202 réponses à ce sujet

[Rover Captain]

iamweaver wrote...

Rover Captain wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Unfortunately your beautiful organization used any means necessary, and ended up getting indoctrinated.

Risks of any means necessary.

I can't bring myself to fault them for trying to turn a superior force's technology against them.I would've done the same thing, you do what you have to do to win, trial and error.

You're wrong, they didn't want to turn the Reapers against each other, TIM wanted to turn the Reapers on his enemies.  Take Omega for example.  Ideally Humanity needs something like Cerberus, as well as TIM, but TIM lost himself.  I do agree however that the destruction of Cerberus was such a waste, but TIM had already destroyed Cerberus when he rolled out the implants.

Cerberus since before ME1 was a patsy for the Reapers.  It's the same tactic that they used during the last cycle, indoctrinating some Protheans  to create a splinter group convinced that it can control the Reapers.

One thing that I like bout the ending is that it takes the motivation of Saren and TIM, and shows that, in a way, they were actually right.

It isnts necessarily a tactic, rather the cycles repeating itself.  There was always the option to control or destroy, otherwise you were controlled and then destroyed.  Why I never choose Synthesis or Control endings in Mass Effect 3 is simply because I am using the Reapers technology once again to achieve something that the cycle needs to achieve itself.  If synthesis really is the final step in evolution, then the apocalyptal reapers shouldn't be necessary.  This is where Cerberus takes a fall.... They are so focused on using Reaper technology to give them an edge that it in fact brings their own downfall.

[fr33stylez]

robertthebard wrote...
Shepard in the briefing room just before the start of the SM:  Not one more.

TIM in the holo just before the big bang that destroys his potential new toy:  Imagine how many people we can convert to husks to improve Cerberus' lot in the Galaxy, er, I mean, just think what we can do with that technology.

You do realize, that, in my first playthrough, considering events in ME 1 and 2, that's exactly why I blew the station?

Then there's posts like this one:

 I'm not sure of your overall point, because it doesn't explain why Shepard worked with a purely evil organizaion as you believe they were presented in ME. And you still have evaded my question. But I'll address it all below.

So which is it, we agreed to do it, or we had no choice, since you've just said both?  Once more, from the cheap seats, if you're going to play ME 2, you have no choice.  It doesn't matter how you feel about them as an organization.  It doesn't matter if you'd rather shoot him in the face than spit on him, you're either going to work for him, or you're going to have to uninstall the game.  Do not confuse the two, they are not the same.  It's not like they can start out ME 3 asking you:  Did you choose to not play ME 2 because you couldn't refuse to work for Cerberus?

Care to explain the difference between the two? They're not mutally exclusive. We've agreed to work with Cerberus in ME2 because there was no choice - this is how the story was written. I'm not sure why you've separated these points. But I'm not asking you a gameplay-related question, I'm asking you a plot-related question, so this is irrelevant.

How do you reconcile the fact that you say Cereberus was presented so unquestionably and so obviously evil throughout the trilogy, with Shepard's (and Joker, Chakwas, etc) willingness to work with them? 

If you say that Cerberus was written so obviously evil throughout the trilogy, then you either believe BW decided Shepard was still brain dead after the Lazarus Project, or that BW wrote Shepard to be a terrorist. 

This isn't a trick question. I'm just trying to figure out why the main protagonist (and many of his crew) in the story couldn't see what was apparently so obvious. Why did Shepard work with an organization you believe openly rivals the Reapers in terms of evil? He even defends Cerberus at times when chastizing the inaction of the Council/Alliance. Why?

Modifié par fr33stylez, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .

[DistantUtopia]

(deleted)
Misread the topic as "Why did you run with Cerberus team"

Modifié par DistantUtopia, 17 juillet 2012 - 02:41 .

[robertthebard]

fr33stylez wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Shepard in the briefing room just before the start of the SM:  Not one more.

TIM in the holo just before the big bang that destroys his potential new toy:  Imagine how many people we can convert to husks to improve Cerberus' lot in the Galaxy, er, I mean, just think what we can do with that technology.

You do realize, that, in my first playthrough, considering events in ME 1 and 2, that's exactly why I blew the station?

