402 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

To inject a bit of humor back into this discussion, Massively, would we expect every member of the "Army of Me" to be horny for Miranda?

 

Nah. I'd leave that bit out. That's where things get nasty.

[AlanC9]

We'd gain power for humanity. I'm not going to systematically exterminate any races, except perhaps the Krogan. Humanity would be in an advantageous power position, being relied on economically and politically by other races. For starters, I'm keeping the Citadel where it's at for now.

You might be overrating human GDP relative to other races, at least in the short term. Though I don't think Earth is anywhere near the total collapse that some players think it is; massive starvation would not serve Reaper goals, so they certainly would have kept the economy functioning at some level.

[Mrs_Stick]

We'd gain power for humanity. I'm not going to systematically exterminate any races, except perhaps the Krogan. Humanity would be in an advantageous power position, being relied on economically and politically by other races. For starters, I'm keeping the Citadel where it's at for now.

You may not be as scary as I originally thought. Unless your organization will steal people from there homes in the night for "research" I would be okay with where your Shep would try to take humanity.
Or at least I can see where your trying to go.

[Farangbaa]

That's the purpose of the U.S. Military. To be incredibly vicious and ruthless. That's the purpose of any military. We're the arm that carries the sword after all. You don't hold a sword because it's shiny and pretty.

 

I'm not there for any of those. Neither are any of my Soldiers, or any of my fellow Lieutenants, or any of my superiors and Commanders. We're there because that's where Congress decided we should be utilized. While we're there, we're going to do the finest job capable, and we're going to look out for our own. But even then, that's a strawman of the entire argument on policy. We're there to stop the growth and spread of Fundamentalist Islamic Insurgencies that give rise to radical groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Fatah al-Islam, and to prevent power bases from national governments such as the Taliban, from taking power and allowing them to fester. 

 

I didn't go there for them. I went there because that's where 1) I was ordered to report to with my unit for assignment, and 2) that's where I likely knew I'd end up at some point during my service (I was in Italy and then Afghanistan less than 2 weeks after I graduated High School). I understood when locals weren't happy to see us. A lot more times than you give them credit for, they were. But in the event that they are not only unfriendly, but hostile and even actively acting up against us, we have to protect ourselves while carrying out our mission. If that means shooting the kid that is throwing the hand grenade at us because some guy in a white chafiye paid him $12 dollars to do it, then we'll shoot to kill. Politics don't trump safety. If a woman or kid is pointing a gun at me, I'm not going to focus on the humanitarian aspect of why it's happening or what's making her do it, I'm going shoot back and eliminate a threat to my personal security and that of my subordinates.

 

'Being in the way' is a lot different than being actively hostile. You should've worded things differently to not come off as a sociopath. The way you worded it literally sounded like you'd pop a guy for not stepping aside fast enough.

 

Ever read Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden? During the fighting in Mogadishu, civilians were acting as voluntary human shields. There was a guy laying belly-down on the street with a woman and her three kids sitting on his back while he shot at the rangers with an AK variant. The rangers shot back and killed all five of them. It was that or allow themselves to keep getting shot at. I don't hold it against them at all.

The military doesn't choose which wars to fight. Politicians do.

 

See above.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You may not be as scary as I originally thought. Unless your organization will steal people from there homes in the night for "research" I would be okay with where your Shep would try to take humanity.
Or at least I can see where your trying to go.

 

He'd only do that if it were a necessary for the experiment. He'd also take people who wouldn't be missed, if they could fit into his demographic needs.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

'Being in the way' is a lot different than being actively hostile. You should've worded things differently to not come off as a sociopath. The way you worded it literally sounded like you'd pop a guy for not stepping aside fast enough.

 

 

See above.

 

Well, I don't think that there's anyone that senseless. If he was a hostage however, or if said insurgent was hiding in a building full of 'innocent' civilians with some kind of bomb that would be threatening a tactical team? 

 

Simple solution for me: Level the grid square the building is in with an GMLRS strike. I know a guy who was in a unit that did exactly that in Ramadi, Iraq... After blowing the **** out of the building with the M242 Bushmaster and an M1 Tank. I got the video he made right here. Skip to 1:40 to see the Pièce de résistance. Said civilians were actively protecting the insurgents.

 

Can't say it wasn't pretty. 

[Mrs_Stick]

He'd only do that if it were a necessary for the experiment. He'd also take people who wouldn't be missed, if they could fit into his demographic needs.

