81 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlemaster1313]

I'm in no doubt what so ever that groups like them exist, just more discreet and less terrorist, Cerberus are still wrong throwing away 50 soldiers lives just to see how lethal a giant bug is and indoctrinating soldiers, killing off scientists etc

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I'm in no doubt what so ever that groups like them exist, just more discreet and less terrorist, Cerberus are still wrong throwing away 50 soldiers lives just to see how lethal a giant bug is and indoctrinating soldiers, killing off scientists etc

 

Oh boy, a new person to play with!

 

I wouldn't call Cerberus terrorists in any sense at all. For starters, they are, via standardized definition of the word terrorism, not a terrorist group. As for 'wrongness', again, I disagree completely. If said lethal giant bug produces a testable base for a new weapon that reduces the loss of human lives in future wars, then I see it as an acceptable trade-off. Like the supposed Coventry raid.

 

Same with indoctrinating Soldiers. They're a loyal and effective fighting force, implied by the game to be superior to standard enemy units. Since the only people ever seen fighting them are people like Shepard, it's hard to really say how standard alliance units would fare against them. The big problem is when you let the boss-man get indoctrinated too. Besides, all those refugees had to be used in the war somehow.

 

And said scientists probably shouldn't have betrayed secrets or trust. I can see why they left, but I can also see why Cerberus chased them as well. 

 

I'm glad said such groups exist. They keep you safe at night, even if you despise them and think they have no honor. It's the people willing to do whatever's necessary, no matter what action they take, that lets the oblivious masses survive and thrive and be able to come up with their arbitrary system of judgement for said groups and people in the first place.

[KrrKs]

I still say Cerberus is by far the best organization in the galaxy. We need a real organization like them.

 

The AEC was luckily dissolved in 75.

The english wiki entry is also incredibly vague on the things they did, for some _[suspicious] reason...

 

The US DoD, which also funded and/or performed similar non-consensual irradiation experiments (as well as mustard-gas exposures and other such nice tests) is sadly still alive, though.

 

OnTopic:

You really have to play a renegade character at least once. Most stuff plays out the same, but it is really different (and really fun for the most part) enough to at least try it.

 

Besides, what is the point in playing a role-play game if you don't role-play?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

 

The AEC was luckily dissolved in 75.

The english wiki entry is also incredibly vague on the things they did, for some _[suspicious] reason...

 

The US DoD, which also funded and/or performed similar non-consensual irradiation experiments (as well as mustard-gas exposures and other such nice tests) is sadly still alive, though.

 

I disagree. I'm all for the experiments being performed, so long as useful information that can be applied to external situations is gleaned. And the US DoD (of which I am a proud employee) is technically the most powerful singular agency on the planet. They aren't going away anytime soon. 

[Battlemaster1313]

Honestly I could maybe understand performing experiments on enemy troops (or in this case species) but sacrificing your own men who were loyal to there country/world to be subjected to experiments for the "greater good" is wrong no matter what it achieves, and forcing soldiers to fight taking away their will is not acceptable on any terms
 

[Farangbaa]

You're hilarious.

Completely fine with lethal experiments on children.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Honestly I could maybe understand performing experiments on enemy troops (or in this case species) but sacrificing your own men who were loyal to there country/world to be subjected to experiments for the "greater good" is wrong no matter what it achieves, and forcing soldiers to fight taking away their will is not acceptable on any terms
 

 

Except when they both accomplish your goal and greater good. Then it's perfectly utility. I'm fine with winning. Doesn't matter what it takes to reach my goal, as long as I reach my goal. Both options are perfectly viable to me, if they work. If they don't then they're useless. 

 

If a hundred thousand more people live in peace at the expense of their lives and suffering, then that's a good balance. It's simple math, really. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

You're hilarious.

Completely fine with lethal experiments on children.

 

If they yield results that completely eliminate cancer, or fix hunger, or make us evolve to be able to drink saltwater or whatever, or make humanity safer or progress us technologically, then yes, absolutely am I fine with experiments on children.