Then there's posts like this one:

 I'm not sure of your overall point, because it doesn't explain why Shepard worked with a purely evil organizaion as you believe they were presented in ME. And you still have evaded my question. But I'll address it all below.

So which is it, we agreed to do it, or we had no choice, since you've just said both?  Once more, from the cheap seats, if you're going to play ME 2, you have no choice.  It doesn't matter how you feel about them as an organization.  It doesn't matter if you'd rather shoot him in the face than spit on him, you're either going to work for him, or you're going to have to uninstall the game.  Do not confuse the two, they are not the same.  It's not like they can start out ME 3 asking you:  Did you choose to not play ME 2 because you couldn't refuse to work for Cerberus?

Care to explain the difference between the two? They're not mutally exclusive. We've agreed to work with Cerberus in ME2 because there was no choice - this is how the story was written. I'm not sure why you've separated these points. But I'm not asking you a gameplay-related question, I'm asking you a plot-related question, so this is irrelevant.

How do you reconcile the fact that you say Cereberus was presented so unquestionably and so obviously evil throughout the trilogy, with Shepard's (and Joker, Chakwas, etc) willingness to work with them? 

If you say that Cerberus was written so obviously evil throughout the trilogy, then you either believe BW decided Shepard was still brain dead after the Lazarus Project, or that BW wrote Shepard to be a terrorist. 

This isn't a trick question. I'm just trying to figure out why the main protagonist (and many of his crew) in the story couldn't see what was apparently so obvious. Why did Shepard work with an organization you believe openly rivals the Reapers in terms of evil? He even defends Cerberus at times when chastizing the inaction of the Council/Alliance. Why?

It's simple, really.  I was railroaded into a choice:  To play, or not to play.  The option to take my ball and go home was presented in my initial dialog with TIM, but never delivered.  Based on critiques of ME 3, that means ME 2 was a bad game, since not only did my choice not matter, I never got to make it.

I do believe you are deliberately ignoring some of what I say, suffice to say, I have addressed the part you chose to emphasize, in the post you snipped.  I'll seperate them out so you can see them this time, instead of getting stuck on "I like Cerberus, and you should have chosen to be a terrorist and liked it".

Joker was pissed at the Alliance, and never cared for the Council to begin with.  Insult to injury, they grounded him for not backing down on "The Reapers are coming", so he shot them the bird, and went where he could do what he loves to do, fly.  Now I'm sure that you have never made any decisions that you regret in your entire life, but since Joker ends up piloting for me again in ME 3, I guess the Alliance knew they'd screwed the pooch with him?

Chakwas will tell you, point blank, that she is not working for Cerberus, she is working for you.  I realize this is a distinction that you seem to have a problem with, but considering the initial dialog with Tali, on Freedom's Progress, I have no trouble grasping the difference, and this distinction will also be laid out by Tali.  Garrus doesn't give a rat's ass about beauracracy, he makes that plain in 1, and it continues on here, but he's still working for you, more than Cerberus.  You can get that from him too by simply talking to him.

The simple fact is, I used the assets I had at my disposal, and would have gladly sent them packing after Freedom's Progress, before, if the oppurtunity promised presented itself.  I would have gone with the Quarians if given the chance.  I wasn't.  I was forced to play nice with somebody I didn't like because I was given no option to send them packing, until after the SM.  I'm sorry that your hero worship of TIM keeps you from discerning the nature of both the game and the organization, I, however, am under no illusions.  Cerberus looks out for Cerberus first, everything else is secondary, hence loyal Cerberus operatives have left the fold in 3, unless you really believe that Miranda doesn't owe them big time for dealing with her sister's family.  Want to know the real funny?  If you give Cerberus the base, Miranda and Jacob think you screwed the pooch.  What's wrong with that picture?

[djarlaks10]

A cheap solution for canon fodder for mp and sp becuase fighting only Reaper forces would get boring. It's a pity that BW didn't get more creative with Cerberus in ME3, especially after a chunk of the 2nd game was dedictaed to showing how TIM isn't a one-dimensional bad guy who does everything for lulz.

[robertthebard]

djarlaks10 wrote...

A cheap solution for canon fodder for mp and sp becuase fighting only Reaper forces would get boring. It's a pity that BW didn't get more creative with Cerberus in ME3, especially after a chunk of the 2nd game was dedictaed to showing how TIM isn't a one-dimensional bad guy who does everything for lulz.

