324 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

Not only that, but why didn't multiple counts of Grand Theft Warship get remarked upon?  I mean, this would be a not inconsiderable percentage of the SA's fleet strength at a time when it's needed most.

 

For that matter, who stole all these ships to begin with?  It would take thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands, all in position to act virtually simultaneously.

Well, Cord-Hislop Aerospace is an Earth-based company, no? So them suddenly dropping out of contact could've been attributed to the Reaper arrival.

And I think (it's not supported by the in-game lore, as I recall) that Cerberus ships require less crew to operate and rely more on VIs. I'm basing this off the fact that Reaper tech implantation negatively impacts higher mental functioning which is required for piloting ships. So it makes sense for them to minimize the crew size. That's headcanon though, I don't think it's ever stated in the game. 

[txgoldrush]

One ambiguous line in a codex entry (that's it) is not, I repeat not, foreshadowing, and it is especially not good foreshadowing. You have given no other statement based on anything further than speculation. Further, you have promoted said speculation, and your interpretation of said speculation as objective fact.

 

I'm ignoring it because it has no further mention or support in any media beyond what ME3 portrays in an unrealistic light. If you have to try too hard to prove one small facet of ambiguous evidence as objective truth to your entire argument, you're argument is likely very flighty and weak. You're trying too hard for too little.

 

Turning my words onto me do not make my statement any less correct, or any more false. If you can't turn this into a statement of civility, then perhaps I should report you.

But the cold hard facts is that they did foreshadow this, and by ignoring it because you choose to does not make your argument good. It makes it ignorant.

 

The codex is definitely part of the tools Bioware uses to tell its story. Oh, and the Invasion comic, before ME3, shows a Cerberus fleet. Which makes you again, wrong.

 

Next, what the codex entry was, the bold part on my OP was NOT speculation. Re read that codex entry again. What was speculation was a change in leadership, which turns out to be false, not the buildup.

 

And one small line or scene absolutely CAN have major story value or significance.

 

Who cares how you argue? The person that is right always wins.

[txgoldrush]

Well, Cord-Hislop Aerospace is an Earth-based company, no? So them suddenly dropping out of contact could've been attributed to the Reaper arrival.

And I think (it's not supported by the in-game lore, as I recall) that Cerberus ships require less crew to operate and rely more on VIs. I'm basing this off the fact that Reaper tech implantation negatively impacts higher mental functioning which is required for piloting ships. So it makes sense for them to minimize the crew size. That's headcanon though, I don't think it's ever stated in the game. 

Their fighters are definitely unmanned.

[txgoldrush]

The covered how they managed to get warm bodies to fight for them, not how they got thousands and thousands of trained personnel that can build and crew and repair a fleet of ships.

 

He didn't get them on Omega.  That's just raw materials and some test subjects.

 

Hackett used so many forces at the battle at Kronos, he reveled to the Reapers that the galaxy was building up for an assault.  If Cerberus had so many ships that it took that much force to slap them down they had an inordinate amount of forces.

 

I don't care how many front companies Cerberus had, if they could stash away that many ships, accounting in the future is either nonexistent to so incompetent it might as well not exist.

Once again, he used one fleet, and not even a full power. One smaller but veteran fleet.

 

And you can easily say he used this fleet because the mission was high priority, the difference between winning and losing the entire thing, not just because of Cerberus's fleet strength.

 

And face facts, the alliance did have intel of Cerebrus building ships and weapons, its in the narrative, as of ME2, not ME3. So they do know that Cerberus's power is growing.

 

Quit thinking that this is some dumb diabolus ex machina.

 

 

On the subject of how Cerberus could gain the knowledge of a bunch of secrets kept by alien governments, the idea of Cerberus planting sleeper agents themselves seems rather ridiculous, at least to me.
Rather, I always assumed that there were indoctrinated agents within the alien governments, feeding Cerberus Intel. I just figured the Reapers were giving Cerberus their Intel in an effort to keep the Galaxy divided.

I can give you Sur'Kesh, they do have a salarian sleeper agent.

 

However, they broke the Shadow Broker, do remember this. Their intel lead Liara to find him and replace him, than they easily know that Liara is now the broker. They then follow her to Kajhe and Mars. They are on Thessia because of data found on Mars that Liara did not find. So they didn't know everything from intel alone.

