168 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

Cerberus was definitely onto something on Sanctuary. A working way to control reaper ground troops- that's huge! Imagine what it means if we successfully deliver that weapon on every battlefield- the Reapers would be ultimately incapable of harvesting. Reapers are way too big and clumsy to do anything but killing and blowing stuff up.

[KaiserShep]

Fair point. Too bad it involves betraying the human race. Problem is that control alone always leaves that pesky raincloud of doubt, because in the end, the horrible monsters still exist and there's no telling how long they can remain under control, and whether or not they are capable of adapting to it.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 mai 2013 - 07:01 .

[Argolas]

Yeah, no moral judgement included in my post above, I agree with Hackett on this one. Just thought I'd mention it. There was a reason the Reapers attacked Sanctuary.

[Display Name Owner]

Their methods are distasteful to say the least, but one could make the argument that if it was the only way to stop the Reapers, sacrificing 10 billion lives would be worth it. And TIM also has a point on the wisdom of not just throwing the Reapers' gifts away. There is merit in controlling them rather than eliminating them - they had to be doing what they did for some reason, what if they actually had the right of it? That their reason turned out to be wildly flawed and illogical is besides the point.

But TIM's plan was stupid and never would have worked. How does one "extrapolate" control over husks to the Reapers? And the Crucible he spent so much time trying to prevent the use of turned out to be the only means of actually doing it.

Many of their actions pre-Reaper are far less defensible. Oddly enough, my main issue with Cerberus hasn't been their methods (although some of them are highly objectionable and reckless to the point of idiocy), but their goals. Pro-human is understandable, but Human supremacy is something I just can't agree with. Humans are just one species in a galaxy of many, they don't have any right whatsoever to aim for dominance.

[o Ventus]

KaiserShep wrote...

For me, the Illusive Man was only truly sympathetic in ME2, but even then it evaporated rapidly. By 3, he turned into a gigantic monkey wrench with glowing eyes. As one 110% against the control option, any sympathy I had left was gone the moment he mentioned it. His convictions and beliefs were little more than an inconvenience at that point.

This. I could understand TIM in ME2, hell, even agree with some of his points.

But then George Lucas Mac Walters had to go and make him Hitler Palpatine Snidely Whiplash.

[KaiserShep]

In a sense I can understand TIM's reasoning, but Shepard has better insight on the reapers than he does. After all, he never had a nice ominous chat with any of them.

[AlexMBrennan]

Blowing up Mass Relays. That's a big one.

Which would actually work - the Reapers are here to prevent the extinction of all life in the galaxy, and blowing up all relays would lead to the destruction of all life in the galaxy so they would have to cease their attack and think of something different.

On the level of "we fight or we die".

That is also correct since it is logically equivalent to "if we don't fight then we will die" i.e. don't try diplomacy [or alternatively "If we don't die then we will have fought"]

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I posted this in another thread a few days ago and feel that it belongs here:

I'm a Cerberus fan, and I'm not a racist. At all. I am pro-human. Pro-human is not anti-alien.

I believe the alliance is too impotent by means of political opinion, public opinion, and too narrow in their ethics and morality to really stand up for human interests in the galaxy.

I don't even want to talk about how bad the Council is. I think they are a burden on their own member species, not to mention the other races that don't get a say at all in galactic affairs.

Their voice is given less weight since they are not on the Council. I don't think that's fair.

I believe that Cerberus is a watch-dog group established to protect both human interests and to be a hidden deterrent to the unknown threats and dangers of the galaxy.

Very similar to Grand Admiral Thrawn's Empire of the Hand from Star Wars. A secret and covert group that, despite their shadier methods, are as the name suggests: the guard dog to protect the galaxy from the unknown (the gates of hell and beyond).

I'm not going to let my distaste for the methods stop me from doing what I need to do for reaching my goals.

