522 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

StreetMagic wrote...

The whole Akuze thing is just dropping the ball. Whoever wrote this stuff must've never played default Shepard. My only guess. I try not to read into it too much, storywise.

They tried to make up for the mistake later with Vasir telling you what a ****** you are for it. I can appreciate that. For me, I can use it as a sort of starting point for my Shepard to finally start getting pissed about it. Like maybe before, he was trying to convince himself the mission was too important to let it get in the way.

I thought default Shep was Earthborn/Ruthless?

[Rasofe]

No Looshep is spacer/survivor.

[Ryzaki]

Rasofe wrote...

No Looshep is spacer/survivor.

Oooooh.

...that makes the complete ignorance of Akuze in ME2 even worse.

[GHNR]

According to the Wiki, its Earthborn/Sole Survivor, but I suppose only the latter matters in this case.

Modifié par GHNR, 28 novembre 2013 - 01:02 .

[Rasofe]

Rly? Man.
Well we all learn something today.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Why, what makes you think that?
I'm just saying your statements aren't so much illogical as completely insane. Remember, I'm only attacking the argument. By saying that the premises and axioms that you've based what you said on are simply crazy. And of course the "practical" aspect of being completely unpragmatic and having an argument with anyone who sticks out.
It's nothing personal.

You should probably explain exactly why the statements are insane. I'm not disagreeing with you, just suggesting strategy.

Yeah, probably, but it's not worth turning this into an argument. If I don't walk out of this with my dignity, at least I will know I did what Massive does: thinly veiled insults directed towards arguments that "accidentally" hit the person saying them.

I don't insult people when I have no cause too. For the last few days, you've been getting increasingly frustrated with me to a point where you're starting to deliberately attack me. I don't know why. Do not like what I have to say, or do just not know how to deal with me?

I think in the end it's insane that Massive argues for validity of refugees being a strain on the war-effort and Sanctuary being justified to win the war when the character that he's glorifying personally led the effort to shut that place down (and liberate her sister). Miranda Lawson would not approve of Sanctuary because Miranda Lawson was never written as a butcher.

I never said Miranda was correct in this. She's a human. A physically perfect one, but still subject to error. I don't agree with the context of what Cerberus is doing at Sanctuary, mainly since they're not using their efforts to go towards the overall effort of the war. I'd argue that Miranda is trying to save Oriana and stop her father from helping to undermine galactic efforts by helping Cerberus, and by extension the Reapers, gain more troops. I'd also argue with inconsistent writing, something I know jtav and Ieldra would agree with me on.

Though overall, yes, I can indeed make an argument about why refugee's place a strain on the effort. What are they doing to contribute to the war effort? Why are they worth protecting if they do nothing to advance my cause? Can they be of use beyond sitting in a camp? Can I use them to further my cause? It comes down to a question of economics.

[GHNR]

Is Miranda physically perfect if she can't reproduce?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...

Yep. Here we go again.
Explaining to you why you're wrong about human beings being cheap and expendable is like expaining to a lunatic why one is equal to one. It's a common sense-intuition premise. A real practical person would know that. Practical and sensible are in fact synnonymous.

It's not a practical question. It's not a question of science, or politics, economics. Things of a necessity in nature. 

It's a question of philosophy, or morality, of ethics. 

And this Reaper war isn't something that's going to be won by morality or ethics.

I take it you're a moral absolutist? 

You can't say I'm insane because I don't place inherent value in life as you do. It's a perspective, not a truth.

[Rasofe]

You'd argue a lot, that's for certain. Not sure what the point would be for anyone to argue with you though, since for any decent debate people have to agree on at least basic things.
Devaluing human beings in the name of "humanity" to make every other argument work, such as statements about scientists "fullfilling their purpose" and therefore their deaths are not regrettable. is what leads to the conclusion that no one should ever bother arguing with you because you're never on the same page.
Seriously. If I discover space travel, then I die in the first launch. Fulfilled purpose and served humanity, right? No purpose in life left.
Sickening.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

GHNR wrote...

Is Miranda physically perfect if she can't reproduce?

She is if the cause of her infertility is curable with modern medicine. Have you ever seen a fibroid? Nasty stuff, but they can be removed today. I'd wonder how easy it is in the future. Simply put, the writer didn't do his research.

As well, she brought a man back to life. I think it's within her capability to cure her infertility.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rasofe wrote...

You'd argue a lot, that's for certain. Not sure what the point would be for anyone to argue with you though, since for any decent debate people have to agree on at least basic things.

