberus recruiters apparently look for in their candidates (as everybody else isn't "true" Cerberus).

They've stomped onto the plot as if they were riding a steamroller, something which quite a few anti-Cerberus posters absolutely detest already. They've gone back and retroactively attributed most problems in ME1 with Cerberus, ME2 is explained further that Cerberus was evil all along and ME3 has them play the role as villain to the fullest (they almost literally kick puppies).

You actually encounter somebody from Cerberus who says he's an absolute monster and kills himself.

This is pandering to the extreme, they've given up trying to make Cerberus appear as the "best and worst" of humanity. They've given up on trying to extreme moral ambiguity in their characters (Cerberus or no), they've either been redeemed and have been shown the error of their ways if Paragon Shepard spared them or they're monsterous and you're forced to fight them if you weren't given the choice.

And everybody will absolutely eat it up.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2012 - 03:43 .

[AlexXIV]

General User wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

General User wrote...

Does it take more courage to face torture or to conduct it?

Depends.  If you are sociopath/sadist then probably not. But if you are person with a conscience then executing torture is harder than just ordering it.

Is TIM a sociopath/sadist?

And what aboot facing torture? Is there no courage to be found in a man who places himself in the line of fire to defend that which he holds dear?

Well if anyone voluntarily exposes himself to torture I'd call it stupid first and foremost. It can in a situation be courageous but I would generally avoid letting people do to me whatever they feel like. Placing yourself in the line of fire for others is usually a good thing. But I'd rather get shot than tortured tbh.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 31 janvier 2012 - 03:45 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Let's for a second postulate that without Cerberus and their experiments, the galaxy falls to the repers. Woudl you say Cerberus was justified then?

I need more details. Was Cerberus doing this only for the purpose of stopping the Reapers, and would decommission all experiments immediately thereafter? Were said experiments the only possible way of ever stopping the Reapers, with no possible alternative, especially including making more people aware of them? Were they aware of this? And so on.

- Cerberus was doing this for the purpose of protecting humanity from any threat.
- probably yes
- apprently they were (as is postulated by the scenario)

[Lotion Soronarr]

DJBare wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Actually, find one instance where TIM imployed useless torture. I don't recall any.

There is no evidence of TIM ever torturing, nor do I believe he has ever tortured anyone personally, he's too much of a coward to do his own dirty work.

Then, do you have evidence of him ordering torture?

[DJBare]

General User wrote...TIM is a war vet and spent several years as a mercenary.  In the personal courage department, it's not like he hasn't paid his dues.

Then I stand corrected, he must have taken a bullet to the head.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
A hypothetical scenario. Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Good things may be the result of the actions of bad people. But it doesn't mean we should tolerate or support bad people or bad actions.

We should tolerate them if they are necessary. We already do.

[Peer of the Empire]

Varhjhin wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

no I like stories that do things differently and plus TIM could have been a very interesting character. Its complete crap that Bioware is going back to basically retelling ME 1 all over again with one difference Earth is involved this time . I accept that coming from a actor like him but now me and many others who read the script sees the utter bull crap story ME 3 is

I would believe you (and I agree that something a little more unconventional would have been nice), but from you "hate" towards Biowares decision I take there is more to it. You have been wrong and that upsets you. Only natural.
Doesn't make what is a conventional, yet solild story (because it was properly foreshadowed, you just chose to ignore those signs) any worse.
They planned Cerberus/TIM to be badguys from the beginning (portrayal in ME 1 should prove this). Coming full circle in ME 3 is just what most people expected and wanted to happen.
From our perspective that needed twist to it, was that we had to work with them in ME2. That was the inteded "difference" from ususal Bad vs. Good.
Not from your perspective, because you think working for Cerberus in ME2 was the right and desirable thing, and you wanted to continue this.
Not my problem, not Biowares, but yours.

Then they should have made Cerberus good guys.  It is Bioware's problem

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 31 janvier 2012 - 05:07 .

[angry_peon]

No it's your problem, because you are one of the very few who is going to absolutely hate part of what they are doing in ME3. More than any actual flaw in the game could ever warrant.
Bioware can be happy because they completed their trilogy the way they wanted to, the game is successfull and most people like it (assumption, but a very likely one)
Most players will be happy because they see the conclusion of a very entertaining series and hopefully a very satisfactory one.
You and your little Cerberus brigade however, will either have to realize how minor this problem actually is, or hate a game for this very same and immature reason.
So it pretty much is your problem and no one elses.

[Dave of Canada]

The "Cerberus Brigade", as you've deemed us, are upset by the way which Mass Effect 3 has been handled and we're posting about it. This forum isn't only for optimistic point of views, it allows various different point of views and opinions on various things. What you deem as "minor" is major for us, though I'd question your perception as what you consider "minor".