Really?  Because I sincerely believe the "I brought you back, you owe me, save me my tech" dialog kinda gives the lie to that assessment.  The only reason he never asked about saving the ship in the first place was because he really didn't think you could pull it off.

[djarlaks10]

robertthebard wrote...

djarlaks10 wrote...

A cheap solution for canon fodder for mp and sp becuase fighting only Reaper forces would get boring. It's a pity that BW didn't get more creative with Cerberus in ME3, especially after a chunk of the 2nd game was dedictaed to showing how TIM isn't a one-dimensional bad guy who does everything for lulz.

Really?  Because I sincerely believe the "I brought you back, you owe me, save me my tech" dialog kinda gives the lie to that assessment.  The only reason he never asked about saving the ship in the first place was because he really didn't think you could pull it off.

I'd say that Cerberus had potential at the end of ME2. At least I was hoping that there would be more to it than "Hurr-durr, I wanna control Reapers now even though I've always said that we need to destroy them to save humanity."

[robertthebard]

djarlaks10 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

djarlaks10 wrote...

A cheap solution for canon fodder for mp and sp becuase fighting only Reaper forces would get boring. It's a pity that BW didn't get more creative with Cerberus in ME3, especially after a chunk of the 2nd game was dedictaed to showing how TIM isn't a one-dimensional bad guy who does everything for lulz.

Really?  Because I sincerely believe the "I brought you back, you owe me, save me my tech" dialog kinda gives the lie to that assessment.  The only reason he never asked about saving the ship in the first place was because he really didn't think you could pull it off.

I'd say that Cerberus had potential at the end of ME2. At least I was hoping that there would be more to it than "Hurr-durr, I wanna control Reapers now even though I've always said that we need to destroy them to save humanity."

I just never saw 'em being anything but a terrorist organization, based purely on the games.  I'm not giving anything remotely dangerous to a terrorist, if I have a choice.

[fr33stylez]

robertthebard wrote...

It's simple, really.  I was railroaded into a choice:  To play, or not to play.  The option to take my ball and go home was presented in my initial dialog with TIM, but never delivered.  Based on critiques of ME 3, that means ME 2 was a bad game, since not only did my choice not matter, I never got to make it. 

I do believe you are deliberately ignoring some of what I say, suffice to say, I have addressed the part you chose to emphasize, in the post you snipped.  I'll seperate them out so you can see them this time, instead of getting stuck on "I like Cerberus, and you should have chosen to be a terrorist and liked it".

I'm not ignoring anything you're saying, you're still sidestepping the question I asked, so really this is going nowhere. That's probably why you continue to resort to strawmen arguments like "you love Cerberus" and whatnot. I'm not asking why you didn't have the gameplay choice to leave Cerberus at the beginning, I'm asking why you believe BW wrote it this way, considering how evil you say Cerberus was from the get-go.

 Joker was pissed at the Alliance, and never cared for the Council to begin with.  Insult to injury, they grounded him for not backing down on "The Reapers are coming", so he shot them the bird, and went where he could do what he loves to do, fly.  Now I'm sure that you have never made any decisions that you regret in your entire life, but since Joker ends up piloting for me again in ME 3, I guess the Alliance knew they'd screwed the pooch with him?

 ...So you join the most evil terrorist organization in history because the Alliance pissed you off? So in modern terms, Joker was grounded by the US Air Force and decided to join Al Qaeda because he was fustrated and he missed flying?... Really?...

Remember, you're arguing that it was evident Cerberus was completely evil throughout all the games. If this is true, then Joker is indeed a terrorist - there can be no justification for joining them if you believe there wasn't even a slight grey area regarding Cerberus' philosophies.

Chakwas will tell you, point blank, that she is not working for Cerberus, she is working for you.  I realize this is a distinction that you seem to have a problem with, but considering the initial dialog with Tali, on Freedom's Progress, I have no trouble grasping the difference, and this distinction will also be laid out by Tali.  Garrus doesn't give a rat's ass about beauracracy, he makes that plain in 1, and it continues on here, but he's still working for you, more than Cerberus.  You can get that from him too by simply talking to him.