[von uber]

What about if it was your child or siblings or parents or lover?

[Farangbaa]

If they yield results that completely eliminate cancer, or fix hunger, or make us evolve to be able to drink saltwater or whatever, or make humanity safer or progress us technologically, then yes, absolutely am I fine with experiments on children.

 

And there's the thing: you don't know if it yield results beforehand.

[Display Name Owner]

Companion reactivity is negligible. There is some specific dialogue tied to the morality alignment (Javik when he questions how far Shepard will go and Liara's beacon visit), but their behavior is largely unchanged. There are some exceptions, like EDI's reaction depending on what Shepard does with the geth at Rannoch, but for the most part, the only ones that have serious reactions are the VS before rejoining the ship and the old formerly-Normandy crew that have ties to the main plot arcs, like Mordin, Legion and Wrex.

 

I really hope they change this. I've been spoiled by Dragon Age having companions have a wider range of reactions to the PC interacting with them.

 

Yeah, I remember before ME2 came out, the descriptions made by the devs gave me the impression squaddie loyalty worked in this way rather than the "help me out and I'm yours" thing, regardless of what decision you make at the end of those loyalty missions. It was actually a nice touch that you could fail to gain Zaeed's loyalty by letting Vido go, but kind of ruined by the fact that you can just Paragon Mind Trick him.

 

I guess I can understand how that kind of system might be a mess with a squad as big as ME2's although it would mean you probably couldn't get everyone's loyalty which would have made things more interesting imo, but anyway, I also wouldn't mind seeing such a system implemented in ME Next.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

What about if it was your child or siblings or parents or lover?

 

Obviously not in that case. They'd have some other kind of use.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

And there's the thing: you don't know if it yield results beforehand.

 

Everything yields results. It's what kind of results that count. And that's why you collate data for the entire project anyway. The point of the experiment is to gather information that can be applied in a practical manner.

[von uber]

Obviously not in that case. They'd have some other kind of use.

Hang on what happened to the greater good? The ends justifies the means? Using your younger sister as a test bed for a new bioweapon could save lots of lives! Sadly she will die horrendously, but you know that's how it is. Better use your mum too as well just to verify the results.

That's cerberus; funny how it's different when it's personal eh.

[Farangbaa]

Everything yields results. It's what kind of results that count. And that's why you collate data for the entire project anyway. The point of the experiment is to gather information that can be applied in a practical manner.

 

Blablabla.

 

Again, you don't know if it will yield useable results, no matter how much data you acquire beforehand, no matter how well you structure your research. That is why we do experiments and research to begin with. We might have an idea what happens, but we don't know hence we do experiments.

 

What you're implying here is basically: do everything you wanna do, if the results are useless you break the law, if the results are usefull you're a hero.

That being said, I have no idea where your support for Cerberus comes from. Everything they do, except Project Lazarus, is a failure.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Hang on what happened to the greater good? The ends justifies the means? Using your younger sister as a test bed for a new bioweapon could save lots of lives! Sadly she will die horrendously, but you know that's how it is. Better use your mum too as well just to verify the results.

That's cerberus; funny how it's different when it's personal eh.

 

Why use my younger sister when I could use someone else's, namely a poor person whose not likely to accomplish anything more than being another single unemployed mom banking on a welfare check? I'll use her mom too. 

 

Obviously, you'd have the ability to pick and choose what happens to whom. The greater good isn't picky about who's sacrificed.

 

Cerberus makes that distinction by taking people of no value or use.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Blablabla.

 

Again, you don't know if it will yield useable results, no matter how much data you acquire beforehand, no matter how well you structure your research. That is why we do experiments and research to begin with. We might have an idea what happens, but we don't know hence we do experiments.

 

What you're implying here is basically: do everything you wanna do, if the results are useless you break the law, if the results are usefull you're a hero.

That being said, I have no idea where your support for Cerberus comes from. Everything they do, except Project Lazarus, is a failure.

