. Show me. I couldn't find it, you say it isn't original, so prove it to me. Show me where my idea has been previously stated. I couldn't find it, you find it, prove me wrong.Lightning Cloud wrote...
You didn't look then.
Your idea is not original, because it's already been stated.
Modifié par Steelcan, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:33 .
Lightning Cloud wrote...
You didn't look then.
Your idea is not original, because it's already been stated.
Modifié par o Ventus, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:39 .
Lightning Cloud wrote...
You didn't look then.
Your idea is not original, because it's already been stated.
txgoldrush wrote...
But there is less room for interpetation when they are casts as antagonists and despite their claims for the "greater good", they are proven barbaric and wrong. Even in ME2, almost everyone tells you that they can't be trusted, even some Cerebrus characters like Jacob. And the reneagde ending in ME2 makes TIM look like a villian, nevermind all Shepards Paragon or Renegade having a falling out with TIM.
And its also the method which sacrifices are made that seperates Shepard from Cerebrus, especially ME3 when Renegade becomes more consistant.
Modifié par Slayer299, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:47 .
txgoldrush wrote...
But there is less room for interpetation when they are casts as antagonists and despite their claims for the "greater good", they are proven barbaric and wrong. Even in ME2, almost everyone tells you that they can't be trusted, even some Cerebrus characters like Jacob. And the reneagde ending in ME2 makes TIM look like a villian, nevermind all Shepards Paragon or Renegade having a falling out with TIM.
And its also the method which sacrifices are made that seperates Shepard from Cerebrus, especially ME3 when Renegade becomes more consistant.
Modifié par Quote the Raven, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:47 .
Modifié par Bathaius, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:17 .
Modifié par Bathaius, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:17 .
Quote the Raven wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
But there is less room for interpetation when they are casts as antagonists and despite their claims for the "greater good", they are proven barbaric and wrong. Even in ME2, almost everyone tells you that they can't be trusted, even some Cerebrus characters like Jacob. And the reneagde ending in ME2 makes TIM look like a villian, nevermind all Shepards Paragon or Renegade having a falling out with TIM.
And its also the method which sacrifices are made that seperates Shepard from Cerebrus, especially ME3 when Renegade becomes more consistant.
They are only truly cast as antagonists in Mass Effect 3. Bioware attempts to justify what they did in ME1 with the "greater good" argument from Miranda as well as showing they don't employ truly "evil" characters e.g. Jacob and Miranda. Shepard works with them willingly in Mass Effect 2 with very little fuss.
They're only really proven to be barbaric and wrong in Mass Effect 3 (in an obvious indisputable way).
Which is the whole point of people's argument that they were never pure "moustache twirling evil" until the third game. Saying that cerberus can't be trusted doesn't necessarily equate to evil.
In regards to the ending. Paragon Shepard rejects him. Renegade Shepard simply says something like, "If you can keep up...great". There's nothing decisively evil about the illusive man in Mass Effect 2 even in the ending. All of his methods and actions were grey but justifiable in the "greater good" argument.
Andres Hendrix wrote...
Well, I am not sure why this thread has not been locked. If there are any real philosophers or scientists here who have, or are learning about research methods, and or critical thinking, for a lol, I say "non-falsifiability fallacy;" the OP needs to read some Karl Popper. XD
Modifié par Bathaius, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:31 .
Modifié par Bathaius, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:17 .
Steelcan wrote...
All of their deeds can be explained by the ends justifying the means. In ME1 we didn't have the whole picture, we knew what they were doing, but we never learned why. And the why is EXTREMELY important.
Bathaius wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Andres Hendrix wrote...
Well, I am not sure why this thread has not been locked. If there are any real philosophers or scientists here who have, or are learning about research methods, and or critical thinking, for a lol, I say "non-falsifiability fallacy;" the OP needs to read some Karl Popper. XD
and what would these philopshers think about people ignoring facts that disprove ones argument? This is what anti enders do.
Pretty sure that's what you're doing here. I haven't seen facts that 'back up your claims'. You just stated opposite opinions and backed them up with some pretty shifty evidences. Frankly, I find the claims of the opposite quite more compelling.
But I'm not really into keeping this thread alive, so meh.
. So? What's your point? They consistently believe that the ends justify the means? And they are right.txgoldrush wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
All of their deeds can be explained by the ends justifying the means. In ME1 we didn't have the whole picture, we knew what they were doing, but we never learned why. And the why is EXTREMELY important.
and yet even in ME3, they believe the ends justify the means...The fact is that there is no change really to Cerebrus except their role in the story from side quest fodder, to co protagonist, to antagonist.
And in the novels, they are the villians as well.
Steelcan wrote...
. So? What's your point? They consistently believe that the ends justify the means? And they are right.txgoldrush wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
All of their deeds can be explained by the ends justifying the means. In ME1 we didn't have the whole picture, we knew what they were doing, but we never learned why. And the why is EXTREMELY important.
and yet even in ME3, they believe the ends justify the means...The fact is that there is no change really to Cerebrus except their role in the story from side quest fodder, to co protagonist, to antagonist.
And in the novels, they are the villians as well.
. TIM was right about Control. Cerberus was right to believe that the Alliance and Council would not respond to the Reaper threat. If the Alliance and Council had been as helpful in ME2 as Cerberus then the war could have played out very differently. What they did would have saved humanity. But for some reason the Alliiance decided not to use Cerberus's data.txgoldrush wrote...
No, they are wrong....Steelcan wrote...
. So? What's your point? They consistently believe that the ends justify the means? And they are right.txgoldrush wrote...
and yet even in ME3, they believe the ends justify the means...The fact is that there is no change really to Cerebrus except their role in the story from side quest fodder, to co protagonist, to antagonist.Steelcan wrote...
All of their deeds can be explained by the ends justifying the means. In ME1 we didn't have the whole picture, we knew what they were doing, but we never learned why. And the why is EXTREMELY important.
And in the novels, they are the villians as well.
Thats the point....their "sacrifices" destroy humanity's chance of survival, not help it.
MegaSovereign wrote...
So OP, what's your opinion about the ending? What's usually your final choice?
txgoldrush wrote...
See th every first post...they are there.
Modifié par Bathaius, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:33 .
Retour en haut