 Again, you're arguing that it was evident Cerberus was completely evil throughout all the games. I'm not sure what kind of moral compass Chakwas, Tali and Garrus have if they're willing to join the most evil organization in history just because Shepard is on board. Because realistically, you know, the people you know would want nothing to do with you.

"You joined te ****s? Well OK I'll join too...but I'm working for you, not for Hitler!"

 The simple fact is, I used the assets I had at my disposal, and would have gladly sent them packing after Freedom's Progress, before, if the oppurtunity promised presented itself.  I would have gone with the Quarians if given the chance.  I wasn't.  I was forced to play nice with somebody I didn't like because I was given no option to send them packing, until after the SM.  I'm sorry that your hero worship of TIM keeps you from discerning the nature of both the game and the organization, I, however, am under no illusions.  Cerberus looks out for Cerberus first, everything else is secondary, hence loyal Cerberus operatives have left the fold in 3, unless you really believe that Miranda doesn't owe them big time for dealing with her sister's family.  Want to know the real funny?  If you give Cerberus the base, Miranda and Jacob think you screwed the pooch.  What's wrong with that picture?

That's nice. I'm not asking you what you would've done if given a choice that wasn't in the game. I'm simply asking you your opinion on why Shepard (the protagonist) was OK working with Cerberus in the entirety of ME2, considering you said it was obvious Cerberus was evil from the beginning. Was he indoctrinated? Brain damaged? A terrorist? What's your opinion?

I know I won't get an answer for this, but that's all I was asking.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 17 juillet 2012 - 04:10 .

[webhead921]

@fr33stylez, Cerberus was blatantly evil in ME1. Joker joining Cerberus was poorly handled. I think ME2 handled Cerberus somehwat poorly. My paragon shepard saw the horrible experiements Cerberus was conducting, yet when ME2 started I was pretty much forced into being the illusive man's lackey.
If anything, ME3's cerberus is consistent with ME1's Cerberus.

[robertthebard]

fr33stylez wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

It's simple, really.  I was railroaded into a choice:  To play, or not to play.  The option to take my ball and go home was presented in my initial dialog with TIM, but never delivered.  Based on critiques of ME 3, that means ME 2 was a bad game, since not only did my choice not matter, I never got to make it. 

I do believe you are deliberately ignoring some of what I say, suffice to say, I have addressed the part you chose to emphasize, in the post you snipped.  I'll seperate them out so you can see them this time, instead of getting stuck on "I like Cerberus, and you should have chosen to be a terrorist and liked it".

I'm not ignoring anything you're saying, you're still sidestepping the question I asked, so really this is going nowhere. That's probably why you continue to resort to strawmen arguments like "you love Cerberus" and whatnot. I'm not asking why you didn't have the gameplay choice to leave Cerberus at the beginning, I'm asking why you believe BW wrote it this way, considering how evil you say Cerberus was from the get-go.

 Joker was pissed at the Alliance, and never cared for the Council to begin with.  Insult to injury, they grounded him for not backing down on "The Reapers are coming", so he shot them the bird, and went where he could do what he loves to do, fly.  Now I'm sure that you have never made any decisions that you regret in your entire life, but since Joker ends up piloting for me again in ME 3, I guess the Alliance knew they'd screwed the pooch with him?

 ...So you join the most evil terrorist organization in history because the Alliance pissed you off? So in modern terms, Joker was grounded by the US Air Force and decided to join Al Qaeda because he was fustrated and he missed flying?... Really?...

Remember, you're arguing that it was evident Cerberus was completely evil throughout all the games. If this is true, then Joker is indeed a terrorist - there can be no justification for joining them if you believe there wasn't even a slight grey area regarding Cerberus' philosophies.

Chakwas will tell you, point blank, that she is not working for Cerberus, she is working for you.  I realize this is a distinction that you seem to have a problem with, but considering the initial dialog with Tali, on Freedom's Progress, I have no trouble grasping the difference, and this distinction will also be laid out by Tali.  Garrus doesn't give a rat's ass about beauracracy, he makes that plain in 1, and it continues on here, but he's still working for you, more than Cerberus.  You can get that from him too by simply talking to him.