[voteDC]

The codex for me should be there to supplement information presented in the narrative, not to replace it.

Information as to how Cerberus got its fleet should have been presented during gameplay, conversations with characters, etc.

As it is, the game itself shows that somehow Cerberus got a fleet out of thin air. Not just a fleet but one capable of rivalling the Alliance. Building ships is one thing, building a fleet capable of holding their own against an Alliance one is something else all together.

[txgoldrush]

The codex for me should be there to supplement information presented in the narrative, not to replace it.

Information as to how Cerberus got its fleet should have been presented during gameplay, conversations with characters, etc.

As it is, the game itself shows that somehow Cerberus got a fleet out of thin air. Not just a fleet but one capable of rivalling the Alliance. Building ships is one thing, building a fleet capable of holding their own against an Alliance one is something else all together.

Tell me, how do they hold their own with the alliance? Someone please explain this to me, because simply put, they don't. Their individual ships do rival an alliance individual ship....but a fleet. No way.

 

The alliance has 8 large fleets...and in ME3, 2 of these fleets are destroyed and the 1st fleet is halved while the 8th is reduced to a ragtag, hit and run group. That still will dwarf completely, Cerberus's fleet, who relies more on black ops that outright military action.

 

The codex is not just a supplement, its an actual part of the Mass Effect universe.

[Iakus]

Once again, he used one fleet, and not even a full power. One smaller but veteran fleet.

 

And you can easily say he used this fleet because the mission was high priority, the difference between winning and losing the entire thing, not just because of Cerberus's fleet strength.

 

And face facts, the alliance did have intel of Cerebrus building ships and weapons, its in the narrative, as of ME2, not ME3. So they do know that Cerberus's power is growing.

 

Quit thinking that this is some dumb diabolus ex machina.

 

It took a veteran Alliance fleet to deal with a "small" Cerberus Fleet.  Mobilizing enough assets to alert the Reapers to the human counterstrike....

 

 

Yeah I'm thinking this conversation is gonna go nowhere.

 

But yeah, the Alliance had intel that Cerberus was gathering ships.  But there's a world of difference between "gathering ships" and STOCKPILING CRUISERS!!!

 

So yeah, this is some Diabolus Ex Machina.  Justified by vague handwaving and "resources"  but I've come to expect that from Mass Effect.

[txgoldrush]

It took a veteran Alliance fleet to deal with a "small" Cerberus Fleet.  Mobilizing enough assets to alert the Reapers to the human counterstrike....

 

 

Yeah I'm thinking this conversation is gonna go nowhere.

 

But yeah, the Alliance had intel that Cerberus was gathering ships.  But there's a world of difference between "gathering ships" and STOCKPILING CRUISERS!!!

 

So yeah, this is some Diabolus Ex Machina.  Justified by vague handwaving and "resources"  but I've come to expect that from Mass Effect.

 

It was not just a small fleet, it was a space station with a lot of unmanned fighters. Not only this, it was a high priority target. Once again, only teh Fifth Fleet is in the narrative on that mission.

 

And yet, you keep moving the goalposts. Tell me, where is this stockpile of Cruisers? Yes, they have Cruisers, but nowhere near Alliance levels.

[Iakus]

It was not just a small fleet, it was a space station with a lot of unmanned fighters. Not only this, it was a high priority target. Once again, only teh Fifth Fleet is in the narrative on that mission.

 

And yet, you keep moving the goalposts. Tell me, where is this stockpile of Cruisers? Yes, they have Cruisers, but nowhere near Alliance levels.

I listed a half dozen of them on the first page.  And there are likely others.

 

And there were almsot certainly more at Kronos, if it took Hackett AN ENTIRE FLEET to capture it (unless you think a bunch of unmanned fighters can hold off a veteran fleet)

 

And having ONE cruiser is pretty ridiculous.  A Cruiser is order of magnitude bigger than a frigate which took them two years to build one.  A Cruiser is crewed by hundreds of trained personnel each.  I have showed you no less than six separate instances where they had at least one (and in several cases, likely more than one) at their disposal.

