"It isn't racism if you choose to defend your own species"
I'd agree accept Cerberus is denying the other species their own rights to defend themselves on the ground that aren't human.
"Calling Cerberus racist is offensive to those that have served"
What you did there is not right under any circumstance. But especially if you're using it as a bridge between two differing opinions on a video games narrative.
Even though he was shot in the leg, the blast looks it aimed for his groin. OUCH! And lol, who knew Combat Engineers had the balls to threaten without their precious turrets?
He's only acting tough cause he's got back-up.
Terrorism... in ME1 no. Prior to ME1, yes. They earned a reputation in 2070 trying to create human biotics by blowing up starships over human colonies hoping the refined eezo would do the trick. The freighters were mostly human, and belonged to Eildfeld-Ashland Energy, the company that was bankrolling much of the colonial effort. That was where it earned its reputation as a terrorist organization.
Note to self: Read Codex now and then.
He's only acting tough cause he's got back-up.
He be packin' dat SWAG.
And I'm going to trust my judgement, seeing as I've dedicated the last 8 years of my life fighting global terrorism and understanding it.
Since the age of 16 eh? Which makes things like this:I was born 18 days before 1990. Woo!
.. quite amusing.Well, Zippo, you shouldn't have outright lied. Then you wouldn't have gotten called a liar.
And as noted by others this makes all this talk about 'ends justifies the means' just bollocks on your part as you clearly don't believe it anyway; as despite your posting you clearly have limits yourself - except you choose to ignore them and yet attack others for it.Nope. They're who I'm acting for.
Guest_alleyd_*
"It isn't racism if you choose to defend your own species"
I'd agree accept Cerberus is denying the other species their own rights to defend themselves on the ground that aren't human.
"Calling Cerberus racist is offensive to those that have served"
What you did there is not right under any circumstance. But especially if you're using it as a bridge between two differing opinions on a video games narrative.
Since you edited my points down and you directly misquoted me in doing so. I feel obliged to protest and correct this.
My actual quote was:- "I would deny any humans left on Omega the right as well, but considering the events in the ME2 arc months previously, I would allow them more right to self defence. The human civilian population would become targets for the resentment caused by the mere presence of Cerberus and it isn't racism to protect your own species, or allow them self protection in a hostile situation."
"Calling Cerberus Racist, in this instance, is offensive to those that have served or have family who serve under these rules at risk to themselves. Please be careful with the term Racist in applying it to a RPG that features human military tactics and rules of engagement common to present day."
Notice I said, "In this instance", ie Omega and the tactics of deployment and orders issued by Oleg Petrovsky. You can call them racially motivated; but I do not agree that this was the motivation behind that order, it was standard practice to contain the situation. It would be different if Cerberus troops were summarily executing non humans, but I do not recall that being the case on Omega.
I wasn't attempting to bridge any difference of opinion in the narrative. (I only have a single opinion on the narrative of the Omega DLC) I was merely pointing out that your repeated assertions of racism could be deemed offensive to those that have served under terms of engagement that are virtually identical to those depicted in game.; and requesting, politely that you tone down this use of labelling.
Since the age of 16 eh? Which makes things like this:
.. quite amusing.
And as noted by others this makes all this talk about 'ends justifies the means' just bollocks on your part as you clearly don't believe it anyway; as despite your posting you clearly have limits yourself - except you choose to ignore them and yet attack others for it.
Speaking of which your really aggressive and antagonistic posting style really doesn't help get your points across you know, it just gets people's backs up.
'A new person to play with' indeed.
I was born in 88. I meant to say 89. Consider it a typo. 17 is the age I was, the youngest you could join the military. Who says it's not old enough to learn about terrorism to understand what its about though?
Quite amusing when someone lies about information in the game, and then you try to call me out for... something? Not stating your posts intention isn't a good way to make yourself hold the high-ground here. I literally do not know what I'm defending myself against here, so I can't take it seriously.
I don't know who's ever called me out for it besides you. To be blunt, having limitations does not mean that you are not 'end justifies the means'. It means I have certain limitations, namely being the people who I'm not going to sacrifice for the greater good (their greater good more or less being what I'd sacrifice others for). Not all limitations are the same. You're putting a pretense that they are. Some may have different ones than others. Like 'never hurt or kill the innocent'. I admit, that's not a limitation for me. I have 'never hurt or kill the people I care about' (unless they do something that makes me not care for them.)