 Again, you're arguing that it was evident Cerberus was completely evil throughout all the games. I'm not sure what kind of moral compass Chakwas, Tali and Garrus have if they're willing to join the most evil organization in history just because Shepard is on board. Because realistically, you know, the people you know would want nothing to do with you.

"You joined te ****s? Well OK I'll join too...but I'm working for you, not for Hitler!"

 The simple fact is, I used the assets I had at my disposal, and would have gladly sent them packing after Freedom's Progress, before, if the oppurtunity promised presented itself.  I would have gone with the Quarians if given the chance.  I wasn't.  I was forced to play nice with somebody I didn't like because I was given no option to send them packing, until after the SM.  I'm sorry that your hero worship of TIM keeps you from discerning the nature of both the game and the organization, I, however, am under no illusions.  Cerberus looks out for Cerberus first, everything else is secondary, hence loyal Cerberus operatives have left the fold in 3, unless you really believe that Miranda doesn't owe them big time for dealing with her sister's family.  Want to know the real funny?  If you give Cerberus the base, Miranda and Jacob think you screwed the pooch.  What's wrong with that picture?

That's nice. I'm not asking you what you would've done if given a choice that wasn't in the game. I'm simply asking you your opinion on why Shepard (the protagonist) was OK working with Cerberus in the entirety of ME2, considering you said it was obvious Cerberus was evil from the beginning. Was he indoctrinated? Brain damaged? A terrorist? What's your opinion?

I know I won't get an answer for this, but that's all I was asking.

It's amazing how far you're willing to take this to prove that Cerberus wasn't evil, when TIM says "Cerberus isn't as evil as you think".  He does not say "We aren't evil".  He doesn't deny doing unethical things to forward Cerberus, he just paints a pretty picture of it being to benefit humanity.

So, explain to me how luring Alliance troops to their death is helping humanity?  How about killing the Admiral for discovering that they were behind it?  What about this isn't "evil" as opposed to looking out for humanity's best interest?  Of course, I've already mentioned Jack, only to have that reference ignored, I guess because it doesn't fit into Morally Grey?  It's one thing, after one is caught, to claim they were a "rogue cell", but does that mean that they started up even w/out his approval?  Where did they get the money to fund building the labs, and to acquire the test subjects?  In other words, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and just like the crew he assembled to make Shep feel "comfortable", which if they aren't necessarily evil, or at least corrupt, they wouldn't have to do in the first place, it's all smoke and mirrors to cover up that "hey, I really wanted to keep that lab, but you've already destroyed it, so 'I was going to do that anyway'".

Why did his most loyal Lt leave?  Surely she should have believed that giving her boss the Collector base was a good idea, so why is it that she doesn't believe that?  All through the game, up until the loyalty mission, she's TIM's lap dog, why would she think it was bad then?  Why have the line "Jacob's a good soldier, he's never fully trusted me, but he's always been honest about it"?  Or, and the real kicker, from Jacob himself:  They've been called terrorists, with good reason, so yeah, I guess it's all just a delusion cooked up by me, despite their own employees feeling like they can't be trusted.  Note, these aren't people that were hired specifically for Lazarus, or this mission, as Jacob and Miranda have a history with Cerberus.  So yes, the fact that I can't tell TIM to take a long walk on a short pier before Freedom's Progress, that I can't take the offer of leaving after, means that I was written into a corner.  By definition, since that means that ME 3 was bad, ME 2 was bad, but I've already stated this as well.  This hang up of "I like Cerberus, so you're wrong" is the whole issue, people that have worked with them during the events of ME 1, or before don't think they can be trusted with the Collector base, but it's my issue?

Check it out, if you don't buy Arrival, you get relieved of duty for working with them.  What's up with that?

ETA:  Oh yeah, and it's a really valid arguement you've got there when we have to go to Godwin's Law to support it, eh?

Modifié par robertthebard, 17 juillet 2012 - 10:03 .

[fr33stylez]

robertthebard wrote...

It's amazing how far you're willing to take this to prove that Cerberus wasn't evil, when TIM says "Cerberus isn't as evil as you think".  He does not say "We aren't evil".  He doesn't deny doing unethical things to forward Cerberus, he just paints a pretty picture of it being to benefit humanity.

