338 réponses à ce sujet

[MrStoob]

More like...

 

I see your Dick Dastardly, and raise him a Wile E Coyote. 

[God]

The project was successful at what? It doesn't help beat the Reapers. You have no plan other than "improve humanity", and it's highly suspect that anything you promote will actually do that.

 

You keep defending Cerberus on the basis that they will benefit humanity despite their constant failure to do so. Gavin is attempting to convince himself that he's right as much as he is trying to convince Shepard. And once again, you've bought the lie that Cerberus is about humanity. Cerberus is about Cerberus. The only humans that matter are Cerberus.

 

It's funny though that you would kill Gavin Archer. He hides the information because he thinks he needs to in order to protect the very project you believe in. You make an incorrect judgement based on incomplete information despite saying you don't know enough about Cerberus to judge them.

 

God, on 18 Aug 2015 - 12:15 AM, said:

 

It's not my word vs your word, it's the horrible results vs "well, it might have been good".

 

The game doesn't say, but going by your insistence that "it's right there in the game", that should be enough for you. You can't cherry-pick my reasons that I created (I've never said otherwise) and say that "that's not what's in the game!" (let alone that what you claim is in the game about Cerberus is entirely implicit, and interpretive), and then turn around and deny the game when it states that Dr. Archer had useful information. Even if it isn't defined, you can't deny it because you don't like it, because then you'd be denying a part of the game you don't like, which you accuse me of.

 

As for improve humanity? What plan is there that's needed for you? You're just going to complain that stuff was left out of the game that could have been put in. As well, maybe in your opinion; here's my position. Why should I care what you think? You're not going to agree with it. There's no sense in trying to earn your approval on this matter.

 

They fail to benefit humanity due to external variables: more often than not, their experiments are meaningless (inconclusive) due to being stopped by some external force (such a Shepard) that outright prevents any benefit from being gained by their methods. That they've survived 25+ years before Shepard shows that they've been doing something right. And here's the interpretive view: what you think of as a benefit and what I think of as a benefit are two different things. You saying I'm not right, no matter how hard you try will make you any more objectively right here. We're arguing over benefits for a humanity we both want to see in separate places. You'd be correct in saying that my ideas, justifications, promotions, and methods don't benefit 'your' view of humanity, just as yours don't benefit my view of humanity. 

 

Dr. Archer is right. I gave him the chance to prove it, and he did, and the game acknowledges it as such. My Shepard certainly thinks he's right, and ultimately, he was indeed correct. Now, this is a subjective outcome: you can't say I'm not right without ignoring the actual benefits gained from Overlord. The game acknowledges these exist, and thus, shown or not, they do exist. What you can decide (this is again, interpretive, as everything has been) is whether the cost of the benefits is acceptable to you or not. That's for you to decide in your game. I think it is. Dr. Archer's research into AI and the Geth is worth the cost of David's happiness and life. For you, it's not. This is a benefit for Cerberus, and a benefit for humanity. 

 

I don't drink the Cerberus kool-aid, despite what you think. Cerberus represents what I think humanity could be, what I think we should be in purpose and goal. And the attitude towards achieving that goal. Cavalier. Exitus Acta Probat. Consequentialist. Machiavellian. Call it what you want.

 

I kill Dr. Archer because he's tried to have me killed. Up to this point, according to your scenario, he's not spoken to me, aided me, explained anything to me, or assisted me in any way. I can only conclude that he wants me dead. Through self-defense, I would have killed him. Not because he's bad, or not because he's wrong, but simply because his existence is a threat upon my own with all that your example allows me to see from him. Your example is heavily stacked to one side, asking what I'd do if I had no information, no communication, and no assistance from Dr. Archer. I'm telling you what I'd do. You did not say that he was hiding just the information from me. You implied, via your language, that he was utterly refusing to help me at all. 

 

It really is: it comes down to (once more, with feeling) interpretation. The "horrible results" of Cerberus' actions are not inherent to those actions.  The "horrible results" were caused by Shepard, an interloper who stopped the experiments before they could produce results. It's akin to saying an apple tree could not produce a quality cider because the tree was cut down before the apples could be grown. Cerberus was not allowed (not from a metagame perspective as you seem to be fond of but in-universe) by Shepard to extract the benefit from many of their experiments. Most experiments were ended before they were complete. Those that were completed were narratively cast aside.

