138 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Well, to be honest, I don't like Cerberus either. If this were all real, every single one of them should rot in jail for crimes against sapient life. It's only on a meta-level that I support them because they're the only game in town for those who feel the Council system is unjust. But I abhor their methods. I don't believe the ends justify the means, and what they did to Jack, David, etc was evil.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well, to be honest, I don't like Cerberus either. If this were all real, every single one of them should rot in jail for crimes against sapient life. It's only on a meta-level that I support them because they're the only game in town for those who feel the Council system is unjust. But I abhor their methods. I don't believe the ends justify the means, and what they did to Jack, David, etc was evil.

 

Eh, fair enough. You'd probably hate me in reality then. I believe the entire concept of justice is bull. I'd probably be an anarchist if I didn't have my own belief in power. Then again, the value I place on life is much, much lower than just about anyone else I know. To quote Tokyo Babylon, 'I see no difference between things and people.'

 

And I'm a somewhat of a moral nihilist as well as a moral relativist. There is no black and white. There is no grey. IMO, morality is a rainbow. Everyone's got their own favorite color. Granted, I'm also a functioning sociopath (or, since I do hold emotions and other things, it's more accurate to say that I have several sociopathic tendencies), which normal people consider to be a problem. I can understand their perspective, but they can't really seem to understand mine.

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm curious how exactly you imagine disputes and crimes would be settled without a system of law based on justice.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'm curious how exactly you imagine disputes and crimes would be settled without a system of law based on justice.

 

What kind of justice? Conventional justice? What is justice? I can define it in several ways. What's your definition?

[Xilizhra]

Eh, fair enough. You'd probably hate me in reality then. I believe the entire concept of justice is bull. I'd probably be an anarchist if I didn't have my own belief in power. Then again, the value I place on life is much, much lower than just about anyone else I know. To quote Tokyo Babylon, 'I see no difference between things and people.'

 

And I'm a somewhat of a moral nihilist as well as a moral relativist. There is no black and white. There is no grey. IMO, morality is a rainbow. Everyone's got their own favorite color. Granted, I'm also a functioning sociopath (or, since I do hold emotions and other things, it's more accurate to say that I have several sociopathic tendencies), which normal people consider to be a problem. I can understand their perspective, but they can't really seem to understand mine.

Well, given that you're apparently mentally ill, I'm not really sure why any of us should expect to give your perspective on morality any credence when your ability to comprehend it is damaged.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well, given that you're apparently mentally ill, I'm not really sure why any of us should expect to give your perspective on morality any credence when your ability to comprehend it is damaged.

 

You like little children, and you're calling me 'mentally ill'? 

 

Is anybody who doesn't subscribe to conventional morality 'mentally ill'? Is a logical and rational argument dismissed on the basis that the guy making it is 'mentally ill'? 

[Xilizhra]

You like little children, and you're calling me mentally ill? 

 

Is anybody who doesn't subscribe to conventional morality mentally ill?

You just called yourself mentally ill; I'm not giving any diagnoses you haven't mentioned yourself.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You just called yourself mentally ill; I'm not giving any diagnoses you haven't mentioned yourself.

 

I never said I was mentally ill. Tell me where I said I was mentally ill.

[Xilizhra]

I never said I was mentally ill. Tell me where I said I was mentally ill.

"Granted, I'm also a functioning sociopath"

[MassivelyEffective0730]

"Granted, I'm also a functioning sociopath"

 

I'd consider that an advantage to be honest. How is it a mental illness to be sociopathic? In fact, sociopathy isn't even considered to be a mental illness. We have no emotional disorders. We just plain don't have emotions the way you feel them. I can keep them in check, and I can turn them at will. I have more control over my faculties. I don't let emotion and moral judgement cloud logic and caustic reason. Is that a mental illness? I certainly know that pedophilia is.

[Xilizhra]

I'd consider that an advantage to be honest. How is it a mental illness to be sociopathic? In fact, sociopathy isn't even considered to be a mental illness. We have no emotional disorders. We just plain don't have emotions the way you feel them. I can keep them in check, and I can turn them at will. I have more control over my faculties. I don't let emotion and moral judgement cloud logic and caustic reason. Is that a mental illness? I certainly know that pedophilia is.