So, explain to me how luring Alliance troops to their death is helping humanity?  How about killing the Admiral for discovering that they were behind it?  What about this isn't "evil" as opposed to looking out for humanity's best interest?  Of course, I've already mentioned Jack, only to have that reference ignored, I guess because it doesn't fit into Morally Grey?  It's one thing, after one is caught, to claim they were a "rogue cell", but does that mean that they started up even w/out his approval?  Where did they get the money to fund building the labs, and to acquire the test subjects?  In other words, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and just like the crew he assembled to make Shep feel "comfortable", which if they aren't necessarily evil, or at least corrupt, they wouldn't have to do in the first place, it's all smoke and mirrors to cover up that "hey, I really wanted to keep that lab, but you've already destroyed it, so 'I was going to do that anyway'".

Why did his most loyal Lt leave?  Surely she should have believed that giving her boss the Collector base was a good idea, so why is it that she doesn't believe that?  All through the game, up until the loyalty mission, she's TIM's lap dog, why would she think it was bad then?  Why have the line "Jacob's a good soldier, he's never fully trusted me, but he's always been honest about it"?  Or, and the real kicker, from Jacob himself:  They've been called terrorists, with good reason, so yeah, I guess it's all just a delusion cooked up by me, despite their own employees feeling like they can't be trusted.  Note, these aren't people that were hired specifically for Lazarus, or this mission, as Jacob and Miranda have a history with Cerberus.  So yes, the fact that I can't tell TIM to take a long walk on a short pier before Freedom's Progress, that I can't take the offer of leaving after, means that I was written into a corner.  By definition, since that means that ME 3 was bad, ME 2 was bad, but I've already stated this as well.  This hang up of "I like Cerberus, so you're wrong" is the whole issue, people that have worked with them during the events of ME 1, or before don't think they can be trusted with the Collector base, but it's my issue?

Check it out, if you don't buy Arrival, you get relieved of duty for working with them.  What's up with that?

ETA:  Oh yeah, and it's a really valid arguement you've got there when we have to go to Godwin's Law to support it, eh?

Your entire post is a gigantic strawman. You really can't answer my question so you've constructed a false argument that no one made (You think Cerberus is good!!!) and decide to argue it. I think we're done here, no?

P.S. I don't think you know Godwin's Law A) Isn't a real law Doesn't apply here, conseidering you're the one with the position that Cerberus is absolutely evil, all the time.

[fr33stylez]

webhead921 wrote...

@fr33stylez, Cerberus was blatantly evil in ME1. Joker joining Cerberus was poorly handled. I think ME2 handled Cerberus somehwat poorly. My paragon shepard saw the horrible experiements Cerberus was conducting, yet when ME2 started I was pretty much forced into being the illusive man's lackey.
If anything, ME3's cerberus is consistent with ME1's Cerberus.

That's fine to believe, but not what I'm arguing. Bioware for whatever reason decided to step away from the whole "cerberus is completely evil" in ME2, enough to at least justify the main protagonist and many of ther supprtive characters working with them the entire game. THroughout ME2, PAragon Shepard merely makes whiny statements while going all with most of what TIM says, while Renegade Shepard agrees several times with Cerberus. 

All I'm saying is that it appeared they were going to a direction that Cerberus was in many aspects morally grey in ME2, only to disregard everything (again) in ME3, turning them into moustache-twirling villains.

[Rhosyn]

Because I have time before Earth releases, I'm gonna break this down a bit.

General things that Cerberus has done that might be considered evil

1) Ambushed Kahoku's men and killed Kahoku
2) Cloning Thorian Creepers
3) Rachni Clones
4) The attack on Akuze by thresher maws
5) Engineering eezo exposure over a colony
6) Pragia
7) Project Overlord
8) Their treatment of the Graysons
9) Imprisoning biotics and using them as test subjects, forcing them to exhaustion
10) Assassinating the leader of a political party so that he can introduce a favored candidate as a leader

Acts of questionable intelligence/morality from the Illusive Man in ME2-ME3

1) Sending Shepard into the Collector ship blind
2) Trying to save the Collector Base
3) Implanting Grayson with Reaper tech.
4) Taking over Omega
5) Attacking Sur'Kesh
6) Attacking Tuchanka
7) Implanting Reaper tech in his own people
8) Implanting HIMSELF with Reaper tech.
9) Forcibly turning civilians into husks/indoctrinated soldiers
10) Abducting students from Grissom Academy
11) Attacking the Citadel
12) On a more humorous note, not realizing Udina is useless.