 

SO yeah, there's your stockpile.  Even assuming they only ever had 6-8 cruisers at their height, that's still a ridiculous number.  And I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than that at Kronos

 

Fighters?  Sure

Corvettes?  Maybe

Frigates?  I'll give them one, just be generous

Q-Ships?  Sure, sounds right up their alley.

 

But cruisers?  Nuh-uh.

[God]

But the cold hard facts is that they did foreshadow this, and by ignoring it because you choose to does not make your argument good. It makes it ignorant.

 

The codex is definitely part of the tools Bioware uses to tell its story. Oh, and the Invasion comic, before ME3, shows a Cerberus fleet. Which makes you again, wrong.

 

Next, what the codex entry was, the bold part on my OP was NOT speculation. Re read that codex entry again. What was speculation was a change in leadership, which turns out to be false, not the buildup.

 

And one small line or scene absolutely CAN have major story value or significance.

 

Who cares how you argue? The person that is right always wins.

 

There are no cold hard facts: It's just you grasping at a rope and calling it a cable. I'm not ignoring it because I don't believe it. I'm ignoring it because it's circumstantial, ambiguous, and ultimately meaningless. You're literally using an a posteriori examination of ME3 and one small slice of evidence to justify BW's narrative failings in said game. BW didn't plan this. They didn't go for this. It's one statement that coincidentally happens to have some correlation with the route BW took in ME3. 

 

This point is a non-sequiter. All it does is show that Cerberus now has a fleet that got magicked into existence prior to ME3 but after ME2 and the Retribution novel. It says nothing of how Cerberus got the fleet. It says nothing of how the writers tried to justify it. 

 

Yes, one small line can have a large impact, but this is not such a line. 

 

How you argue is everything; You are not deductively correct. You have no way to deductively prove your point at all. Thus, you must create an argument that is strong enough to support your position. You have failed entirely to do this. In fact, you're resorting to a circular argument.

 

Your argument is that the line of dialogue supports your interpretation. That's it. You aren't creating an argument to defend that. You're simply stating that you're right, without explaining or elaborating how you're right. That's not how an argument works. That's not how evidence works. The circular argument comes in because you think that since it is evidence, it supports your assertion. And since it supports your assertion, you must be right. And if you must be right, BW must have planned every last detail and put this in here as a hidden clue for special cookies like yourself to find and prove that they knew exactly what they were doing. And since BW did that, it supports your foreshadowing argument. 

 

This is invalid arguing and faulty logic. It does not support your claim. It does not validate your premise. Thus, as you have thus far failed at every level and ignored every invitation to discuss this point reasonably, rationally, and from an unbiased perspective (something I suspect is exceedingly difficult for you), your claim is thrown out. 

 

It's a crackpot theory from a crackpot poster. Congratulations, you get the internet crackpot award.

[God]

It was not just a small fleet, it was a space station with a lot of unmanned fighters. Not only this, it was a high priority target. Once again, only teh Fifth Fleet is in the narrative on that mission.

 

And yet, you keep moving the goalposts. Tell me, where is this stockpile of Cruisers? Yes, they have Cruisers, but nowhere near Alliance levels.

 

Where is this information that Cerberus fighters are unmanned?

 

In fact, I can show you evidence to the contrary.

 

Knowing you though, if you thought the sky was red, you'd argue that to the end of days. 

[God]

Tell me, how do they hold their own with the alliance? Someone please explain this to me, because simply put, they don't. Their individual ships do rival an alliance individual ship....but a fleet. No way.

 

The alliance has 8 large fleets...and in ME3, 2 of these fleets are destroyed and the 1st fleet is halved while the 8th is reduced to a ragtag, hit and run group. That still will dwarf completely, Cerberus's fleet, who relies more on black ops that outright military action.

 

The codex is not just a supplement, its an actual part of the Mass Effect universe.

 

Where are we getting any viable information for you to make a claim one way or the other?

 

You're literally creating evidence at this point and using it to justify headcanon.

 

What you're talking about is, from given evidence, not Mass Effect.

 

It's looneyville presents a headcanon that is based on a warped idea of Mass Effect.

[ImaginaryMatter]

If Tx is back does that mean David is soon to follow?

[God]

David's back already. Tx never really left. He bides his time creating crackpot theories based on insane troll logic to justify whatever conspiracy he dreams up to show how much more and better a Mass Effect fan he is than anyone else.