 

That's not how the scientific experiment works, and especially not how experimentation works. Just about everything is a usable result. And then your next sentence confirms this. You literally just contradicted yourself. You do the experiments to see if they're viable or not.

 

That's not what I'm implying at all. That's anarchy. I'm staunchly opposed to that philosophy. 

 

Results really can't ever be useless unless they're contaminated or the experiment is conducted improperly; even then, they inform you as such that there is a problem. Adjust your hypothesis to fit your results and create a testable theory of data to build upon. 

 

And no, Cerberus really didn't fail at anything. Lazarus? Success. Overlord? Successful in creating a means to control the Geth despite an unstable subject, though you can keep him within the confines of the Operation. Firewalker? Success, despite the Geth interfering. Rachni? Failed, and they admit as such. Creepers and husks? Until Shepard intervened, it looked pretty promising and contained. Teltin? Successful in strengthening and empowering living human biotics. Sanctuary? Successfully tested the concept that Reaper forces can be artificially controlled, and that indoctrinated Soldiers can be used as reliable military vassals. All of the Projects worked on by Dr. Cole and her associates? All implied to be very successful and multiple.

 

So really, I'm not seeing much evidence to suggest that Cerberus failed in their goals. And dismissing my statements as 'blablabla' doesn't make my statements any less poignant. It just means you're too craven to consider them.

[Farangbaa]

That's not how the scientific experiment works, and especially not how experimentation works. Just about everything is a usable result. And then your next sentence confirms this. You literally just contradicted yourself. You do the experiments to see if they're viable or not.

 

That's not what I'm implying at all. That's anarchy. I'm staunchly opposed to that philosophy. 

 

Results really can't ever be useless unless they're contaminated or the experiment is conducted improperly; even then, they inform you as such that there is a problem. Adjust your hypothesis to fit your results and create a testable theory of data to build upon. 

 

And no, Cerberus really didn't fail at anything. Lazarus? Success. Overlord? Successful in creating a means to control the Geth despite an unstable subject, though you can keep him within the confines of the Operation. Firewalker? Success, despite the Geth interfering. Rachni? Failed, and they admit as such. Creepers and husks? Until Shepard intervened, it looked pretty promising and contained. Teltin? Successful in strengthening and empowering living human biotics. Sanctuary? Successfully tested the concept that Reaper forces can be artificially controlled, and that indoctrinated Soldiers can be used as reliable military vassals. All of the Projects worked on by Dr. Cole and her associates? All implied to be very successful and multiple.

 

So really, I'm not seeing much evidence to suggest that Cerberus failed in their goals. And dismissing my statements as 'blablabla' doesn't make my statements any less poignant. It just means you're too craven to consider them.

 

I'm going to say blablabla again.

 

Blablabla.

 

Experimenting on children to the point where they die is simply not an option and unacceptable, no matter how much good it ultimately does, now matter how much spin you give it to make it sound acceptable. That's why I blablabla you, because I'm not even willing to consider the option, and the fact that you do consider it makes you a psychopath or sociopath, or whatever the proper term is, I'm no psychologist. Bust most likely, you're just a narcissist craving the shock-attention, exemplified by the smile you got on your face as you read this paragraph.

 

I would never condone or sanction such experiments. Adults that sign up to experiments that could kill them is fine, that's up to them. But a child has no say in this and no voice in this because it can not consent.

 

If you're fine with things like completely waiving consent, you might as well be fine with rape, including that of children.

 

p.s. I suspect this is where you go: 'hahahaha, I'm only joking, I can't believe you took that seriously'. Again.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I'm going to say blablabla again.

 

Blablabla.

 

Experimenting on children to the point where they die is simply not an option and unacceptable, no matter how much good it ultimately does, now matter how much spin you give it to make it sound acceptable. That's why I blablabla you, because I'm not even willing to consider the option, and the fact that you do consider it makes you a psychopath or sociopath, or whatever the proper term is, I'm no psychologist. Bust most likely, you're just a narcissist craving the shock-attention, exemplified by the smile you got on your face as you read this paragraph.