I don't think they really changed Cerberus at all. They were always evil. Their goals were human supremacy at any cost.  The subjugation of sentient species is not an acceptable method to gain power (rachni). Nor is it acceptable to torture and force experimentation on anyone for the purpose of "advancement". Hell, the only reason TIM didn't put a control chip in Shepard was because it might influence his/her personality. Not moral grounds. There's a reason not even his own subordinates trust him.

And yes, TIM is wrong for trying to use the Reapers own technology against them for this simple fact: Reaper technology, even dormant, can indoctrinate those around it. He -knew- this. The fact of the matter is, the Illusive Man was indoctrinated through his own hubris. Amoral behavior shouldn't be idolized. I mean hell, even if you're playing a pro-human Shep, his treatment of humanity alone should be enough to jump ship at the earliest opportunity. If you can justify the planned eezo exposure, the attacks on Akuze, the murder of countless people...Good for you. But they didn't ruin anything. Only carried it to its logical conclusion.

[webhead921]

fr33stylez wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

@fr33stylez, Cerberus was blatantly evil in ME1. Joker joining Cerberus was poorly handled. I think ME2 handled Cerberus somehwat poorly. My paragon shepard saw the horrible experiements Cerberus was conducting, yet when ME2 started I was pretty much forced into being the illusive man's lackey.
If anything, ME3's cerberus is consistent with ME1's Cerberus.

That's fine to believe, but not what I'm arguing. Bioware for whatever reason decided to step away from the whole "cerberus is completely evil" in ME2, enough to at least justify the main protagonist and many of ther supprtive characters working with them the entire game. THroughout ME2, PAragon Shepard merely makes whiny statements while going all with most of what TIM says, while Renegade Shepard agrees several times with Cerberus. 

All I'm saying is that it appeared they were going to a direction that Cerberus was in many aspects morally grey in ME2, only to disregard everything (again) in ME3, turning them into moustache-twirling villains.

I really think Cerberus were always moustache twirling villains.  In ME2, Shepard and the crew only worked with them because nobody else beleived the collectors/reapers were a real threat (even though this was underdeveloped and poorly handled).  And like the other poster mentioned, Me2 still had things like Jack's facility and Project Overlord.  Sactuary in ME3 was not a far stretch from the stuff cerberus was doing in ME1. 

Modifié par webhead921, 17 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[robertthebard]

fr33stylez wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

It's amazing how far you're willing to take this to prove that Cerberus wasn't evil, when TIM says "Cerberus isn't as evil as you think".  He does not say "We aren't evil".  He doesn't deny doing unethical things to forward Cerberus, he just paints a pretty picture of it being to benefit humanity.

So, explain to me how luring Alliance troops to their death is helping humanity?  How about killing the Admiral for discovering that they were behind it?  What about this isn't "evil" as opposed to looking out for humanity's best interest?  Of course, I've already mentioned Jack, only to have that reference ignored, I guess because it doesn't fit into Morally Grey?  It's one thing, after one is caught, to claim they were a "rogue cell", but does that mean that they started up even w/out his approval?  Where did they get the money to fund building the labs, and to acquire the test subjects?  In other words, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and just like the crew he assembled to make Shep feel "comfortable", which if they aren't necessarily evil, or at least corrupt, they wouldn't have to do in the first place, it's all smoke and mirrors to cover up that "hey, I really wanted to keep that lab, but you've already destroyed it, so 'I was going to do that anyway'".

Why did his most loyal Lt leave?  Surely she should have believed that giving her boss the Collector base was a good idea, so why is it that she doesn't believe that?  All through the game, up until the loyalty mission, she's TIM's lap dog, why would she think it was bad then?  Why have the line "Jacob's a good soldier, he's never fully trusted me, but he's always been honest about it"?  Or, and the real kicker, from Jacob himself:  They've been called terrorists, with good reason, so yeah, I guess it's all just a delusion cooked up by me, despite their own employees feeling like they can't be trusted.  Note, these aren't people that were hired specifically for Lazarus, or this mission, as Jacob and Miranda have a history with Cerberus.  So yes, the fact that I can't tell TIM to take a long walk on a short pier before Freedom's Progress, that I can't take the offer of leaving after, means that I was written into a corner.  By definition, since that means that ME 3 was bad, ME 2 was bad, but I've already stated this as well.  This hang up of "I like Cerberus, so you're wrong" is the whole issue, people that have worked with them during the events of ME 1, or before don't think they can be trusted with the Collector base, but it's my issue?

