God damn, I hate the formatting here. Typed up a beautiful response, enter, and bam, cuts the page.
Blaspheming against yourself tsk tsk. Nah but I had that happen to me before as well. Took me a day to muster the effort to come back and reply again.
Pro-bias for Cerberus aside, you're assuming a sort of omniscience for all their actions, and the actions of the other groups. Leaving aside (for now) the knowledge that 'doing what needs to be done' isn't necessarily objective when looking at the nature of the jobs, and the state they're looking to promote (think 'different pursuits with different dreams'), you're referring to a few incidents within Cerberus' timeline that are shown to have failed (some of them being beyond their control, being stopped by the equivalent of a cosmic spanner in the works.) While I don't deny these failures, I deny your categorization of them as being inherently and foundationally flawed, while also questioning your seeming assessment (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the other organizations didn't or haven't failed over history.
Not really. If we leave bias and headcanon aside, what we're left with is evidence in-game. Evidence of Cerberus failing everything we see them attempt. And evidence, admittedly inferred in some cases, of the other organizations I mentioned succeeding. Does that mean they always win and Cerberus always loses? No. But I never claimed that.
The Spectres:
Mandate- preserve galactic stability, and more cynically, keep the Council in power.
Results- prior to Saren and the Reapers starting ****, Council space is pretty stable and the Council's certainly on top. Spectres are the embodiment of "license to kill" and the ones we do encounter certainly live up to that. Nihlus put innocents in danger to escape Samara, Vasir did her bullshit with the Shadow Broker, and Bau mentions he and a few Spectre buddies are ready to fight against the Reapers. The original Spectre as seen in the Citadel archives was probably the most ruthless salarian we ever see on screen and he was the prototype. Even Saren, misguided, manipulated and indoctrinated as he was, thought he was doing what was necessary to ensure their survival. And the novels certainly show him fullflling his mandate in the more traditional sense. Finally Shepard is Shepard.
The STG:
Mandate- advance salarian interests (the closet analogue to Cerberus I think)
Results- uplifted the krogan, to defeat the rachni, created the genophage to defeat the krogan. I can't remember which event got them the council seat but interests were definitely advanced. Was the model for Spectres which, while not advancing their agenda directly still highlights how capable they are in that pursuit. Finally, they provide the cure for the genophage when needed, and are experimenting with yahg uplifting to similarly advance their interests again. That last may blow up in their face but given Mordin's warnings about how uplifing hinders a race more than it helps it still suggests the STG doesn't much care about the fate of other species if it gets them what they need.
The Shadow Broker:
Mandate- retain power by manipulating everyone into preserving a careful balance where he constantly profits.
Results- Did so for centuries. You may see the yahg taking over as a failure but it could also be interpreted that the organization was so well entrenched that a change of leadership went completely unnoticed. Twice, if we count Liara taking over, which is when things start to fall apart. I of course do not include her reign as an example.
The justicars- uphold the Code, preserve justice
Results- the one justicar we know certainly get them. As for the order in general, it seems like justicars take an interest in ardat-yakshi specifically, and until the Reapers hit, they seemed to have that locked down pretty tight.
Asari Government:
Mandate: Maintain asari advantage.
Results: Fairly obvious. The asari are far from the most militaristic, yet they have the largest, most powerful ships. In general they are acknowledged as the most advanced. We see what that's worth in ME3 but if it takes a galactic extinction event to reveal them, that's still quite impressive.
And now Cerberus:
Mandate- Preserve and advance human interests.
Results- Universally disavowed and seen as a terrorist organization, they seem to be bringing us down more than anything. Stupidly ineffectual at clandestine operations, hilariously over the top in gratuitous cruelty and what's to show for it?
Rachni experiments- failed. Nothing useful gained.
Thorian experiments- failed. Nothing useful gained
Biotic experiments- failed. They got Jack but she's unstable, near psychotic and hates them and most authority before Shepard with a passion. All at ridiculous cost.
Geth experiments (Overlord)-failed. Nothing useful gained.
Lazarus- succeeded in that they gave us Shepard back, the SR-2 and EDI, all of which were crucial in defeating the Reapers. But still technically failed since they rebelled. Oh and if you count Brooks and the clone, that's a bonus failure since not only did they rebel/desert but they also actively impeded the salvation of the galaxy, arguably more than Cerberus itself.
ME3's Cerberus failures are not even worth recounting.