And here is an add-on to it, from the same thread:

I don't believe that Cerberus was ever a human supremacist group. I believe that the alliance fostered more hatred for aliens than Cerberus. TIM even tells Saren in the Evolutions comic to get his people ready. Do they attract racists and xenophobes? Yes, Miranda mentions as such. But so does the alliance. Ashley and Admiral Mikhailovich come to mind. More so, in fact simply due to the size of Cerberus in comparison to the alliance. But that's not the entire organization. My Shepard certainly supports them. He's not racist or anti-alien at all. And when my Shepard reforms Cerberus with Miranda post-war, he will eliminate the anti-alien tendencies in his group, the alliance, and in the Council. They are anti-alien as well. Yes, not all species are prepared to shoulder the burden of responsiblity among the council or to protect the galaxy. But their voice is stifled nonetheless by them. I don't hold the Asari responsible, or the Turians, or the Salarians, or the Humans. I hold that against the Council and the leadership of the species. These other people lose their say because they don't have the power, and I think that's because the Council wants it that way.

I think Cerberus had flaws with TIM giving too high demands and not enough rules to keep his people in line. I consider his flaw as believing too greatly in the end justifying the means, so much so that he doesn't care what his subordinates do, or who they are provided they are willing and have the talent. I believe this is how they were corrupted by Reaper tech. I believe that the Reapers turned Cerberus's goals into a twisted parody of what they once were. I believe they turned TIM into a shell of his former self; a power-seeking controller who wants to put humanity on top. The Reapers have turned him into that. I believe he truly did have humanity's best interest in his views once, despite his methods. I don't view him as a saint or a godly visionary. I view him as a man, a flawed man, but a man who had an idea. It had its issues, but it was a step in the direction I think is necessary. 

So I view Cerberus as well intentioned extremists.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 12:49 .

[Bleachrude]

o Ventus wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

For me, the Illusive Man was only truly sympathetic in ME2, but even then it evaporated rapidly. By 3, he turned into a gigantic monkey wrench with glowing eyes. As one 110% against the control option, any sympathy I had left was gone the moment he mentioned it. His convictions and beliefs were little more than an inconvenience at that point.

This. I could understand TIM in ME2, hell, even agree with some of his points.

But then George Lucas Mac Walters had to go and make him Hitler Palpatine Snidely Whiplash.

Er..did you play ME1?

Seriously, people blame Walters for turning Cerberus into snidely whiplash but how come nobody takes issue with ME1's portrayal of Cerberus OR the fact that in ME2, the writers deliberately gave the council the idiot ball JUST so that you are forced to work with cerberus.

[shodiswe]

TIM is an indoctrinated madman. There is nothign to support there.

Control on the otherhand has nothing to do with TIM.

[o Ventus]

Bleachrude wrote...

Er..did you play ME1?

Seriously, people blame Walters for turning Cerberus into snidely whiplash but how come nobody takes issue with ME1's portrayal of Cerberus OR the fact that in ME2, the writers deliberately gave the council the idiot ball JUST so that you are forced to work with cerberus.

Yeah. I did. ME1's Cerberus is bad too, but for different reasons.

There was no motivation given for Cerberus' actions in ME1, thus giving them the appearance of supposedly pointless evil. You learn in ME2 that the ME1 experiments actually had a purpose and are given a justification for each one (that makes perfect sense).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shodiswe wrote...

TIM is an indoctrinated madman. There is nothign to support there.

Control on the otherhand has nothing to do with TIM.

I agree. In ME3.

I have no doubt that had TIM not been indoctrinated, he would have been my most useful ally. His propensity for the extreme and his lust for power are troublesome, but I do believe he does have humanity in mind and he's willing to do what he has to for them. 

I don't trust or necessarily like him as a person, but I greatly admire and respect him and his vision.

[KaiserShep]

Cerberus made a lot of cases to justify its existence, but they sure needed a serious house cleaning from top to bottom. Anyone who tells Kai Leng that he reminds him of Shepard is clearly working with an indoctrination-addled mind.