And I think we agree on one basic premise. We both want to stop the Reapers.

Notionally, how far are you willing to go to stop them? Even beyond the Reapers, how far are you willing to go for your goal? What are you willing to work with. What is your goal worth to you? How are you willing to play? Are you willing to win at all costs? Are you willing to prepare to win at all costs? Are you willing to be the bad guy to make things work for the good guys?

There's a Sherlock quote from 'The Reichenbach Fall' that I'd like to bring up;

"I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for a second that I'm one of them."

Devaluing human beings in the name of "humanity" to make every other argument work, such as statements about scientists "fullfilling their purpose" and therefore their deaths are not regrettable. is what leads to the conclusion that no one should ever bother arguing with you because you're never on the same page.
Seriously. If I discover space travel, then I die in the first launch. Fulfilled purpose and served humanity, right? No purpose in life left.
Sickening.

Their deaths are regrettable. I never said they weren't. They were obviously hired because of their intelligence, skill, and capability. That's hard to replace. Otherwise, I'll need to find others to bring their work forward.

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
She is if the cause of her infertility is curable with modern medicine. Have you ever seen a fibroid? Nasty stuff, but they can be removed today. I'd wonder how easy it is in the future. Simply put, the writer didn't do his research.

As well, she brought a man back to life. I think it's within her capability to cure her infertility.

She had access to her era's modern medicine. It couldn't help her.

As for Lazarus tech, she didn't have access to those resources for personal use.

Seriously, dude, does Bio have to hit you over the head with stuff or something?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 novembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Rotward]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ah, here it is; I take it you aren't a moral relativist, and you don't believe in Cerberus' goals?

My Shepard has no reserves over anything Cerberus has done, and defends them too. I do. I think Cerberus is justified in their methods so long as the goals they make are met. Morality is a petty notion of two very subjective terms called good and evil that don't exist beyond an abstract level. 

If what Cerberus does helps humanity in the long run (it does), then I'm all for it. Doesn't matter what it is.

Edit: Why does this thing bleep out n-a-z-i but not hell? Oh well, that's the four aterisk word below. 

I could debate morals with you for another ten pages, but this risks going on a tangent so off topic it doesn't even belong on a mass effect forum. In light of this, I'll make a final post, refrain from commenting further on this topic:

• I disagree with all of cerberus' goals - I wouldn't even have wasted time dealing with the collectors. One new reaper, made of human colonists or not, isn't worth my time. There's an entire invasion force to prepare for.

• Morality aside, Cerberus was inefficient, ineffective, and clearly sadistic. The scientists, and Kai Lang, weren't making hard decisions. They just enjoyed seeing people suffer. I reached this conclusion from Kai Lang's speeches, the audio of cerberus scientists talking to Jack if you don't save Grissom Academy, and Jack's childhood arena. 

• Miranda is a cult follower. Her actions were only as useful as the Illusive man's orders, and the Illusive Man's orders were generally terrible. Even the coldest corporation has safety measures in place, else they lose money, anyone of sound mind would have protected their investments better than the Illusive Man did. 

• Since you failed to provide any new information for Akuze, I'll pitch my final analysis. Cerberus could easily have gained alliance funding, and vonunteers, had they followed the scientific method. Instead, cerberus had to kill roughly fifty people in order to get one test subject. Any results from the experiments were worthless, since Cerberus could not share the results with the rest of humanity: they were too busy denying the experiments had ever taken place. With only tombs, one test subject, Cerberus' sample size was too small to get any applicable data from. Furthermore, they could have discerned the effect of thesher maw venom in human blood without injecting it into a live human, Tombs. Their experiments and methods were needlessly, nay detrimentally, harsh; I feel justified in comparing Cerberus' experiments to the ****s injecting blue dye into Jewish eyes. Cerberus would have gotten better results by following procedure. Instead they instigated a tragedy and gained little in return. When initial costs exceed returns, the decision was a poor one. 

• I'm not terribly informed as to the various approaches to morality, such as moral relativism, but I don't care for the notion of morals. Morality is a simplification for those who lack the time, or inclination to consider the big picture when making decisions. Morality serves a purpose, however, and can't be ignored by those who have no alternative means of fulfilling that purpose.

• If you're unclear what the purpose is - it's to assign values to abstract or complicated entities: life, ideas, ideals, symbols, enthusiasm, etc. Life, in particular, has an unknown value unless you know it personally. Thus, having a system for assigning value to that unknown is valuable.