Now, headcanon-wanking that we do aside, are you really going to say that an organization, throughout its entire multi-millennia history, doesn't fail once or, even more realistically, have a string of failures, especially in the beginning as said organization gets its feet wet? Each of these organizations have thousands of years on Cerberus (sans the Shadow Broker, and he too was completely capable of colossal failure... like the Yahg... and letting his organization be tracked by Cerberus to a point where they have an open lead that helps Liara jump on the SB.) Even the Catalyst was met with failure after failure prior to instituting the Reapers to be its solution to the problem of organic and synthetic conflict. Cerberus failing at all isn't surprising, and isn't an indication of inherent failure. You seem rather quick to categorically say that Cerberus can not possibly be capable of ever achieving anything like the other groups on their worst day (with Cerberus at their best). Given your rather irrational positions (from my perspective) on other topics, namely the ending, I'm going to step back and be a bit objective here: what exactly is your point? I'll get into mine.
The point here that I'm taking out of your argument is that all these organizations do their job better as they aren't really shown as having a failure or a flaw and implying that each organization, throughout their thousand year histories doesn't have a failure or string of failures. I'm responding that; 1) Realistically, given the amount of time we know that some of these groups have existed, this cannot be the case; 2) Given the lack of knowledge on what we see for Cerberus and the other groups, and our knowledge that Cerberus has had more going on for 30 years that we don't see (and assume to have mostly succeeded), they were capable of more than just failures, and while failures at some point are always inevitable, this does not mean that Cerberus itself has failed as an organization (if you feel that way and pull the ******-card, you're going to have to take the hit in credibility since it's just not possible, no matter who you are); 3) the separation of the mandate and agenda's that one organization pursues compared and contrasted next to another (pursuit of justice according to a specific code vs. galactic stability vs. For Science! research and advancement/domination of Salarian interests vs. Asari monopoly over galactic economy and culture vs. human scientific, military, and political advancement and superiority and/or domination vs. monopoly over the galactic intelligence and cold war distribution).
No. I have not made any claim like the underlined. I don't know where you're pulling that from but it's not from my arguments. As for your point that in the centuries or millennia of operation, each of those organizations must've failed sometime, my answer is, so what? That does not help the case one bit, for two reasons:
1. Shown evidence is always more compelling then that which is inferred from truisms (nobody is perfect, therefore failure happened at some point, or nobody fails all the time)
2. If it took these other organizations centuries or millennia to get it right (something which does not follow from "they must've failed sometime" by the way) it still doesn't counter my point that all these organizations are better at their jobs then Cerberus is at theirs. Being new is not an excuse here. And in this particular case, Cerberus doesn't have centuries or millennia to catch up anyway. We're about to be stomped by cuttlefish killbots. Everyone needs to bring their A-game. Cerberus not only does not do this, but is actively tripping other players in the field.
Now if we were to see that a few decades or so down the line Cerberus got its act together and started succeeding, then we'd re-evaluate. Humanity has been rocketing to the top since they got onto the galactic stage. If Cerberus outmatched or equaled the STG after being in the field for a tenth of the time, that'd be impressive. That's playing the trope that humans learn and advance faster then other races. If that were the case, the aliens' head start would mean nothing. Indeed if we surpassed them, it'd count against them. But as it is, they're still better than us. Or at least, their organizations are.
For someone like the Justicars and the Spectres, this is something different: they are less prone to failures, and that is justifiable as to the nature of their engagements. They don't utilize or require such investments of resources that others do, such as the STG or Cerberus. They aren't performing controversial experiments that are on uncertain or shaky ground. The Justicars are pursuing absolute justice as dictated by their very specific code, and the Spectres are working to maintain galactic stability for the Council. While they are no less capable of failure (theoretically or practically), their specific premises as an organization is inherently different than others like the mentioned Cerberus or STG. 'Doing what it takes' does not have the same meaning here beyond principle. Even either group has a different altogether agenda backed by different nature (physiologically speaking) with different periods of existence: Cerberus is able to infiltrate and heavily damage an STG facility on the Salarian homeworld. This is pretty remarkable; had Shepard not personally intervened, Cerberus would have entirely succeeded in their mission. It's the same with the Shadow Broker. And the Asari government. You deny that Cerberus is able to perform on the same level or standard as other organizations, but they are shown to be very capable of doing such. Either that heightens their value, or it lowers that of their competition.