Well, if you actually have antisocial personality disorder, that's about that. If you're using some other, vaguer definition, I think you're probably overstating your condition. Of course, if you weren't letting emotion cloud anything, you wouldn't have cared about speaking a meaningless apology to the asari Councilor, or, well, any number of other things I've heard you speak about. Especially irrational attachment to humanity as somehow inherently more worthy of success.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well, if you actually have antisocial personality disorder, that's about that. If you're using some other, vaguer definition, I think you're probably overstating your condition. Of course, if you weren't letting emotion cloud anything, you wouldn't have cared about speaking a meaningless apology to the asari Councilor, or, well, any number of other things I've heard you speak about. Especially irrational attachment to humanity as somehow inherently more worthy of success.

 

I didn't say no emotion couldn't come into a statement. I simply said that I'm not going to let it interfere with an argument or judgement. And you're misinterpreting (or intentionally misrepresenting) the terms of emotional bias within an argument. You're ascribing the actions of others onto me now about the apology to the Asari Councillor. Granted, I'd have loved to have said that while the Reapers focus on Thessia, we can focus our forces in other vectors that we can protect. Turn every setback into an opportunity. Please, define more of the things I've spoken about. 

 

And in your perspective, irrational attachment to humanity and having us be more worthy of success? No, I don't need you to make a claim for me. I don't think that at all. I think that because we aren't special, we should take steps to ensure our survival. Via cooperation and alliances, or conquest and conflict (and everywhere in between) we do what we gotta do to survive.

[DeinonSlayer]

popcorn.gif

[Jorji Costava]

I'd consider that an advantage to be honest. How is it a mental illness to be sociopathic? In fact, sociopathy isn't even considered to be a mental illness. We have no emotional disorders. We just plain don't have emotions the way you feel them. I can keep them in check, and I can turn them at will. I have more control over my faculties. I don't let emotion and moral judgement cloud logic and caustic reason. Is that a mental illness? I certainly know that pedophilia is.

 

First off, I'm skeptical that there is such a thing as emotion-free, purely logical decision-making. Antonio Damasio's studies of people with damage to the pre-frontal cortex found that such people were unable to make even simple decisions, such as the choice between coffee or tea; without emotions, they couldn't assign value to either of the options. So the idea of the being of pure logic and reason (Captain Spock, Commander Data, etc.) is probably an illusion as far as human psychology goes. The only question is what kind of emotions you're being motivated by.

 

Secondly, for the good of this thread, we should probably leave aside any accusations of mental illness or pedophilia. Otherwise, this thread deserves to die a quick death.

 

Attempting to return to the topic, I'd probably cut a couple characters from ME2; even leaving aside resource constraints, fewer characters means more focus on the ones who are there, as our attention is less divided among them. Easily the first casualty would be Grunt; this character has no backstory at all, and since we don't have any real-life reference point for the whole "images from the tank" business, it's difficult to relate to the character. Add to that the fact that he's not plot critical at all, and I find him completely expendable (some of the choices made as far as recruitment missions were extremely curious; so recruiting Jack is required, but Legion is optional? How does that make sense?).

 

I've also suggested giving a backstory to the VS that would take place in the two-year gap between ME1 and ME2; suppose that within that gap, they established themselves as candidates for Spectre status by being involved with some successful but brutal engagements with Cerberus. This would establish their credibility as soldiers who can accomplish things apart from Shepard and also give them a reason for their suspicion of Cerberus that even the alien characters wouldn't have. There's more to say, but this post is too long as it is.

[jtav]

Yeah, if it were up to me, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, Thane, and Samara wouldn't have existed, and the remaining seven would have had their powers rebalanced to fill the gaps. The other seven are either returning characters (I value my hide) or have ties to current and future arcs.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

First off, I'm skeptical that there is such a thing as emotion-free, purely logical decision-making. Antonio Damasio's studies of people with damage to the pre-frontal cortex found that such people were unable to make even simple decisions, such as the choice between coffee or tea; without emotions, they couldn't assign value to either of the options. So the idea of the being of pure logic and reason (Captain Spock, Commander Data, etc.) is probably an illusion as far as human psychology goes. The only question is what kind of emotions you're being motivated by.

 

Secondly, for the good of this thread, we should probably leave aside any accusations of mental illness or pedophilia. Otherwise, this thread deserves to die a quick death.