• Our basic assumptions, from which we make value judgements, seem to be different. I doubt we're ever going to see eye-to-eye

Modifié par Rotward, 28 novembre 2013 - 01:57 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
She is if the cause of her infertility is curable with modern medicine. Have you ever seen a fibroid? Nasty stuff, but they can be removed today. I'd wonder how easy it is in the future. Simply put, the writer didn't do his research.

As well, she brought a man back to life. I think it's within her capability to cure her infertility.

She had access to her era's modern medicine. It couldn't help her.

As for Lazarus tech, she didn't have access to those resources for personal use.

Seriously, dude, does Bio have to hit you over the head with stuff or something?

Yes, and when they do, it's scientifically unrealistic. The cause of her infertility is curable by today's medicine. Why the hell is not curable in 170 years? And she doesn't need to use Lazarus tech. It's two completely separate forms of medicine. One is specializing in bringing a man back to life. Another is specializing in reversing infertility.

Also, you're saying that Miranda can bring a person back to life, but she can't cure her infertility? That's just plain inconsistent writing, let alone the fact the writers didn't do their research. 

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Also, you're saying that Miranda can bring a person back to life, but she can't cure her infertility? That's just plain inconsistent writing, let alone the fact the writers didn't do their research. 

Playing devil's advocate: it's never confirmed whether Shepard's reproductive functions have been reinstated. 

All Shepards could be shooting blanks or barren, for all we know. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Rotward wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ah, here it is; I take it you aren't a moral relativist, and you don't believe in Cerberus' goals?

My Shepard has no reserves over anything Cerberus has done, and defends them too. I do. I think Cerberus is justified in their methods so long as the goals they make are met. Morality is a petty notion of two very subjective terms called good and evil that don't exist beyond an abstract level. 

If what Cerberus does helps humanity in the long run (it does), then I'm all for it. Doesn't matter what it is.

I could debate morals with you for another ten pages, but this risks going on a tangent so off topic it doesn't even belong on a mass effect forum. In light of this, I'll make a final post, refrain from commenting further on this topic:

Very well. As it would be a continuous ad infinitum to keep this going, despite the fact that I can post my response to your points, I'll take your truce and agree on the last point.

We simply aren't going to see eye-to-eye. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Also, you're saying that Miranda can bring a person back to life, but she can't cure her infertility? That's just plain inconsistent writing, let alone the fact the writers didn't do their research. 

Playing devil's advocate: it's never confirmed whether Shepard's reproductive functions have been reinstated. 

All Shepards could be shooting blanks or barren, for all we know. 

TIME FOR MAD SCIENCE YO!



Does a child have to born via a womb, or created via intercourse?

I'd imagine that you could create a child by combining the genetic material of Miranda and Shepard and create a test-tube baby. Hell, I think IVF would work. Remove the fibroids in Miranda and you can move forward from there. 

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Yes, and when they do, it's scientifically unrealistic. The cause of her infertility is curable by today's medicine. Why the hell is not curable in 170 years? And she doesn't need to use Lazarus tech. It's two completely separate forms of medicine. One is specializing in bringing a man back to life. Another is specializing in reversing infertility.

Also, you're saying that Miranda can bring a person back to life, but she can't cure her infertility? That's just plain inconsistent writing, let alone the fact the writers didn't do their research. 

If the Lazarus techniques are a completely separate form of medicine, how are they evidence of all forms of infertility being conquered by techniques available to Miranda?

I'll grant that "benign neoplasm" wasn't the right term. But really..... so what? Swap out those two words for something else. Anyone who can put up with the whole concept of asari shouldn't be sweating this.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 novembre 2013 - 02:58 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Yes, and when they do, it's scientifically unrealistic. The cause of her infertility is curable by today's medicine. Why the hell is not curable in 170 years? And she doesn't need to use Lazarus tech. It's two completely separate forms of medicine. One is specializing in bringing a man back to life. Another is specializing in reversing infertility.

Also, you're saying that Miranda can bring a person back to life, but she can't cure her infertility? That's just plain inconsistent writing, let alone the fact the writers didn't do their research. 

If the Lazarus techniques are a completely separate form of medicine, how are they evidence of all forms of infertility being conquered by techniques available to Miranda?

They're not. I'm saying that if Miranda has the expertise, skill, drive, and intelligence to bring back a person from the dead, don't you think she'd have the same to cure infertility if she put her mind to it? Especially when the offered form of infertility is reversable with 21st century medicine? 