I agree about the council though. The salarian is a ****** from the very beginning, and the asari is a moron who, aside from never considering using her mental abilities to make sense of the beacon warning, decides to tell you about something that turns out to be hugely critical to the most important plan in the entire galaxy only when the reapers are approaching thessia. The turian at least gives you some kind of option from the start. It all just caps off what a gaggle of ungrateful bastards they are. The funny thing is that had they been more willing to help and heeded Shepard's warnings from the start, Shepard would not have died going on pointless geth goose chases, and Udina would not have been a part of any coup attempt. TIM's most redeeming quality is his belief in Shepard, knowing full well what he/she is about, to the point of spending enough to build an entire fleet to bring him/her back from the dead.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 mai 2013 - 07:36 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'm actually one of the very few people sympathetic to Udina. I never hated him like a lot of people did. Hell, I think he's a far better person for Councilor than Anderson. I do think he's a total ass-wipe as a person though.

After seeing his motivation behind the coup, I'm more upset that he didn't trust me and let me do the work instead of trying to force the species hands to help him.

[KaiserShep]

Especially in that Udina was so quick to just trust the masked space ninja over the first human Spectre. I picked Udina for the council because it seemed clear from the moment you are handed the Normandy that Anderson doesn't want to be there. I agreed with just about everything he told Shepard. Too bad he's written to keep all these schemes secret.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 mai 2013 - 07:46 .

[Ticonderoga117]

While I personally wouldn't trust Cerebrus with anything more complicated than an abacus lest they find a way to kill everyone working on a project, I can understand the stance that "I get what Cerberus is trying to do in ME2 and would like to continue in ME3".

Sadly, the game railroads your decisions into "Ceberus Bad" while railroading Cerberus into "Lul Evul" for the entirety of ME3.

[KaiserShep]

I agree there should have been a greater level of division in Cerberus, and fewer monstrosities to even it out. In the mars mission, there's no good reason why augmenting people for foot soldiers improves anything. TIM says they are improved, but how? In the Cronos station mission, it's turned around and stated that its just a way to get a lot of cannon fodder without having to deal with issues of loyalty. I guess that's improvement for cheap, disposable infantry, but I took it in a different context when he said it. From then on it basically created something that was pure evil.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

While I personally wouldn't trust Cerebrus with anything more complicated than an abacus lest they find a way to kill everyone working on a project, I can understand the stance that "I get what Cerberus is trying to do in ME2 and would like to continue in ME3".

Sadly, the game railroads your decisions into "Ceberus Bad" while railroading Cerberus into "Lul Evul" for the entirety of ME3.

And that's something I hate in ME3.

People who say "We had to deal with Cerberus in ME2, so stop whining about the alliance" have one thing we Cerberus fans don't.

In ME2, you could be defiant towards TIM and pro-alliance. You could turn over information to the alliance about Cerberus. You could attack TIM at every turn, and deny a lot of the claims from Miranda. There are a lot of people that wanted nothing better than to put a bullet in Miranda's head and scurry back to the alliance.

Not so in ME3. I had to be pro-alliance in ME3. Not even the ability to somewhat deviate. The best I can do is try to reason with TIM, and express a few opinions wondering where they went wrong. I wanted to flip Anderson and Hackett the bird so many times, to call out and do a very sharp dressing down on the alliance crew of the Normandy (my ship that the alliance stole) over some naive and racist opinions (especially the damn checkpoint guards), and to really just dig into Ashley about how I just don't give a damn about her opinion and how her own stupidity and blind devotion to the alliance nearly screwed the galaxy or how she's lucky I didn't put a bullet in her when it would have solved several problems or just left her on Mars to die, as my Shepard was very briefly tempted to do. I wanted to tell them how I found Cerberus to be infinitely better than the damned alliance anyday, and how they were willing to look at and face the threat. I wanted to tell them how TIM and Cerberus stood behind me, believed in me, when no one else would. I admit, a lot of this is unreasonable: I still would have loved the ability to call the alliance out on their inaction and display my disillusioned opinion to them. I wanted to throw my dogtags at Anderson and tell him and Hackett that they were going to get behind me. I'm the one in charge, I'm the one who's going to lead the fight. Hackett will build the Crucible with the resources I send him, while I get the galaxy all prepared for the coming fight.