[HarbingerCollector]

Considering we do not know exactly when the ARK is launched.  Could Cerberus still make a presence in the Andromeda galaxy? Or a least something similar? 

If that's really necessary.Just not make it like in ME3.
No Kai Leng 2.0
No Sare-ehm TIM 2.0
No better-than-everyone-else organization
No sith empire 2.0
No retarded generic evil dudes (Aka cerberus troops)
No overshadowing the main villian (Cerberus causing more trouble than the reapers alone)


If it was by me,Cerberus would be buried forever
 

[CptFalconPunch]

Godamn this series needs a reboot so badly...

[Iakus]

I wonder what the odds are that we'll get an actual pragmatic this time, like Jon Irenicus.

 

Or even a truly Magnificent Bastard like Sun Li?

[God]

One problem is that your "right reasons" are not Cerberus' reasons but are your imaginary Cerberus' reasons. Cerberus was not interested in a net benefit to humanity beyond TIM's twisted, tyrannical belief that his will was best for humanity. I am not sure if it goes that far or if he just wanted power, the rest of humanity be damned.

 

Your reasons are bad and wrong in both senses of the words. Not only are they imaginary, but they are tyrannical. It's not that you interpret things differently, it's that you imagine things into existence.

 

 

 

Your reasons are not explicitly stated at all in the lore from any kind of unbiased or omniscient source, nor are they implied to be completely true or accurate, even in ME3. In fact, no such judgement within the game, on the rationalization or justification of Cerberus' actions exist at all. You have perspectives and opinions from several characters, but the view of said characters is not a macro or objective perspective. My reasons are interpretative because, since we are given no objective rule or reason from the game or story itself (at any point), I have no ability to discern an objective reaction from the game over any event, experiment, or method. 

 

I must thus create my own reasons for why such an event occurs: you're not to take my provided reasons at face value and as objective explanations. They were not intended as such, nor were they meant to be interpreted from such an originalist (i.e. constitutional originalism) perspective. They were given as plausible possibilities, not objective truth. I'm not trying to be right here. I was never trying to be right. I was trying to provide a platform for which one might see or interpret Cerberus' actions and goals in a different light.

 

As well, there is no objective stance made by the game that what TIM wanted is what you proclaim. Also, there is no reason to believe that your own perspective is objective here on a tyrant. After all, one man's tyranny (you) is another man's ordered community (me). 

 

"Both senses"? You know, it's hard not to make a tu quoque fallacy here, but it needs saying that I can invert this here for you: what you and I see politically here is clearly different. As for inventing a reason for Cerberus, I have admitted as such. But never have I put that invention up as a veneer over the portrayal in the game: rather, I use it to provide more context where there is none. It's a thought experiment, and none of it contradicts canon or what is portrayed at all in the game. it's entirely based on my interpretation to Cerberus, since I'm a much more than meets the eye type person. What you see is not what you get.

 

There's no question that the alliance isn't particularly effective and ignores the Reaper problem. Cerberus' attention to it is the only good that can be said of them. However, in ME3, they have finally woken up and are now fighting the Reapers and attempting to bring back Earth. Cerberus opposes them. Cerberus opposes Shepard.

 

 

 

That's entirely why I think the alliance isn't an organization that I would support. They're ineffective, not just at preparing for or understanding a legitimate military threat, but also at governing and administrating over their jurisdiction. Cerberus represents an alternative to that, an appeal to the alliance (or a replacement entity) to take a more authoritative approach in their state decision matters, performing actions with their polity, not letting it be fettered by interest parties and bureaucracy. They would ensure the welfare of the people, but they wouldn't fetter themselves to them: it's important to understand how to make a people happy and productive, but its a mistake to allow them any voice in the decision making process whatsoever. Cerberus takes that approach of a 'soft' authority (there isn't any reason to believe that they are a totalitarian system for example (not that you or I have referred to it beyond a statement of tyranny), but a focus on the government being in charge, not the people). It's hardly something akin to the historical usage of the term 'tyranny' (and ironically a rather liberal - and incorrect - dispensation of the word is often used by those I feel are affiliated with what you view as ideally political.)