 

Attempting to return to the topic, I'd probably cut a couple characters from ME2; even leaving aside resource constraints, fewer characters means more focus on the ones who are there, as our attention is less divided among them. Easily the first casualty would be Grunt; this character has no backstory at all, and since we don't have any real-life reference point for the whole "images from the tank" business, it's difficult to relate to the character. Add to that the fact that he's not plot critical at all, and I find him completely expendable (some of the choices made as far as recruitment missions were extremely curious; so recruiting Jack is required, but Legion is optional? How does that make sense?).

 

I've also suggested giving a backstory to the VS that would take place in the two-year gap between ME1 and ME2; suppose that within that gap, they established themselves as candidates for Spectre status by being involved with some successful but brutal engagements with Cerberus. This would establish their credibility as soldiers who can accomplish things apart from Shepard and also give them a reason for their suspicion of Cerberus that even the alien characters wouldn't have. There's more to say, but this post is too long as it is.

 

Oh, believe me, I'm not saying that emotions have no factor at all. I'm saying that I'm not going to let how I feel interfere with my rational judgement of what is. I prefer tea by the way. The issue is that what you see as the more motivating factor as you said. They emotional status of someone like Spock or Data or Sherlock comes more from tranquility or serenity. Calmness. They all have their own interest, their own end-state that they wish to see concluded. They use rational judgement to figure out how best to reach that conclusion. That's what I feel. I invest in my goal, my conclusion that I want to see accomplished. And I use reason and rational judgement that is as free from emotional bias as possible in my methodology to get there. Does that make more sense?

 

I agree with both your points on ME2 characters and the VS. It probably wouldn't change my opinion of either (especially Ashley), but it would add more weight to the story later.

[CrutchCricket]

Not to sound, you know, crass, but I kinda was speaking for myself...

I know, just rustling your jimmies a bit.
 

That said, my only issue with the existing system is the propensity to go through with the most excessive method of executing an objective. It's just bad economics. Mismanagement of resources. I'm alright with the necessity of such experiments and methods taking place (If it gets me results, they can shoot up an orphanage if they have to). I place most of the blame on TIM's allowance to let his people go with the most egregious route. The problem I see is with his project directors, which indirectly leads back to him. Besides a queue of changes once Shepard and Miranda 'inherit' Cerberus from TIM, anything that needs to resort to more... colorful methods will need to be approved by Shepard. I don't know if Miranda would even support such methods in the long run, so I think Shepard might have to talk with her about it.

Still think you're being too generous. What you call "mismanagement of resources" I call "sheer idiocy". I mean here you are with your covert organization and you've got some fine goals (stronger biotics, preventative rachni or geth research, whatever). You've got finite resources (despite what ME3 would have you believe) and you're not quite within the bounds of the law. No, I'll go even further. Everything you are and everything you stand for depends on two key concepts, two holy mantras: secrecy and efficiency. You're supposed to be humanity's protector and advancer. Except if humanity could publicly wave a big enough stick to defend itself and also move the cash to fund its R&D projects throught the public sector you wouldn't be needed. Thus secrecy and efficiency should be your God and Bible.

Now with that in mind, what does Cerberus do? Terrorism charges plastered all over the press? Mad science blowouts that leak out into the public? Arguably civilians may never have gotten wind of Pragia or Overlord but given the level of secrecy we're supposed to work with I lump the Alliance and Council into "the public". And let's not even start again on the logo branding.

I agree the problem starts with the project leads but they're not the cause. Think about it. The typical Cerberus project methodology is "here's your resources do whatever". And look who they're hiring. You need people who can push the envelope into the extreme and who will if need be. You need brilliant sociopaths. And so you hire brilliant sociopaths. And then you just enable them and look the other way? That's not advancement. That's chaos in a bag. That's unleashing the Hulk just to demolish a building (because why not? You're paying him). It goes against efficiency, it goes against secrecy. It's a flaw in base operating proceedures. And it's so obvious, that to allow it for so long can only be chalked to stupidity.

A covert organization like this needs to be utterly controlled. Completely. It needs to have internal oversight up the ass, even if (or maybe especially if) they do things on the edge. But with this much failure at its base, it was only a matter of time till it crashed anyway.
 