I disagree they are less prone to failure. Failure is of course defined differently, but the probabilities of it occurring are not calculated differently. They are still based on the intel and resources available, the skill of the entity carrying them out and the number/scale of unknown or uncontrollable factors. There is no reason to assume performing controversial experiments will always necessarily carry a higher number of unknown/uncontrollable factors than taking down a criminal band on their home turf or performing a cover-up to push forward a political agenda.
"Doing what it takes" is a principle. Though perhaps it's parallel to what this discussion became. Doing what it takes is a mentality, a method of operation. And I have no problem saying everybody we're talking about here has that method. My claims were more about the results. It's almost nonsensical to discuss who's "doing what it takes" better. You either do what it takes or you don't. Though there may be levels in between in the forms of lines some don't cross, it's an attitude that isn't really quantifiable in a comparative sense.
But going back to ME3 examples, they must be taken with a grain of salt. We all know Cerberus has powers as the plot demands. Yes I'm using it to dismiss some examples like Sur'Kesh. No, the same thing does not apply to other organizations because no other organization is as wildly jerked around. They all remain fairly stable throughout the series. Yes it is bad writing and it makes this discussion kinda bad as well. I think the best you could do is try to average it out. Cerberus is shown as quite ineffective, except the few cases when we need human enemies to shoot and create tension and then they do impossible things. Smooth out the curve and I say you still end up in the ineffective ballpark.
Given the nature of the last paragraph you've given, I'm inclined to say that its either or or. I would argue that Cerberus is indeed preparing. Preparing well is a matter of debate of course: somewhere along the line they do get indoctrinated. Now, I can make a game of what-if's all day, but I'll say that what-if Cerberus was capable of fulfilling their goal prior to the Reapers and not being stopped. They seemed to know that the Protheans had the key to something that might stop the Reapers. Now, they couldn't have build it. But what if they could have made everyone else more aware of it? I'll stop here with the what-if's. They're rhetorical. I'm not looking for an answer. I already know what it is.
But Cerberus has a point in the middle there, one that is poignant: what was the alliance doing, what was anyone doing, with the troves of information that the Protheans had to offer. They weren't doing anything. Cerberus, meanwhile, was. I think the acting part is more important than the sitting around part. Failing is better than ignoring and denying. And while the ultimate conclusion would have been the same, the parts of the conclusion would not have been. As a last what-if, what if Cerberus was able to actually gather its information prior to the scheme on Mars? It's implied in the comics that Cerberus had been preparing to act for some time, and was waiting for the moment to strike. What if they had been able to or allowed prior to indoctrination? You could save a number of worlds, lives, and infrastructure. You could prepare better for the consequences of what is to come. You could gather the consensus that some here feel is so desperately needed to make a choice. You could enact whatever ending you like using someone entirely separate from Shepard (sans maybe control). Who says that Shepard is utterly and totally necessary to the issue? Arguably, I say he is, but if given the options of what to make, would it not be possible to find someone else to use on the totem pole? Just because the conclusion is the same does not mean the details have to be as well here. I think you're trying to downplay what could be brought to the table here.
You're jumping around quite a bit in this last part.
To the Protheans, I say part of the problem is they were sidelined past ME1 apart from a few cases where we needed to space magic Shepard into knowing something. And while Javik was awesome at subverting so many things he was in no position to shed further light on our actual source of salvation. The revelation about the Collectors in ME2 did nothing. It told us what we already know about Reapers, but it didn't shed any more light on the Protheans themselves. And our resident Prothean expert cried over a drell while she tried to be a badass, and was utterly wasted just as much as she was unbelievably changed. These issues had nothing to do with Cerberus or anyone else, they are flaws in the setting.
Your what-if basically amounts to "Cerberus could've been awesome". And I have no argument. They could've been. But they weren't. It was a good concept. Even from back in ME1 as a random terrorist extremist group there was plenty of potential. But lack of clear vision (or perhaps conflicting visions) coupled with a lack of an overall plan and attention to detail and the rushed deadlines of the third game gave us a jumbled mess.
As for Shepard himself not being necessary, you know my thoughts on that. But I don't think a perceived human supremacist terrorist organization is going to have the necessary cred to supply the trust and inspiration needed to fulfill Shepard's role at the endgame. Anyone can be plugged into that role. But there are prerequisites, namely the appropriate level of badassery and the influence and charisma, either real or manufactured through PR.
Retour en haut
At least not until everyone is indoctrinated into the Shepard cult of course. But even after that it´s probably still Miranda. Someone has to write these reports, access Cerberus funding and get the money for the salaries.
