While I may not know the specifics of a given plan, I know plenty about Cerberus. Without any reason to think otherwise, I view any new experiment or action in light of all others I have seen. Actions such as killing off an entire colony require justification and one could view them as having no conceivable justification at all. Without that justification, I have no reason to stop it. It is incumbent on Cerberus (or the game) to show me that justification.
I am the same: An I view their experiments as things that have tactical, even strategic value up to that point. I personally don't agree with how the game really forces you to take a stand against Cerberus in the first game. That said, we aren't given any characterization for them. We aren't given any perspective, and they immediately try to kill you. I view my actions more along the lines of self-defense than actually stopping what they're doing. I want to get to the bottom of it so that I can understand it.
On that, I believe it's on the game to show us the justification, you're right; but if it doesn't that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't justified. Look at the writers of Cerberus in ME2: To them, Cerberus was a throwaway group of pro-human radicals that were literally created for nothing more than mooks to shoot. There wasn't any other information (or judgement) given to them.
They weren't created with a purpose in mind by the writers, nor were they defined with any other perspective in the game at any other point. In that case, my own interpretation of them is all I really have of them. Considering that I support their goals and ideology, I see their experiments and methodology as justified unless outright shown or stated otherwise.
You are right that the goal was "control said nano machines to work to your own advantage." As in Cerberus' advantage. Cerberus has always been about advancing Cerberus. They claim to desire to uplift humanity, but that would only be in that they, as a human organization, would be on top. Dictators always claim to be acting for the benefit of the people.
Yes. Cerberus' advantage. Which is to the benefit of humanity. Because, simply put, humanity and Cerberus are one and the same. Otherwise, your view on them wanting themselves to be at the top isn't true, nor ever supported at any point by any high-ranking member of Cerberus. TIM certainly doesn't ever state that he deserves to be at the top. Hell, you can convince him of this in the ending (which does provide a rather sympathetic end for him in either way the ending goes).
Dictator's, despite the unpleasant connotation of the term, is not an inherently bad one. I personally believe that we could use a strong, authoritarian leader to put us on the path to progress, economic and political reform, and technological and scientific advancement. And there comes a difference between acting for the benefit of people, and acting for the benefit of humanity (i.e. society/civilization as a whole).
You can not claim that I "don't have the stomach to do what I need to do" because you and Cerberus have utterly failed to demonstrate that what they do needed doing. Cerberus, other than resurrecting Shepard, is a negative on the galaxy. It actively impedes the ultimate end of the Reapers. They didn't even get the "Gollum" treatment where are an antagonist but are ultimately necessary for the goal to be accomplished. That could have been pretty cool.
I can claim that entirely. What they did was provide humanity with a working knowledge of indoctrination and how to overcome it, even utilize it for your own ends. That's pretty useful. You can take thousands of refugees and non-combatants, people who might not contribute an ounce of labor to the war effort otherwise, and turn them into shock(adjusting figures for all other roles in politics, military functions, economics, medicine, and logistics)I entirely disagree with just Shepard's resurrection being the good that Cerberus has done. They do indeed impede the ultimate end of the Reapers, and they were doing so for 30 years prior to the end of Mass Effect 3.
Why BW didn't actually provide any ambiguity or narrative interpretation to Cerberus is beyond me: I wasn't one of the writers for ME3. I can't tell you what they were thinking of or what they wanted.
It's not a Godwin argument to make an appropriate comparison of ideology. Unfortunately, Godwin's Law came about because people misuse the reference so much that it makes appropriate usages difficult. The fact that you claim to agree with those men proves the comparison is fitting and therefore not a Godwin argument.
It is when you're making a judgement on that ideology and leaving out room for differentiation. I agree with all of those men on a few issues: that does not mean that I believe that they were entirely right or correct. That said, they all (even Mengele) had benefits to their respective governments and societies that actually helped their country.
You can't claim that everything that Hitler or Mao did was bad, lest you then say that other factors (like environmentalism and single payer state-funded healthcare, respectively) were immoral. That isn't quite what I was agreeing with them on (namely, I believe we need singular, strong leaders (not totalitarian or centered around those leaders) to authoritatively define where we are and where we're going economically, politically, technologically, and scientifically). But it would have to be a concession that it's all immoral here.
Cerberus' intentions are not all that matters. Even if they had a good end in mind, there must also be reason to believe the outcome can be reasonably achieved. Their actions are so reprehensible that they ought to be opposed if that justification is not provided.
There actually was reason to believe the outcome in this particular situation was possible: look at Sanctuary. It worked. Hackett and Shepard both acknowledge this in separate conversations.
Let's look at Operation Overlord. At the end of that DLC, Shepard can either accept or reject Gavin Archer's research as justifying his treatment of David as justified. But let's suppose he never told you and would not tell you anything about what was going on, what they were working on, what the goal was, how much, if any progress he had made, and if the goal was reasonably achievable. Would you really just leave David there, thinking "well, he probably has a good reason"? If so, there's something wrong with you.
I entirely accept Dr. Archer's research. Sucks for David, but he's more useful being used as a platform for researching a means to control the Geth.
I don't believe that I should play into this what-if scenario. But I will: In truth, I wouldn't really need to hear from him to come to the conclusion. There was plenty of evidence to say what was going on, enough that I'd have questions that would require answers (not just for what was going on) but for intervening. Your thought-experiment doesn't work because it would not be possible to even positively intervene in this circumstance without any advice. We'd see what was happening, but be an inactive participant.
If, by some fluke of chance, I actually reached that point in the game where I found out what was going on without any exposition from Dr. Archer, I'd probably kill him and David out of sheer self-defense. I'd have had to jump through a lot of hoops just to reach that point.
With Chasca, that's all hypothetical. There's no reason to think any of those benefits will come from what's being done. If you're just being purely experimental, then why not get volunteers or use their own troops rather than some unsuspecting colony?
Of course, you're still dismissing all my ideas as 'hypothetical'. And there is reason to think that some type of benefit would occur. You're disagreeing with me here to disagree with me.
As for being purely experimental; I likely wouldn't find volunteers, and I'm not going to waste my own warriors (who serve me with purpose and utility, and whom I have invested time and energy in training towards). By sacrificing a new colony that's unsuspecting, I also make it look like it was targeted by the Geth or hostile forces, doing benefit for other colonies by increasing alliance patrols and activity around other colonies, to actually prevent those worlds from being more likely to be targeted.
Well you're demonstrably wrong that it wasn't unnecessary. Does Cerberus' "research" give any help to Shepard, who defeats the Reapers? If not, then it was by definition unnecessary.
It sure does: the Hammerhead, EDI, the Normandy, the information about the Shadow Broker, the Reaper IFF, and, in the case of Sanctuary, an understanding that the Reapers can have their control and indoctrination artificially subverted (without the need for the dubious ally Leviathan). Shoot that information will probably help me understand the Reapers better post-war, and give me (and humanity) an advantage in studying and utilizing their technology over the other races.
Out of curiosity, in your head canon epilogue, which ending did you pick? Because if it's control, none of that jives with what Catalyst-Shepard says. if it's Destroy, I assume you're one who sees the Reaper corpses as being still semi-active like the Derelict Reaper from ME2. I've never been sure on that, personally.
I pick destroy, but I believe in utilizing destroy to create a state of control for humanity. As well, even if I did pick control, it actually fits in quite well with Renegade Shepard/Catalyst's response of 'the strong shouldn't have to fear being held back by the weak' and 'maintaining order'.
Retour en haut