Plus, they'd need a bit more discretion. Beyond that, they've assimilated the SB system into their organization, and they're responsible for making the big gains on Reaper Tech. They sort of become both the Templar Order and Assassin's Order from Assassin's Creed. Their fronts include the alliance itself, many research and scientific companies, tech companies, military contractors, and large groups of foreign and alien suppliers. Publicly, they present themselves as a 'Empire of the Hand' sort of organization, since they'll be too hard to hide the entire organization (with the size and influence that they'll have, it'll be impossible not to see the writing on the wall). They'll just need a face to present to the galaxy.

They need a lot more discretion. They need to be ****** invisible, no, non-existent. Because a) they needed to be non-existent from the start and b ) they need to be that even more so now that they've been not only made, but tainted with the brush of terrorism, enemies of the state (for lack of a beter word) etc.
 

At best Cerberus needs to be broken down utterly, buried and its resources secretly assimilated elsewhere. It needs to be laundered in other words. With quite a bit of pruning in the process. Regarding the SB network, it's actually the other way around as it is the prime candidate right now to pick up the laundered resources (though it needs an overhaul as well- too many people know Liara runs it).

 

The new organization will be the Men in Black. There will be no public side. They don't exist, you did not just see them, have a nice day. Front organizations in the military, political and technological centers will be merely numerous pieces of a vast puzzle no one alive will be able to put together. A politician introduces a new bill on Earth while across the galaxy a small insignificant manufacturer cranks out a new kind of microchip. A few light years away, a new alloy is invented for lighter, more shock resistent vehicles while on Ilium research into into a new mode of energy has just had a breakthrough. The key reaction is seemingly sold to a competitor while stock from the microchip manufacturer is traded. The alloy company goes out of business and its assets are mothballed (or so it seems). A few months later on Omaga a new electrical-based weapon is found using a revolutionary new powersource managed by a unique microchip design in a shockproof casing. Several of these weapons later turn up on Earth as a result of new importing regulations the politician had introduced years ago.

 

And the only ones who have any inkling as to what really happened are locked away deep under a non-descript building simply marked "Department of Inter-System Horticulture"

[Bob from Accounting]

Attempting to return to the topic, I'd probably cut a couple characters from ME2; even leaving aside resource constraints, fewer characters means more focus on the ones who are there, as our attention is less divided among them. Easily the first casualty would be Grunt; this character has no backstory at all, and since we don't have any real-life reference point for the whole "images from the tank" business, it's difficult to relate to the character. Add to that the fact that he's not plot critical at all, and I find him completely expendable (some of the choices made as far as recruitment missions were extremely curious; so recruiting Jack is required, but Legion is optional? How does that make sense?).
 

 

You're the first person I think I've ever seen on this forum to suggest Grunt as a squadmate to be removed.

 

From what I've seen, Grunt ranks pretty high on the list of ME 2 squadmates people wanted back. (Or claim they do, anyway) Mostly it seems because people 'want a krogan on the team.'

 

I never liked the idea. I always felt that Grunt really had nowhere much to develop to. He's a krogan who likes to shoot things and punch things, but more importantly, is satisfied and complete in doing so. He would never be a character to venture into any real compelling territory.

 

I like you.

[themikefest]

Yeah, if it were up to me, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, Thane, and Samara wouldn't have existed, and the remaining seven would have had their powers rebalanced to fill the gaps. The other seven are either returning characters (I value my hide) or have ties to current and future arcs.

I agree with Thane, Grunt, Kasumi and Zaeed being cut, but I would keep Samara only because it gives me 2 that can do the barrier instead of one. It would balance out since you have Legion/Tali for the vent and Miranda/Garrus/Jacob for fireteam leader.

[jtav]

Well, you could always rebalance Miranda to be a different kind of biotic wunderkid so you have two of each specialist.

[CrutchCricket]

Yeah, if it were up to me, Grunt, Zaeed, Kasumi, Thane, and Samara wouldn't have existed,

 

Well then I'm glad it wasn't up to you.

 

I disagree with the removal of any ME2 squadmate. Almost every squadmate expanded our knowledge of the world somehow or had something else unique to add.

 

I had no trouble understanding Grunt's dilemma for example. The seach for identity, a priori knowledge, coming of age (which isn't that interesting on its own but reveals more about the krogan).