To kind of answer the question you asked me yesterday that I wouldn't. What is the purpose of doing that? I am against it when it comes to children such as what happens to Jack. Can I explain better as to why I am? I don't think i can in a way you might understand. I don't know if I can where it wont sound irrational and over emotional. What I can say is I can see things for the military stand point but also that of a civilian (which I am) which is how I play the game because that is where my logic takes me.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

To kind of answer the question you asked me yesterday that I wouldn't. What is the purpose of doing that? I am against it when it comes to children such as what happens to Jack. Can I explain better as to why I am? I don't think i can in a way you might understand. I don't know if I can where it wont sound irrational and over emotional. What I can say is I can see things for the military stand point but also that of a civilian (which I am) which is how I play the game because that is where my logic takes me.

 

What is the purpose of doing it? To get a result where it would be uneconomical to wait months or years (and spend more resources with little return) to do otherwise. It's not about a military or civilian perspective; neither of those really factor into it. It's about being able to turn off parts of the psyche at will. I have an ability to 'turn off (so to speak)' my compassion and empathy, my 'humanity'. A lot of people don't know how to do that. Some would even argue that I don't know how to turn it on.

[Mrs_Stick]

What is the purpose of doing it? To get a result where it would be uneconomical to wait months or years (and spend more resources with little return) to do otherwise. It's not about a military or civilian perspective; neither of those really factor into it. It's about being able to turn off parts of the psyche at will. I have an ability to 'turn off (so to speak)' my compassion and empathy, my 'humanity'. A lot of people don't know how to do that. Some would even argue that I don't know how to turn it on.

I can understand having to turn off passion and empathy. I do everyday in my job its not military but I cannot afford to be a bleeding heart. Some think it makes me a ****** but such is life.

[CrutchCricket]

Why do you think that? I'm not going to say whether or not I am fishing for a reaction, but hypothetically, I'm not adverse to hunting for immortality and transhumanism. I think it can be achieved. But yeah, Godhood is something to be desired in my opinion. 

 

Why care about loyalty? Simply put, a guy who hates your guts but gets results is a terrible person to have working for you. It means they hate you and would give a very close shave to fighting you. When I kill them, I'd be losing a valuable asset. That's not very practical. I'd like my master-class warriors, spies, and saboteurs to be drones as well. My philosophy wouldn't be very practical if it didn't account for non-mission related results. That's a misunderstanding of it on your part. 

 

Why is it a terrible person? A guy who hates you but can't do anything about it and has no choice but to carry out your orders should be no better or worse than any other provided he gets the job done. What are these non-mission results you claim I'm ignoring?

 

To inject a bit of humor back into this discussion, Massively, would we expect every member of the "Army of Me" to be horny for Miranda?

Unintended side-effect...

 

Oh it's more than that. It's an example of the single biggest weakness of his idea. An army of Massivelys? i.e. an army of power-hungry, would-be gods? Yeah that won't tear itself apart within a day. And even if he puts in inhibition programming to keep his drones down, that's just another juicy weakness for the resistance to exploit. And easier too. Why bother trying to wreck their impants when you can just let slip the leashes and watch them wreck themselves?

 

It's actually fun trying to think of all the ways that can be sabotaged.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Why is it a terrible person? A guy who hates you but can't do anything about it and has no choice but to carry out your orders should be no better or worse than any other provided he gets the job done. What are these non-mission results you claim I'm ignoring?

 

 

Oh it's more than that. It's an example of the single biggest weakness of his idea. An army of Massivelys? i.e. an army of power-hungry, would-be gods? Yeah that won't tear itself apart within a day. And even if he puts in inhibition programming to keep his drones down, that's just another juicy weakness for the resistance to exploit. And easier too. Why bother trying to wreck their impants when you can just let slip the leashes and watch them wreck themselves?

 

It's actually fun trying to think of all the ways that can be sabotaged.

 

I'm thinking that you weren't putting a better definition to your example than right then and there. You never stated that he wasn't able to do anything about stopping me and would begrudgingly follow any and all orders I gave no matter his opinion or feelings. If that were the case, then nothing would be wrong with it according to my philosophy. That wasn't how you described said operative. Now that you've clarified it, then really, there's nothing that's any different.

 

Let's put it this way; I take said weakness that you see and make it a strength. They are an army of me: But only one of them wants power for himself. That would be me. Everyone else wants power for me. To give you an example, the Doctor Who Episode 'The End of Time', the Master is able to turn every human on the planet into him. And you know what happens? Perfect harmony between all of them. They, being him, perfectly understand and see his views and ambitions, while recognizing the original Master as their supreme will and commander. They want the Master to be powerful, and with him, he is the most powerful (all while simultaneously being him). It really won't tear itself apart within a day. They don't need leashes. They're me. They know exactly what I want and what motivates them and anything they get is what I get and vice versa. It's like the Reapers. Many minds come together as one being, one entity, comprised of thousands, millions, possibly even billions of parts. The Reapers were like that as well, and they never succumbed to infighting or self-destruction. Good luck trying to fight that. 