I don't much appreciate it when you tell me what I do and don't believe to be fair. I do attack others for their limitations because they can't defend them and they let their limits inhibit them and hold them back from achieving their greater good. Whereas, I make my limitations the greater good.
And really, you're probably the only person on here who comes at me for 'aggressive' posting. If people are bothered by it, they can tell me about it. So far, no one besides you have. So I'm not going to trouble myself taking this to heart. All I see is a morally myopic position convincing itself that someone must not believe in the philosophy he espouses because reasons that it can't justify on the board, let alone with itself.
"It isn't racism if you choose to defend your own species"
I'd agree accept Cerberus is denying the other species their own rights to defend themselves on the ground that aren't human.
"Calling Cerberus racist is offensive to those that have served"
What you did there is not right under any circumstance. But especially if you're using it as a bridge between two differing opinions on a video games narrative.
This is an untrue assertion. It is false. Cerberus considers itself the left arm of humanity, built in vein to organizations like the Salarian STG. Hell, if your assertion was true, TIM wouldn't have told Saren in the Evolution comic to prepare the Turians for the hidden threat that was coming. Your point is false.
Calling them racist is offensive to those who served? Who said that? It wasn't me. I said that they don't compare to the definition of terrorism. And I never said that I was offended by it, only that from my experience, your point is untrue.
Lol Massively, I bet your old account was banned for your philantropic and kind posting style.
Lol Massively, I bet your old account was banned for your philantropic and kind posting style.
Mostly for ripping into David, yeah.
Honestly, my posting style doesn't get a lot of blowback. And I'm usually quite amiable and civil, present company excluded. It's great to know that that lack of distinction is extended towards me by yourselves.
Btw Massively, how do you turn '88 into 1990 by means of a typo?
That's some serious dexterity malfunction.
The oddest detail in Cerberus' portrayal throughout the series, is that the comics have the Illusive Man being exposed to Reaper tech during the First Contact War. The comics are impling that his indoctrination began then. The problem is, then how do you explain the entire plot of Mass Effect 2?
Another inconsistency is that in the books Cerberus' is being portrayed as being very much on the ropes prior to the start of ME3. Anderson allies with the Turians and gets a bunch of Cerberus cells rolled up, and nearly succeeds in capturing the Illusive Man. How did a small organization of isolated cells, which had faced large setbacks between ME2 and ME3, morph into an army in ME3? Indoctrination could perhaps be used to explain recruitment for soldiers, but where are the ships coming from to transport and supply them? How did TIM manage to pull a fleet out of his arse?
Btw Massively, how do you turn '88 into 1990 by means of a typo?
That's some serious dexterity malfunction.
You mean 89? They're right next to each other on the keyboard, and I didn't see the typo until it was pointed out to me. I was born 18 days before 1989.
The oddest detail in Cerberus' portrayal throughout the series, is that the comics have the Illusive Man being exposed to Reaper tech during the First Contact War. The comics are impling that his indoctrination began then. The problem is, then how do you explain the entire plot of Mass Effect 2?
Another inconsistency is that in the books Cerberus' is being portrayed as being very much on the ropes prior to the start of ME3. Anderson allies with the Turians and gets a bunch of Cerberus cells rolled up, and nearly succeeds in capturing the Illusive Man. How did a small organization of isolated cells, which had faced large setbacks between ME2 and ME3, morph into an army in ME3? Indoctrination could perhaps be used to explain recruitment for soldiers, but where are the ships coming from to transport and supply them? How did TIM manage to pull a fleet out of his arse?
I don't think in Evolution that that was exactly where the indoctrination began. Maybe a seed of it, of information planted in his mind, but I think he had his full faculties up until post-ME2.
As for ME3's inconsistency with Mass Effect: Retribution, it's a disturbing detail where they pick and choose what to use in the game, and what not to use. Some events, such as Kai Leng's disability and general appearance, is a canon immigrant from the book, whereas things like his murder of Aria's daughter and the heavy crippling of Cerberus operations is completely discarded. I think it's just an oversight; If I remember right, Drew K. wrote it, and lack of communication with the writing team (seeing as it was released post-ME2 after Drew K. left the ME team) led to it not coming out quite clear.