 

Thane basically introduced a new species, and one of the better ones I might add.

 

Samara was literally the only one to introduce something new and interesting about the asari beyond just "space babes lololol". Actual alien culture (never mind how many roots it has in human concepts, that's unavoidable)

 

And so on.

[CronoDragoon]

Although I disagree with cutting them, it's possible those characters could have been worked into the game as NPCs in longer-style missions.

[Jorji Costava]

Well then I'm glad it wasn't up to you.

 

I disagree with the removal of any ME2 squadmate. Almost every squadmate expanded our knowledge of the world somehow or had something else unique to add.

 

I had no trouble understanding Grunt's dilemma for example. The seach for identity, a priori knowledge, coming of age (which isn't that interesting on its own but reveals more about the krogan).

 

Thane basically introduced a new species, and one of the better ones I might add.

 

Samara was literally the only one to introduce something new and interesting about the asari beyond just "space babes lololol". Actual alien culture (never mind how many roots it has in human concepts, that's unavoidable)

 

And so on.

 

We'll probably have to agree to disagree here. I think most of the characters jtav listed could easily have been cut.

 

I understood Grunt's dilemma just fine on a purely intellectual level, but didn't feel that it was adequately dramatized. Simply by virtue of the way he's written, his arc is something that had to be told instead of shown, and as a result, I didn't feel anything for the character at all.

 

I agree that Samara had something to add to the asari besides "space babes," but perhaps this function could have been accomplished better by just writing Liara better. It doesn't help that Samara and Thane have overlapping archetypes, with both doing the whole "spiritual warrior" bit. Having both feels a bit redundant.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

We'll probably have to agree to disagree here. I think most of the characters jtav listed could easily have been cut.

 

I understood Grunt's dilemma just fine on a purely intellectual level, but didn't feel that it was adequately dramatized. Simply by virtue of the way he's written, his arc is something that had to be told instead of shown, and as a result, I didn't feel anything for the character at all.

 

I agree that Samara had something to add to the asari besides "space babes," but perhaps this function could have been accomplished better by just writing Liara better. It doesn't help that Samara and Thane have overlapping archetypes, with both doing the whole "spiritual warrior" bit. Having both feels a bit redundant.

 

Ditto. I agree with Crutch's sentiment, but Kasumi and Zaeed especially, but all the others could have been cut, or given more of a recurring NPC rather than squadmate. 

 

Alternatively, I think it would have been better to have several of them be forced deaths on the Suicide Mission. Giving them characterization in ME2, and then moving on to ME3 with the survivors would have worked much better in my opinion.

[FlyingSquirrel]

 

I understood Grunt's dilemma just fine on a purely intellectual level, but didn't feel that it was adequately dramatized. Simply by virtue of the way he's written, his arc is something that had to be told instead of shown, and as a result, I didn't feel anything for the character at all.

 

I agree that Samara had something to add to the asari besides "space babes," but perhaps this function could have been accomplished better by just writing Liara better. It doesn't help that Samara and Thane have overlapping archetypes, with both doing the whole "spiritual warrior" bit. Having both feels a bit redundant.

 

I did like Grunt's first conversation with Shepard after being awakened, where he expresses his confused indifference to what Okeer tried to teach him, and his loyalty mission was interesting for the window into krogan clan politics if nothing else. The "I hate turians" scene was funny, though I wish the Paragon response hadn't been, "I don't think I'm coming down for these chats any more," if only because my Paragon Shepards do still go talk to him again later, so usually I end up warning him not to pick a fight with Garrus instead. However, he didn't develop much after his loyalty mission is over.

 

I don't really think of the asari as "space babes" - it seems like the games are often satirizing that viewpoint by making those who express it sound kind of dumb and shallow. I would have liked to see a little more about how their e-democracy actually works and how their longer lives give them different perspectives. Most of the asari who are important to the story are the ones who somehow deviate from their society's mainstream - Liara is something of a loner by nature, Samara is a justicar, Benezia is an indoctrinated Matriarch, Aria is a criminal boss, Shiala is living at a human colony after ME1, etc.

 

I also didn't really buy Liara's change in character between ME1 and ME2. Even after reading the comic where she helps recover Shepard's body and playing LOTSB, I had a hard time believing this was really the same person.