[AlanC9]

Does she have the resources?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

Does she have the resources?

In my notional headcanon? Of course.

In reality? I don't know. The game never stipulates.

[enayasoul]

Rasofe wrote...

Wow.
Are most of the other Miranda fans like this too? I mean I heard you guys got the character boards closed and everything. I hope not, guys like Ieldra and jtav seem a lot more grounded.

I'm a Miranda fan but I dislike Cerberus, especially Tim.  I cheered loudly when Miranda quit Cerberus at the end of ME2.  I refuse to give Tim the collector base.  They've gone to far in experiments and frankly, I never trusted the Illusive man.  My Shep told him to get in line or stand aside and not get in his way. 
It also felt like all Shepard ever did was clean up everyone's damn mess, Cerberus and Alliance alike! 

I would have loved to play an independent Shepard, neither for Alliance nor Cerberus.  He worked with Cerberus to stop the collector threat. That's it.  

I also like Miranda's more mellow attitude in ME3.  I just wished her role wasn't focused on Ori and rather helping Shepard...!   My most favorite moment when I knew I was going really like this character is when you first meet her and she shoots Wilson!  Awesome!  And the time where she tell's Shepard she's not looking for a friend and Shepard asks if she's always this ****y!  Oh and lets not forget when Shepard pulls the renagade kiss on Miranda.

 

Love it! 

Modifié par enayasoul, 28 novembre 2013 - 03:18 .

[Kataphrut94]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yes, I can. And do. Essentially, my Shepard was fired from Cerberus. The messes that Cerberus makes are sides for what they do fundamentally achieve. And they did achieve a lot. On this, they did gain information on the Derelict Reaper, and they did gain the Reaper IFF that was vital for the mission.

I will consent that Cerberus Operations due tend to have a very heavy body count.

IMO, if that's the cost to achieving my goals though, then it will be met without hesitation or remorse.

It's why I pride my Shepard on being unfettered.

I think you might be misunderstanding me; I'm not trying to say that Cerberus are evil or immoral. I have nothing against the whole unfettered 'ends justifies the means' business that you and Cerberus preach. As a matter of fact, I support it.

The issue I have is with practicality; put simply, they were incompetent morons. If achieving your goal means sacrificing a few people, then that's fine so long as the end result is worth it and the losses weren't meaningless. For every one of the failed experiments I brought up, you justified it with 'oh, they technically succeeded, it's just that they couldn't benefit from it because everyone died'. That's not success; they had good ideas and proved they could work, but they still screwed up and gained nothing practical from them. What's worse is that I can think of several ways they could have achieved their goals without all the death and failure.

First, Akuze. Assuming they were studying how thresher maws kill armed squadrons or whatever, that's easy; set the same trap, but spring it on turian soldiers. Still devious, but at least you aren't hurting your own species, plus you also gain some insight into how your enemy reacts to these situations as well. Assuming they were just studying the maws themselves, they wouldn't even need to; galactic civilisation is over a thousand years old, thresher maws are even older. There's probably several comprehensive studies of thresher maws out there they could have used. There's a Galactic Codex, use it.

Second, Lazarus. I don't care what anyone thinks, Shepard's life is not more important than the cure and what happened at that place was an absolute mess. Definitely save him if you can, but Miranda's top priority should have been preserving the important medical research. Regardless, that situation was stupid to begin with; why would Wilson try to betray the people he's working for when they're the ones trying to bring a person back from the dead? Do I really need to spell out how ridiculous that is?

Third, Overlord. Would it really have been that unreasonable for Archer to ask for more time once he knows he has a way of controlling the geth? The Illusive Man seems to be pretty chill about project management, he should have been fine with being made to wait a bit longer. And if he wasn't, Archer should have just said 'screw you' and taken his work somewhere better. Either way, they could have had complete control of the geth, rather than dead scientists and a sentinent computer virus.

Forth, the derelict Reaper. This is laughable simple; don't send your boys off to a derelict Reaper then just leave them to their own devices with no apparent effort to monitor them. TIM knows about indoctrination, he should have figured out something was wrong and made an effort to rescue them. Shepard can still grab the IFF, but my version has a net gain in that none of the scientists die to achieve it. Then they can do something useful, like hooking up with Brynn and Jacob and contributing to the good guys side in 3.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Really massive? You're taking a pro-totalitarianism stance?