Last time I've evaluated what was happening, Cerberus suddenly transforming into main mustache-twirling antagonist for the finale which our choices are supposed to matter wasn't something which anybody could really consider "minor".

Now, had Cerberus been given legit reasons to become an antagonist but remained themselves, I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't be upset. We're upset at the stupidity of the plot, which I'm pretty certain is what most players are/were interested in seeing from the trilogy.

Somebody who prioritized Cerberus and their less-than stellar reputation, and the conflicts which they introduced into the galaxy, isn't any less valid than those who love Anderson or those who think the Citadel Council is great. Any slap in the face with poor plot would've been recieved poorly, just like how many players were upset at the stupid railroading into helping Cerberus.

Now, tell me: What's the difference between those who hated working with Cerberus and those who hate being forced to fight them? Was ME2's issue of forcing players to work with Cerberus "minor", considering how many players keep mentioning it like it was some traumatizing experience?

Bioware didn't learn from their mistake, now they've only shifted it to the opposite side of the spectrum and made it worse. They're making sure we fight Cerberus, they're making sure we can't defend them and can't side with them whatsoever. Unlike ME2 which allowed anti-Cerberus folks to express their wish and desires.

For a finale, this is unacceptable. Imagine the outrage if ME3 forced Shepard into Cerberus with no say in the manner and the series ended there, it would be a thousand times worse than our "immature" problem.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2012 - 06:44 .

[incinerator950]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The "Cerberus Brigade", as you've deemed us, are upset by the way which Mass Effect 3 has been handled and we're posting about it. This forum isn't only for optimistic point of views, it allows various different point of views and opinions on various things. What you deem as "minor" is major for us, though I'd question your perception as what you consider "minor".

Last time I've evaluated what was happening, Cerberus suddenly transforming into main mustache-twirling antagonist for the finale which our choices are supposed to matter wasn't something which anybody could really consider "minor".

Now, had Cerberus been given legit reasons to become an antagonist but remained themselves, I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't be upset. We're upset at the stupidity of the plot, which I'm pretty certain is what most players are/were interested in seeing from the trilogy.

Somebody who prioritized Cerberus and their less-than stellar reputation, and the conflicts which they introduced into the galaxy, isn't any less valid than those who love Anderson or those who think the Citadel Council is great. Any slap in the face with poor plot would've been recieved poorly, just like how many players were upset at the stupid railroading into helping Cerberus.

Now, tell me: What's the difference between those who hated working with Cerberus and those who hate being forced to fight them? Was ME2's issue of forcing players to work with Cerberus "minor", considering how many players keep mentioning it like it was some traumatizing experience?

Bioware didn't learn from their mistake, now they've only shifted it to the opposite side of the spectrum and made it worse. They're making sure we fight Cerberus, they're making sure we can't defend them and can't side with them whatsoever. Unlike ME2 which allowed anti-Cerberus folks to express their wish and desires.

For a finale, this is unacceptable. Imagine the outrage if ME3 forced Shepard into Cerberus with no say in the manner and the series ended there, it would be a thousand times worse than our "immature" problem.

Agreed.

[General User]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Bioware didn't learn from their mistake, now they've only shifted it to the opposite side of the spectrum and made it worse.

I must call attention to this line.  Bloody spot on!

Modifié par General User, 31 janvier 2012 - 06:53 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Varhjhin wrote...
So it pretty much is your problem and no one elses.

No, it's a problem of the writing itself. The "Cerberus Brigade" could go away, but the problem would still be there.

The Emperor - as it is - is naked. We can stop pointing that out, but ath won't suddely create clothes out of thin air.

[Poison_Berrie]

Dave of Canada wrote...

They've stomped onto the plot as if they were riding a steamroller, something which quite a few anti-Cerberus posters absolutely detest already. They've gone back and retroactively attributed most problems in ME1 with Cerberus, ME2 is explained further that Cerberus was evil all along and ME3 has them play the role as villain to the fullest (they almost literally kick puppies).

I'm sorry but I really don't see that. 
What have they changed to be retroactivally Cerberus' fault?
And despite what some may claim in this thread, ME 2 didn't actually paint them as purely evil. They have questionable methods, but they made their reasons quite clear.
I can't comment on ME 3 since I will not read the leak and I haven't played the game, but aside from that we know Cerberus works against your actions official channels haven't actually expounded on their reasons.

You actually encounter somebody from Cerberus who says he's an absolute monster and kills himself.

What mission is that?

[Dave of Canada]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

I can't comment on ME 3 since I will not read the leak and I haven't played the game, but aside from that we know Cerberus works against your actions official channels haven't actually expounded on their reasons.

Most of what I've mentioned is from the ME3 script (though I've kept details vague to avoid spoiling anything specific).