 

I would never condone or sanction such experiments. Adults that sign up to experiments that could kill them is fine, that's up to them. But a child has no say in this and no voice in this because it can not consent.

 

If you're fine with things like completely waiving consent, you might as well be fine with rape, including that of children.

 

I don't see how it's unacceptable. Honestly, I think it's rather craven of you to dismiss a means because you don't like what it entails, even if it were to lead to a beneficial purpose for the rest of humanity. Is it better that progress be stunted? No matter how you spin it, it's not moral if it holds us back or inhibits are survival even if its compassion and empathy. Yes, sociopathy in the right places by the right people is a boon. 

 

And I think the fact that you're turning the argument against me directly means that you don't have much of a legitimate argument beyond an appeal to emotion to support your position. Especially when you claim that I condone child rape because of it. I'd also argue that since a child cannot consent, its no different than an animal. Besides, people like to live happy and safe, but they don't like to know what people have to do to make them happy and safe. You need people willing to go to extremes to ensure that they get to live their comfortable, happy life.

 

Argue at my point, not at me. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

One cool thing about Renegade is that you get your very own Styx song.

 

Nobody makes rock songs about Paragons.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

One cool thing about Renegade is that you get your very own Styx song.

 

Nobody makes rock songs about Paragons.

 

You also get a Thin Lizzy album too.

 

And Jay-Z made a song too.

 

Suck it paragons!

[Farangbaa]

I don't see how it's unacceptable. Honestly, I think it's rather craven of you to dismiss a means because you don't like what it entails, even if it were to lead to a beneficial purpose for the rest of humanity. Is it better that progress be stunted? No matter how you spin it, it's not moral if it holds us back or inhibits are survival even if its compassion and empathy. Yes, sociopathy in the right places by the right people is a boon. 

 

And I think the fact that you're turning the argument against me directly means that you don't have much of a legitimate argument beyond an appeal to emotion to support your position. Especially when you claim that I condone child rape because of it. I'd also argue that since a child cannot consent, its no different than an animal. Besides, people like to live happy and safe, but they don't like to know what people have to do to make them happy and safe. You need people willing to go to extremes to ensure that they get to live their comfortable, happy life.

 

Argue at my point, not at me. 

 

Your point is not worth arguing.

 

Hence I argue at you.

 

Honestly, what do you expect? That anyone whatsoever is going to agree with you that experimenting on children to the point of death is a good thing? No one in their right mind is going to do so.

[tirnoney]

So what's the renegade hype all about?

In me2 you get to chuck an enemy out a window and headbut a Krogan, both of which are much more epic with femShep. In me3 it just doesn't seem to work as well because of soppy autodialogue that doesn't suit a renegade so for me the character feels a bit split. Also it feels like I'm constantly shooting myself in the foot re war assets. Which you could argue makes sense in a game where the point is to sweet talk people into giving you their armies. Luckily in ME3 you can have a mix of both personalities without seeing greyed out dialogue all over the place.

Which makes me think about ME: next and how much I'd like a female squadmate with the personality of renegade Shep. Maybe a Krogan or a Turian.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Your point is not worth arguing.

 

Hence I argue at you.

 

Honestly, what do you expect? That anyone whatsoever is going to agree with you that experimenting on children to the point of death is a good thing? No one in their right mind is going to do so.

 

Why is it not worth arguing?

 

I expect people to be able to be more decisive in their views and arguments and not to let irrationality get in the way of logic. I expect people to know to do what's necessary when they need to do it, not make excuses that their compassion and empathy gets in the way.

 

Compassion is not always a positive, just as sociopathy is not always a negative.

 

If a goal is worthy enough, I expect people to find any means to achieve it acceptable so long as they work. 

[von uber]

Unless it comes to your own nearest and dearest eh.