Check it out, if you don't buy Arrival, you get relieved of duty for working with them.  What's up with that?

ETA:  Oh yeah, and it's a really valid arguement you've got there when we have to go to Godwin's Law to support it, eh?

Your entire post is a gigantic strawman. You really can't answer my question so you've constructed a false argument that no one made (You think Cerberus is good!!!) and decide to argue it. I think we're done here, no?

P.S. I don't think you know Godwin's Law A) Isn't a real law Doesn't apply here, conseidering you're the one with the position that Cerberus is absolutely evil, all the time.

Godwin's Law:  Any internet discussion will degenerate to Hitler, or the ****s.  Who brought that up?  You're right, we are done.

[fr33stylez]

webhead921 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

@fr33stylez, Cerberus was blatantly evil in ME1. Joker joining Cerberus was poorly handled. I think ME2 handled Cerberus somehwat poorly. My paragon shepard saw the horrible experiements Cerberus was conducting, yet when ME2 started I was pretty much forced into being the illusive man's lackey.
If anything, ME3's cerberus is consistent with ME1's Cerberus.

That's fine to believe, but not what I'm arguing. Bioware for whatever reason decided to step away from the whole "cerberus is completely evil" in ME2, enough to at least justify the main protagonist and many of ther supprtive characters working with them the entire game. THroughout ME2, PAragon Shepard merely makes whiny statements while going all with most of what TIM says, while Renegade Shepard agrees several times with Cerberus. 

All I'm saying is that it appeared they were going to a direction that Cerberus was in many aspects morally grey in ME2, only to disregard everything (again) in ME3, turning them into moustache-twirling villains.

I really think Cerberus were always moustache twirling villains.  In ME2, Shepard and the crew only worked with them because nobody else beleived the collectors/reapers were a real threat (even though this was underdeveloped and poorly handled).  And like the other poster mentioned, Me2 still had things like Jack's facility and Project Overlord.  Sactuary in ME3 was not a far stretch from the stuff cerberus was doing in ME1. 

Shepard was willing to listen and work with Illusive man from the get-go, though. Really, he never even investigated what happened to him, or what anyone else in the galaxy was doing. Chalk it up to bad writing or whatever, but if I were Shepard, and based on how Cerberus was presented in ME1, then he should've shot Jacob in the head the second he woke up. Really - it would've made more sense if they did implant a control chip into Shepard's head, because he either truly beleived there was more to Cerberus in ME2, or he was brainwashed.

It's like the word 'Reaper' is a form of mind control for Shepard.  The King of Cerberus says 'Reaper' and Shepard is off and running to Freedom's Progress without further ado. Like I said, there are even times Shepard defends Cerberus in ME2, so this goes beyond using them as a means to an end. And if this is indeed all he is doing, then morally, this is completely out of character for Shepard (and still doesn't explain why Joker and the others decided to all join Cerberus).

Modifié par fr33stylez, 17 juillet 2012 - 02:31 .

[dynamictoxin]

there is nothing i like about them :/ what about when he sent Shepard into that trap(the collector ship one)? in me2?

[Archontor]

Emzamination wrote...


He didn't want power for himself

 

"I am Humanity" TIM. So what's this about not wanting power?

[BatmanPWNS]

Archontor wrote...

Emzamination wrote...


He didn't want power for himself

 

"I am Humanity" TIM. So what's this about not wanting power?

It's called being a morning cartoon villain. Bioware seems to love them.

[ImperatorMortis]

Cerberus was always a group of evil bastards. Stop fooling yourself.

[ImperatorMortis]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

*Cerberus is super cool. Humans are the best*

This ^ 

[darkchief10]

What? i see no problem with this, implanting reaper tech into my skull was the best thing i ever did, now i'm never alone with those nice voices telling me to brutally murder you all! have a nice day []