I don't think in Evolution that that was exactly where the indoctrination began. Maybe a seed of it, of information planted in his mind, but I think he had his full faculties up until post-ME2.
As for ME3's inconsistency with Mass Effect: Retribution, it's a disturbing detail where they pick and choose what to use in the game, and what not to use. Some events, such as Kai Leng's disability and general appearance, is a canon immigrant from the book, whereas things like his murder of Aria's daughter and the heavy crippling of Cerberus operations is completely discarded. I think it's just an oversight; If I remember right, Drew K. wrote it, and lack of communication with the writing team (seeing as it was released post-ME2 after Drew K. left the ME team) led to it not coming out quite clear.
Did Aria know it was Kai Leng that killed her daughter?
Also, as for the crippling of Cerberus, as I recall, that just removed a huge chunk of their active agents on the Citadel, which is why they resorted to sleeper agents. But then the game makes the rather huge of mistake of the Codex implying that the supposedly deceased Executor Pallin was instrumental in stopping the Coup, despite that detail (that Executor Pallin is dead) having made it into the game.
Also, in terms of Cerberus in general, I found nothing about their escalation to be entirely far-fetched. In ME1 you knew next to nothing besides "rogue Alliance black ops", and then in ME2 their role is expanded to show what they are (or rather, what TIM wants you to to believe they are). Also, as far as their manpower/resources, did anyone talk to Unshackled EDI in ME2 and ask her about the organization's finances? If she's accurate the group is swimming in cash from shell-companies and corporate fronts. And that's not even getting into the Alliance officials and private individuals like Henry Lawson who could be contributing tidy sums as well.
I mean they're made to LOOK big, but they aren't. Even the Coup was only a large operation in scope. It didn't involve that many actual men though. I've seen people making the assumption that Cerberus controlled the entire station (implying significantly more manpower than we ever see). But they didn't, they just had the Presidium (where are the other race's governmental power lied) and C-Sec under control, which effectively means the station was theirs.
Cerberus just has the advantage of knowing exactly where to go, and how much force they think they should need for such an undertaking. What you have in a small organization that's so well organized and tactically applied it makes them seem larger than life.
Even if humanity put all of it's resources into Cerberus they wouldn't be terribly well funded compared to salarian STGs. Humanity is a third rate power in every possible metric and the Council races are super absurdly ridiculously wealthy.
Even if humanity put all of it's resources into Cerberus they wouldn't be terribly well funded compared to salarian STGs. Humanity is a third rate power in every possible metric and the Council races are super absurdly ridiculously wealthy.
Cerberus being so well funded made sense when they were supposed to be a small organisation. If they have a small number of operations going at once it can be explained. Project Lazarus and building the SR-2 going on at the same time can be accepted with their multi-billion per year income (which if you ask me is also kind of implausible), but we keep seeing more things going on at once than Cerberus should be able to handle in the given timeframe. Overlord involves several massive, custom-built installations, then there's project Firewalker, EDI is developed at the same time as Lazarus and SR-2, tracking the derelict Reaper, all of Brooks' antics, blah blah. To say nothing of all the stuff we don't see, the general recon and research, the starships they're evidently building, the numerous bases they're holding and maintaining. I'm no finance expert, but billions a year doesn't account for all the stuff they do if you ask me.
Haven't read the other pages yet, but one thing I want to say about Cerberus, and I'm not sure this is a "no s***, Sherlock" moment. But I'll say it anyways.
In ME2, EDI mentions that Cerberus has 150 agents across a number of cells. I highly doubt everyone in Cerberus is counted in that 150. Heck, I guarantee you there are well over 150 people in that space station you got brought back to life in alone. I think that 150 only counts the higher ranking people like Miranda and not your average mook. Not to mention that space station TIM calls home and that space station we go to before going to Freedom's Progress. This doesn't include the crew of the normandy [I don't think it ever says the actual amount of people who isn't Shepard and company serving on it] or other field teams. Not to mention we obviously didn't see all of Cerberus' locations/people in ME2 since we don't see people like Petrovsky. Their total number has to be in the thousands back then too.
So, them becoming a huge force during the war thanks to "recruits" from Sanctuary isn't out of the realm of possibility imo. Who knows how many grunts they had before the war, and help from reapers and Sanctuary in recruiting others definitely could make them the large force they are in 3.