 

Back to the alliance: they didn't wake up soon enough to smell the coffee to be absolved or forgiven for their failure. They refused to see issue with the threat of the Reapers until they (the Reapers) were quite literally on top of them. Earth was lost immediately, as was Arcturus (the political and military hub of the alliance). Not that they wouldn't have been lost, but they definitely could have done more to inform than to deny the problem until it was physically destroying the building they were in. For that, Cerberus is indeed entirely greater (in my opinion), in that what they did was acknowledgement of the threat, and they at least tried to do something, to prepare humanity, and to ensure that we had some kind of counter-measure. Hell, I think Cerberus was indoctrinated because they were trying so hard to actually find a means to combat the Reapers that overexposure simply got the better of some of them. I honestly can't say what caused TIM to decide that active implantation of Reaper tech into himself was a good idea: I can only assume that he thought he could control of the resources at Sanctuary made this possible. Granted, he had some research from the Grayson experiment to back up his assertions.

 

Technically speaking, it's the other way around. Shepard opposes Cerberus, what with TIM also saying that he isn't going to give up on Shepard, and that he would like him to see things from his perspective. It's a bit mutual, though my Shepard doesn't really see the benefit of implanting Reaper tech into oneself. TIM could have been right on the money if not for that catch. 

 

But alas, this is more 'could have been's', once more caused by interpretation. I should make that a catchphrase or something. 

 

No, like it or not, this discussion is political/philosophical. I made the earlier references to Plato's Republic for a reason. I could also reference Leviathan and Hobbes' idea of a Sovereign, considering the double meaning in a Mass Effect discussion.

 

 

 

I know it's philosophical in nature: the issue is whether we make it political in nature (going as far as debating actual politics, as you keep suggesting. I'm not debating here about that. It's not the place, and I don't feel like getting banned.) 

 

But yes, I do have preference for a Hobbesian type Sovereign, along with a Machiavellian type attitude to leadership and rulership, as well as a general Platonian anarchy: I am of the opinion (as is a recent trend in modern political theorists) that Plato was not actually advocating a type of government so much as he was a type of society: He wanted (i.e. believed best) the government to socially construct and condition the society to accept a sort of meritocratic caste system to enhance a collective (and some would say Communitarian) where people are dedicated to the justice and good of society as defined in their role in society. Now, I'm a loose constructionist, not an originalist (as far as overall constitutions go, including the U.S. Constitution). It's no different for a Platonian society here: Just as I don't believe in taking everything in the Constitution at face value, I don't believe in taking everything Plato says at face value either. I believe in updating it to better suit our modern world, and interpreting (and changing) the meaning of the text (both for the Platonian society and the U.S. Constitution) to be more reflective of the here and now, not 240 or 3000 odd years ago. But back to the Republic, the society would be constructed to a point where government would essentially be redundant and unnecessary, as people would be so conditioned to perform their duty and function and society that no oversight would be necessary. Of course, you would still have a 'Gold-class' Philosopher-King at the top of the system to determine what course or direction that he will guide society. And according to Plato, there is an ultimate goal in mind.

 

The ultimate goal? Transcendence. Read up on what Plato was talking about: we can interpret this today to mean something akin to the Singularity.

 

One that was demonstrated in the game to be necessary or even helpful to defeating the Reapers. You're right that they weren't doing it "for the evulz", they were attempting to accumulate power for themselves. This isn't interpretation; it's right there in the games.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that Cerberus wasn't trying to accumulate power: They were. But unlike you, I don't see that as a bad thing. What matters to me is what that power is going to be used for. I don't mind allocating power and putting it into one entity (political and actual power combined).

 

Yes, you can support Cerberus is ME2, which is why it's a shame that they made them obvious bad guys in ME3.

 

You are not a consequentialist because you apparently don't care what the ultimate results are. The idea that something good might possibly occur, however unlikely, is apparently enough for you. if you don't believe any action is bad until you have all the information, why do judge actions as good without all the information?

 

Our differing perspectives come from you imposing your imaginary Cerberus onto the one that's in the games and justifying the one in the games. As I said, your imaginary Cerberus would be a much more gray entity. You don't have an interpretive approach, you have an imaginative one. I denounce your views because they do not work as justifications for the actions you seek to defend with them. They do not, nor were they likely to, have the results you claim would be intended.