 

 

 

[DeinonSlayer]

To hearken back to the Ender's Game excerpt I pulled before, it seems the weakness to Massively's structure (like that of the formics) is the lack of initiative on the part of subordinates. Kill the queen, the guiding will of the colony, and the entire thing comes crashing down. Lose The Shepard, and the war effort collapses. You also wouldn't see the kind of brilliance on the part of subordinates which, according to the story, was what won the Second Invasion. There'd be no Mazer Rackhams. Anything The Shepard doesn't think of won't be implemented. Granted, the flipside of that is that you wouldn't have stupid actions on the part of subordinates mucking things up either. Seems to me that a desire for absolute control over one's subordinates would stem from a lack of faith in their ability to do their jobs - expecting more stupidity than brilliance.

What it comes down to is an irreconcilable difference in how we all see Shepard; Shepard's importance. I want the war effort to be able to continue if Shepard bites it and don't take his survival as a given. Massive sees Shepard as irreplaceable, utterly vital, and with more plot armor than Liara - to the extent that his actions are geared towards shaping a galaxy he intends to rule from the shadows (Guess he went with "Violence is a means to an end: power is that end" talking to Morinth). My Shepard is more of a get-the-job-done-and-go-home kind of guy with no such post-war aspirations.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

So, you're asking me to choose between: either being an elite special forces soldier of the Alliance encompassing all of Earth and humanity's colonies, fighting for the actual preservation and advancement of all of humanity.

Or being member of a human supremacist organisation that strives towards the establishment of the dominion of one species over all others, holding racism and discrimination as a core principle, conducts nightmarish experiments on unarmed captives, and is in the end not much more than a front for Reaper interests...

 

I believe my choice is easily made.

 

Cerberus has lots of money, intelligence operatives and means to conduct operations. That's the only good thing about them.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

So, you're asking me to choose between: either being an elite special forces soldier of the Alliance encompassing all of Earth and humanity's colonies, fighting for the actual preservation and advancement of all of humanity.

Or being member of a human supremacist organisation that strives towards the establishment of the dominion of one species over all others, holding racism and discrimination as a core principle, conducts nightmarish experiments on unarmed captives, and is in the end not much more than a front for Reaper interests...

 

I believe my choice is easily made.

 

Cerberus has lots of money, intelligence operatives and means to conduct operations. That's the only good thing about them.

 

More good than I can say of the alliance. Most of the stuff you said about Cerberus isn't true. Same with the alliance. 

 

Where was the alliances preservation and advancement of humanity in the build-up to the Reaper war? Where was the advancement in the face of the council and other aliens?

 

There's no human supremacy aspect to Cerberus that wasn't corrupted by the Reapers. The second statement is a complete lie. As for the third, if doing so gets you breakthroughs and advances in technology that are beneficial, why not do it? It's not like they'd ever be worth a damn. In the end? They were more than the Reapers once. They were great. Now that the Reapers were gone, they can be great again as a new group.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

More good than I can say of the alliance. Most of the stuff you said about Cerberus isn't true. Same with the alliance. 

 

What part isn't true? A front for Reaper interests? The Illusive Man is indoctrinated, and all his actions help the Reapers. Nighmarish experiments? Just look at Jack and the mind control labs they have. They even create Husks, for crying out loud.

[Iakus]

I'm thinking that you weren't putting a better definition to your example than right then and there. You never stated that he wasn't able to do anything about stopping me and would begrudgingly follow any and all orders I gave no matter his opinion or feelings. If that were the case, then nothing would be wrong with it according to my philosophy. That wasn't how you described said operative. Now that you've clarified it, then really, there's nothing that's any different.

 

Let's put it this way; I take said weakness that you see and make it a strength. They are an army of me: But only one of them wants power for himself. That would be me. Everyone else wants power for me. To give you an example, the Doctor Who Episode 'The End of Time', the Master is able to turn every human on the planet into him. And you know what happens? Perfect harmony between all of them. They, being him, perfectly understand and see his views and ambitions, while recognizing the original Master as their supreme will and commander. They want the Master to be powerful, and with him, he is the most powerful (all while simultaneously being him). It really won't tear itself apart within a day. They don't need leashes. They're me. They know exactly what I want and what motivates them and anything they get is what I get and vice versa. It's like the Reapers. Many minds come together as one being, one entity, comprised of thousands, millions, possibly even billions of parts. The Reapers were like that as well, and they never succumbed to infighting or self-destruction. Good luck trying to fight that. 