I can understand not working with Cerberus in ME3: They're indoctrinated and no longer acting on humanity's behalf. The Reapers have changed them, perverted them, twisted their ideals to suit their own ends. I view TIM as a tragic villain. He tried to do the right thing and was corrupted by his uniform belief that the right thing justified his methods. As the methods became more extreme, there was an imbalance. Finally, he crossed the line of no return when he used Reaper tech. That forever made him a slave, a peon to the Reapers. I'm angry that he didn't use more caution, and angry that he had the arrogance to believe that he could control the Reapers. I'm angry because he should have known better, because he did know better. I'm angry that things couldn't have been different...

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 mai 2013 - 08:05 .

[David7204]

So what do you think should have been done in ME 3? I'm sure you're aware an alternative Cerberus storyline, Cerberus ship, and Cerberus crew are out of the question.

Modifié par David7204, 05 mai 2013 - 08:06 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

So what do you think should have been done in ME 3? I'm sure you're aware an alternative Cerberus storyline, Cerberus ship, and Cerberus crew are out of the question.

How about you actually read a post before attacking it?

Did I say anything about wanting any of that?

I believe I should have had the ability to be much more critical of the alliance and the council. To express displeasure with them, and to have been able to define what my plans are post-war.

3 options for dialogue:

You could state that you'll probably return to your military/spectre career as the top option.

You could state that you haven't really bothered to look past the Reaper war or look too in depth into the future.

You could state that you have no desire to return to the alliance or council and plan on resigning post-war.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 mai 2013 - 08:12 .

[David7204]

Does that sound like an attack to you? I asked you what you think should have been done.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Does that sound like an attack to you? I asked you what you think should have been done.

And I edited it for you.

Coming from you, yes it does. You have a tendency to be rather stand-offish and smug.

[David7204]

That sounds reasonable, with a few caveats.

Has the Alliance actually done anything wrong aside from not building a bajillion dreadnoughts in two years?

Also, you've got to be careful to allow for players who might not want to continue being an active soldier after the war, but still remain on good terms with the Alliance and Council. In general, a Paragon Shepard seems to hint towards 'retiring,' so it might be a bit jarring to have the top choice be sticking with the Alliance.

Modifié par David7204, 05 mai 2013 - 08:21 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

That sounds reasonable, with a few caveats.

Has the Alliance actually done anything wrong aside from not building a bajillion dreadnoughts in two years?

Also, you've got to be careful to allow for players who might not want to continue being an active soldier after the war, but still remain on good terms with the Alliance and Council. In general, a Paragon Shepard seems to hint towards 'retiring,' so it might be a bit jarring to have the top choice be sticking with the Alliance.

Well of course in separate dialogue (with an LI for example), you could be able to define something more in depth, especially the retirement option or whatever:

For Tali, you'd go to Rannoch and help her build her home.

For Ashley, you'd probably stay with the alliance or Spectre's and do that stuff.

For Miranda, you could say you wanted to work with her in some rebuilding and relief group or science group that analyzes destroyed Reaper tech. That can be handwaived by Cerberus and Miranda fans as establishing the possibility to reform Cerberus later.

Also, you can flip them around if you want. Put the retiring option at the top if you like.

My Shepard isn't retiring per se, but he's never going back to the alliance or council. There are too many possible outcomes to really put them all in the game.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 mai 2013 - 08:31 .

[David7204]

That's probably why they didn't put them in the game.