I hope this makes sense
How many contemporary privately funded terrorists organisations have the budget to comission and maintain a naval warfleet, produce their own, weapons armor and equipment, have R&D divisions that surpass that of the most wealthy governments, have high level spies and contacts within said governments and manage to evade any type of scrutiny or sanction by the lawful authorities?
Cerberus as a rogue black-ops group or even a faction within the Alliance has interesting implications. Cerberus as described above is outlandish and is thus reviled for many good reasons.
Haven't read the other pages yet, but one thing I want to say about Cerberus, and I'm not sure this is a "no s***, Sherlock" moment. But I'll say it anyways.
In ME2, EDI mentions that Cerberus has 150 agents across a number of cells. I highly doubt everyone in Cerberus is counted in that 150. Heck, I guarantee you there are well over 150 people in that space station you got brought back to life in alone. I think that 150 only counts the higher ranking people like Miranda and not your average mook. Not to mention that space station TIM calls home and that space station we go to before going to Freedom's Progress. This doesn't include the crew of the normandy [I don't think it ever says the actual amount of people who isn't Shepard and company serving on it] or other field teams. Not to mention we obviously didn't see all of Cerberus' locations/people in ME2 since we don't see people like Petrovsky. Their total number has to be in the thousands back then too.
So, them becoming a huge force during the war thanks to "recruits" from Sanctuary isn't out of the realm of possibility imo. Who knows how many grunts they had before the war, and help from reapers and Sanctuary in recruiting others definitely could make them the large force they are in 3.
I hope this makes sense
I think the books mention how Cronos station only has like a dozen people working there.
Any way the problem with them having that many people is how to ensure none of them go blabbing. TIM isn't exactly an expert in maintaining loyalty given all those rogue cells that have been running about.
The amount of personnel they have isn't even the most troubling part, it's where they are getting the money for all those research stations, supply lines, equipment, etc. Given the multiple fronts they are fighting during ME3 they must have a fairly large number of ships to at least deliver ground troops, not to mention all the frigates and cruisers needed to attack places like Sur'Kesh and the Citadel. Having wealthy backers and several large front companies is a fig leave trying to cover how large a bankroll would be needed to fund such massive operations.
It's not even that, the sheer amount of engineers, designers, construction personnel.. no way in hell it could be hidden or not be bloody obvious what was going on.
As I've mentioned previously, our military can't even catch a train without leaving laptops full of data everywhere.
I think the books mention how Cronos station only has like a dozen people working there.
I've only read Revelation, no wonder I never knew that. Still, I don't see how that could be possible [unless Ascension, Retribution, or Derpception go into detail]. That looked like a huge station from the outside in ME3
I've only read Revelation, no wonder I never knew that. Still, I don't see how that could be possible [unless Ascension, Retribution, or Derpception go into detail]. That looked like a huge station from the outside in ME3
What do you expect when BW's main writer doesn't even follow his own lore.
I've always felt that Cerberus being able to reverse engineer and build an identical copy of the Normandy was itself a bit of a stretch for a paramilitary organization, especially when the agents of said organization are busy spending their off hours discovering the cure for death and whatnot. The modern equivalent would be a paramilitary or terrorist organization (the Tamil Tigers circa 2006 are the closest equivalent I can think of off the top of my head) reverse engineering and then building their own stealth bomber.
Related to this, I also have another dumb story idea that I have to mention: I think it would have been cool if instead of getting a replacement Normandy for ME2, we got a ship that was significantly more rickety and unreliable, or at least, much more uncomfortable in its accommodations. It would have added to the sense that there is something dangerous and risky about Shepard's mission and the association with Cerberus. After all, the whole point of spending the game in the Terminus is to give us a part of the world that is more lawless and dangerous than what you'll find in the comparatively 'safe' confines of Council space, and there's no reason why even Shepard's own vessel can't be a means to reinforce that sense of risk.
Having a ship that isn't a Normandy clone would also give us the sense that there are lasting consequences to the death of Shepard and the destruction of the SR1 at the beginning of ME2. Killing Shepard and destroying the Normandy only to bring them both back within an hour was just not a great story idea IMO, because it makes what should be critical moments in the story into consequence-free affairs.
EDIT: Fixed spelling error.
Retour en haut