 

 

THis is stasrting to sound more and more like a wierd amalgam of Blue and Green endings.

 

Or maybe just The Evils of Free Will

[MassivelyEffective0730]

What part isn't true? A front for Reaper interests? The Illusive Man is indoctrinated, and all his actions help the Reapers. Nighmarish experiments? Just look at Jack and the mind control labs they have. They even create Husks, for crying out loud.

 

TIM was unfortunately indoctrinated, but he wasn't always so. That didn't come about until later. I support his actions of using Reaper Tech, I just wish he was more careful and self-restrained with his usage with it.

 

Deinon's probably smiling right now about the 'nightmarish experiments' parts. He'll tell you what's coming next.

[Pirate Queen Isabela]

You shouldn't judge a whole organization based off of a few people, imo. I never preferred one or the other between the Aliance or Cerberus, but I was pretty frustrated with how they treated Cerberus in the third game. Would have loved a morally grey order without turning them into ~terrible evul monsters oh noes!~ ME3 fell short in many ways but that one bothered me the most. I also loved TIM'S character through out the comics + games, so. 

 

I really felt he could have been one of the most interesting characters but eh, Bioware couldn't write a good antagonist to save themselves.

[Ryriena]

If you need to result to brainwashing troops to get people to follow you, then, I don't think that's a makes them a good leader. A good leader leads through loyalty to their respective soldiers and through a sign of respect. You don't get that by brainwashing folks I rather have folks in my squad willing to drop, what they're doing to help out another solider or civilians, when the government go too far for an example.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You shouldn't judge a whole organization based off of a few people, imo. I never preferred one or the other between the Aliance or Cerberus, but I was pretty frustrated with how they treated Cerberus in the third game. Would have loved a morally grey order without turning them into ~terrible evul monsters oh noes!~ ME3 fell short in many ways but that one bothered me the most. I also loved TIM'S character through out the comics + games, so. 

 

I like you.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

If you need to result to brainwashing troops to get people to follow you, then, I don't think that's a makes them a good leader. A good leader leads through loyalty to their respective soldiers and through a sign of respect. You don't get that by brainwashing folks I rather have folks in my squad willing to drop, what they're doing to help out another solider or civilians, when the government go too far for an example.

 

Guess that puts me at odds with a lot of people.

 

If the gun-toting nuts were right and the government is out to get the people... I'd be siding with the government.

[Iakus]

You shouldn't judge a whole organization based off of a few people, imo. I never preferred one or the other between the Aliance or Cerberus, but I was pretty frustrated with how they treated Cerberus in the third game. Would have loved a morally grey order without turning them into ~terrible evul monsters oh noes!~ ME3 fell short in many ways but that one bothered me the most. I also loved TIM'S character through out the comics + games, so. 

 

Sadly Cerberus was never "morally grey"  They tried to make them that in ME2.  And That would have been cool if they pulled it off (I'd hoped TIM would come off more as The Operative in Serenity) but their whole "kinder, gentler Cerberus was so dissonant from their ME1 version I  spent the whole game convinced it was some kind of front.

 

And in ME3 Bioware decided to run with that, ti seems.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Sadly Cerberus was never "morally grey"  They tried to make them that in ME2.  And That would have been cool if they pulled it off (I'd hoped TIM would come off more as The Operative in Serenity) but their whole "kinder, gentler Cerberus was so dissonant from their ME1 version I  spent the whole game convinced it was some kind of front.

 

And in ME3 Bioware decided to run with that, ti seems.

 

I still don't see anything bad about ME1 Cerberus. I call them intelligent doing necessary work for humanity. Said work needs to stay out of the public eye, so they do what they do to ensure that it does. 

[Ryriena]

Guess that puts me at odds with a lot of people.

If the gun-toting nuts were right and the government is out to get the people... I'd be siding with the government.

Funny, I'm not a gun toting conspiracy theorist but I'm more willing to lay down my live for my family more so than my so called government.

[Iakus]

I still don't see anything bad about ME1 Cerberus. I call them intelligent doing necessary work for humanity. Said work needs to stay out of the public eye, so they do what they do to ensure that it does. 

 

 

Probably shouldn't wipe out entire platoons of Alliance trooops and murder admirals if they want to stay out of the public eye

 

I also think back to Garrus' line:

 

"If the people I'm sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"