 

The crazies are coming back it seems. Auld Wulf has yet to fully return. Every time he tries, he gets the hammer.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Didn't even notice. Is he on the DA forums or has it been so long I forgot his posting style?

 

Don't know why it takes so long to make a crackpot theory, though. I do that on a daily basis.

[God]

He's on the DA boards, complaining about how DA:I is a fail of a game, how the writers at BW are terrible because they don't write things that he likes, and how people in general are stupid because they don't like what he likes.

 

BabyPuncher, if you want to find him.

[Ithurael]

He's on the DA boards, complaining about how DA:I is a fail of a game, how the writers at BW are terrible because they don't write things that he likes, and how people in general are stupid because they don't like what he likes.

 

BabyPuncher, if you want to find him.

lol nice

 

what alias' has the great Wulf gone by? He was one of my favorites - along with David of course

[txgoldrush]

There are no cold hard facts: It's just you grasping at a rope and calling it a cable. I'm not ignoring it because I don't believe it. I'm ignoring it because it's circumstantial, ambiguous, and ultimately meaningless. You're literally using an a posteriori examination of ME3 and one small slice of evidence to justify BW's narrative failings in said game. BW didn't plan this. They didn't go for this. It's one statement that coincidentally happens to have some correlation with the route BW took in ME3. 

 

This point is a non-sequiter. All it does is show that Cerberus now has a fleet that got magicked into existence prior to ME3 but after ME2 and the Retribution novel. It says nothing of how Cerberus got the fleet. It says nothing of how the writers tried to justify it. 

 

Yes, one small line can have a large impact, but this is not such a line. 

 

How you argue is everything; You are not deductively correct. You have no way to deductively prove your point at all. Thus, you must create an argument that is strong enough to support your position. You have failed entirely to do this. In fact, you're resorting to a circular argument.

 

Your argument is that the line of dialogue supports your interpretation. That's it. You aren't creating an argument to defend that. You're simply stating that you're right, without explaining or elaborating how you're right. That's not how an argument works. That's not how evidence works. The circular argument comes in because you think that since it is evidence, it supports your assertion. And since it supports your assertion, you must be right. And if you must be right, BW must have planned every last detail and put this in here as a hidden clue for special cookies like yourself to find and prove that they knew exactly what they were doing. And since BW did that, it supports your foreshadowing argument. 

 

This is invalid arguing and faulty logic. It does not support your claim. It does not validate your premise. Thus, as you have thus far failed at every level and ignored every invitation to discuss this point reasonably, rationally, and from an unbiased perspective (something I suspect is exceedingly difficult for you), your claim is thrown out. 

 

It's a crackpot theory from a crackpot poster. Congratulations, you get the internet crackpot award.

Still denying things....face facts here....you simply put, do not like it. So in your biased view, you ignore all evidence against your claims, which this codex entry in ME2 shows. Its the same crap with people who deny that the starchild (or more precisely, a Reaper master) is foreshadowed, when Vendetta actually foreshadows it. Face facts here...its foreshadowed. Therefore, its not a flaw.

 

Here is the point....you just do not like that Cerberus has a fleet. Thats it. And yes, they don't exactly explain how they get the fleet, but simply put, connect the dots. TIM has front companies and interests in the military industrial complex. That easily points out that, yeah, its plausible that Cerberus has a navy.

 

And you sure haven't made an argument that supports your position, all you do is right off evidence against your position. 

 

This is hard evidence that, yes, Bioware did plan to have Cerberus be more dangerous and be a force down the road. Stop trying to make something worse than it actually is.

 

And no, the evidence supports my assertion originally that a Cerberus fleet is possible, hence topic.

[txgoldrush]

David's back already. Tx never really left. He bides his time creating crackpot theories based on insane troll logic to justify whatever conspiracy he dreams up to show how much more and better a Mass Effect fan he is than anyone else.

 

The crazies are coming back it seems. Auld Wulf has yet to fully return. Every time he tries, he gets the hammer.

No, I actually pay attention to the story. You should try that sometime.

 

If "fans" here pay attention to the story instead of firing criticism from the hip, they would find that the story does address most of their concerns.

[txgoldrush]

I listed a half dozen of them on the first page.  And there are likely others.

 

And there were almsot certainly more at Kronos, if it took Hackett AN ENTIRE FLEET to capture it (unless you think a bunch of unmanned fighters can hold off a veteran fleet)

 

And having ONE cruiser is pretty ridiculous.  A Cruiser is order of magnitude bigger than a frigate which took them two years to build one.  A Cruiser is crewed by hundreds of trained personnel each.  I have showed you no less than six separate instances where they had at least one (and in several cases, likely more than one) at their disposal.

 

SO yeah, there's your stockpile.  Even assuming they only ever had 6-8 cruisers at their height, that's still a ridiculous number.  And I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than that at Kronos

 

Fighters?  Sure

Corvettes?  Maybe

Frigates?  I'll give them one, just be generous

Q-Ships?  Sure, sounds right up their alley.

 

But cruisers?  Nuh-uh.

And in that time frame, yes, its indeed possible to build a cruiser. Notice the language in the codex entry....the word "stockpile". Notice that you have this entry in your codex at the start of ME2. Its indeed possible that Cerberus was indeed starting to build up while Shepard was dead.

 

Once again, you simply put, just don't like it.

[txgoldrush]

He's on the DA boards, complaining about how DA:I is a fail of a game, how the writers at BW are terrible because they don't write things that he likes, and how people in general are stupid because they don't like what he likes.

 

BabyPuncher, if you want to find him.

Never even bashed the writers of DAI, try again.

 

In fact the DAI writers did a good job.

[God]

Never even bashed the writers of DAI, try again.

 

In fact the DAI writers did a good job.

 

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about David.

[God]

Still denying things....face facts here....you simply put, do not like it. So in your biased view, you ignore all evidence against your claims, which this codex entry in ME2 shows. Its the same crap with people who deny that the starchild (or more precisely, a Reaper master) is foreshadowed, when Vendetta actually foreshadows it. Face facts here...its foreshadowed. Therefore, its not a flaw.

 

Here is the point....you just do not like that Cerberus has a fleet. Thats it. And yes, they don't exactly explain how they get the fleet, but simply put, connect the dots. TIM has front companies and interests in the military industrial complex. That easily points out that, yeah, its plausible that Cerberus has a navy.

 

And you sure haven't made an argument that supports your position, all you do is right off evidence against your position. 

 

This is hard evidence that, yes, Bioware did plan to have Cerberus be more dangerous and be a force down the road. Stop trying to make something worse than it actually is.

 

And no, the evidence supports my assertion originally that a Cerberus fleet is possible, hence topic.

 

There are no facts. Period. I don't like it, but that's not why I criticize it. In my biased view, I'd accept evidence that passes evaluation and correct hypothesis. So far, I have gotten neither. Why are you bringing up something I'm not even talking about to make your point (which, coincidentally, I have a minor concurrence with: I don't believe that the catalyst was truly foreshadowed until Leviathan outright spelled it out. That said, I don't believe that that was necessarily a bad thing). 

 

I don't really believe you have a lot of ingenuity with your logic. If I was a more crass person, I might state my belief that you have some kind of disability or condition. Do you perhaps have Asperger's?

 

As a Cerberus supporter and enthusiast, I love that Cerberus has a fleet. Please don't tell me how I feel.

 

That said, I don't believe that Cerberus acquiring of said fleet is plausible or believable, nor do I believe your 'explanation' is credible. And what they don't say about connecting dots is that without any numbers to put them together, you come up with a vastly different shape.

 

I have no doubt that you have connected said dots to reach a shape that most, if not all other posters here have not made. That said, just because you have a different way of looking at something does not mean that you have a good way of looking at things.

 

My point isn't to make an argument; as a skeptic, I'm dismantling yours. Making a Tu Qoque fallacy (as in, saying what I say to you back at me and then claiming that you said it first) isn't strengthening your position. It is not my job to prove you wrong. It is your job to prove yourself right. If such evidence of yours was unconditional and irrefutable, don't you think most people here would be much more accepting of it? I for one would be. I'm willing to acknowledge that you could be correct. That said, I have yet to see any form of evidence or credibility from you that leads me to believe in this conclusion.

 

As has been stated, one obscure, uncited, and ambiguous line of text is not all the evidence you need to make this statement. I'd be much more willing to believe you if you had developer statements, much more foreshadowing (a whole games worth for starters), evidence that points to Cerberus building a fleet and an army.

 

One measly line of dialogue does not provide great evidence. If this was comparable to a court case or a murder trial, your point is akin to the knowledge that the bullet fired from the gun that killed the victim proves that the current defendant was not the owner of said bullet. It does not prove that the defendant was not the killer. Only that he did not own the bullet that he may or may not have fired from a gun.

 

Hence topic, where literally everyone but one person (angol fear) has pronounced skepticism and disbelief to your claim. Thus, your claim is not proof. It requires not your belief in its veracity to be false.

 

At this point, I'm going to play the numbers game: More people, making more arguments, are more right than one person making one argument. We're right, you're wrong. End of story.

[General TSAR]

Cerberus' Army and Fleets would be more believable if Shepard was out of commission for a couple of years instead of six months and/or a large chunk of the Alliance defected because they were fed up with Parliament's attempts at appeasement or something. 

[txgoldrush]

There are no facts. Period. I don't like it, but that's not why I criticize it. In my biased view, I'd accept evidence that passes evaluation and correct hypothesis. So far, I have gotten neither. Why are you bringing up something I'm not even talking about to make your point (which, coincidentally, I have a minor concurrence with: I don't believe that the catalyst was truly foreshadowed until Leviathan outright spelled it out. That said, I don't believe that that was necessarily a bad thing). 

 

I don't really believe you have a lot of ingenuity with your logic. If I was a more crass person, I might state my belief that you have some kind of disability or condition. Do you perhaps have Asperger's?

 

As a Cerberus supporter and enthusiast, I love that Cerberus has a fleet. Please don't tell me how I feel.

 

That said, I don't believe that Cerberus acquiring of said fleet is plausible or believable, nor do I believe your 'explanation' is credible. And what they don't say about connecting dots is that without any numbers to put them together, you come up with a vastly different shape.

 

I have no doubt that you have connected said dots to reach a shape that most, if not all other posters here have not made. That said, just because you have a different way of looking at something does not mean that you have a good way of looking at things.

 

My point isn't to make an argument; as a skeptic, I'm dismantling yours. Making a Tu Qoque fallacy (as in, saying what I say to you back at me and then claiming that you said it first) isn't strengthening your position. It is not my job to prove you wrong. It is your job to prove yourself right. If such evidence of yours was unconditional and irrefutable, don't you think most people here would be much more accepting of it? I for one would be. I'm willing to acknowledge that you could be correct. That said, I have yet to see any form of evidence or credibility from you that leads me to believe in this conclusion.

 

As has been stated, one obscure, uncited, and ambiguous line of text is not all the evidence you need to make this statement. I'd be much more willing to believe you if you had developer statements, much more foreshadowing (a whole games worth for starters), evidence that points to Cerberus building a fleet and an army.

 

One measly line of dialogue does not provide great evidence. If this was comparable to a court case or a murder trial, your point is akin to the knowledge that the bullet fired from the gun that killed the victim proves that the current defendant was not the owner of said bullet. It does not prove that the defendant was not the killer. Only that he did not own the bullet that he may or may not have fired from a gun.

 

Hence topic, where literally everyone but one person (angol fear) has pronounced skepticism and disbelief to your claim. Thus, your claim is not proof. It requires not your belief in its veracity to be false.

 

At this point, I'm going to play the numbers game: More people, making more arguments, are more right than one person making one argument. We're right, you're wrong. End of story.

You are still missing the point.

 

The codex entry PROVES that the Alliance knows that Cerberus is indeed building up. You keep insisting to no avail that is a throwaway but it is not.

 

The codex is actually part of the narrative, not just an explanation of the narrative in the series. It is told from an Alliance point of view (which can be odd for ME2).

 

The evidence says that yes, Bioware indeed did account and foreshadow a Cerberus fleet in Mass Effect 3 before Mass Effect 3. Its clear as day. To say otherwise is dishonesty.

 

And even speculation and hypothesis from characters and sources can be foreshadowing (not this case, but do read the Keeper codex in ME1).