 

No, it's not left to interpretation; it's simply inconsistent. They are whatever the writer says they are. Is this bad writing? Yes. Is it what we have to work/deal with? Also yes

 

 

 

 

It is indeed. Granted, I disagree on the idea of 'bad guy' so much as I believe it was indoctrination, brainwashing, and just plain bad decision making.

 

I am indeed a consequentialist: the end result of the actions were not so much dictated by the actions themselves or Cerberus than by an interloping external party (Shepard). As I've stated, I disagree with your notion that the actions are inherently bad in and of themselves. Now, we can't know how the actions or experiments would have turned out: they were terminated before they were concluded (which is something I've been trying to tell you for 2 odd pages now). Thus, my response is that I can't judge the actions because they weren't finished (almost all entirely beyond the control of Cerberus themselves). I can't judge it to be good, either. If you'll notice in my posts, I've not once said I ever judged the actions to be good. What I have given is potential/hypothetical justifications and reasons for why Cerberus was doing what they were doing. I am not creating a goal so much as speculating what it was. I'm not saying that some goal or the other was the intended outcome (most programs we cannot truly know for certain due to the games simple lack of definition on those matters). I'm "war-gaming", if you will, speculating on the possible outcomes that would rationally justify such actions. And in the case (or assumption) that the outcome or goal that I have war-gamed was indeed what Cerberus was trying to go for (we are never told what it was, so in this case, my interpretation, my imagination, and yes, my creation, is a valid idea as there is no contrary definition of their plan), then I do indeed support their methods.

 

As I just said, I do this because there is so little actual definition to Cerberus that, yes, we really are left with our imagination to interpret what Cerberus was trying to achieve. As for my idea of Cerberus (and my view on them, going by the game), yes, it would be quite grey. I prefer it that way. I like complexities in storytelling.

 

But rather, it is interpretive. Imaginative and interpretive are one and the same: granted, by all indications, you're an originalist-type thinker, so I have no doubt that you don't accept this premise. Which to me, is only further validation that it is indeed an interpretive premise, as it shows that we both interpret the premise in entirely different ways.

 

As for how my justifications don't work on the actions taken by Cerberus, you'll have to prove to me how they don't. Because you don't want them to work (as I suspect)? You're speculating here (with language such as 'likely'). I acknowledge that. You disagree. But to state that they objectively won't work requires more evidence than you or I have. You realize this correct? If you pursue this claim, you must objectively prove your assertion. I have not objectively proved my justification, nor do I intend to try. It is not possible, as this is a question that is much like the posit of a God (that isn't me) existing. Due to no concrete information provided anywhere within the lore, it is not possible to prove this assertion. 

 

... Which is exactly how its left to interpretation to begin with. Inconsistencies don't breed understanding when it contradicts itself. 

 

The next statement is true. The last statement was false.

 

This is a contradiction in which a literalist/originalist interpretation cannot logically function. This isn't to say that this is what Cerberus, is but due to the writing, we can't take an approach without some type of interpretation, nor make judgement that works without contradicting one side unless we take our own ideas into consideration, especially when those ideas (like mine) deal with all that is unsaid, unstated, and unmentioned in the lore.

 

it is true that it allows you to make Shepard very inconsistent, but there is only so much wiggle room. Ultimately Shepard and TIM oppose each other, even if Shepard wishes TIM and he could just be friends. As you said, the game doesn't let you have the agency you want. It is what it is.

 

Man, you won't even discuss history and economics? Lame. Uh oh, I've offended the Sovereign and now he shall seek to have me silenced. Help, help, I'm being repressed! No surprise though.

 

 

But I can interpret my Shepard beyond what the game shows us. It's characterization and roleplaying. You seem to be opposed to that. 

 

As well, the inconsistency of the game comes as very peculiar when you can outright be as bad to other races (if not worse) as you purport Cerberus to be towards humans: over the course of the series, you can condemn no less than 4 races to extinction, and of which you can state indifference and even sadism. It's odd that the game wretches that from your control in regards to Cerberus. Which is why I choose to instead interpret my own meaning from that. 

 

I won't discuss it when draws us off-topic and can potentially ignite an inflammatory discussion: This is against the site-rules. I'm telling you to stop trying to provoke a discussion here. If you want to act immature and uncivil, its your own loss. I'd prefer you stopped, and I'd appeal to authority to have you removed since it's just you trying to go on a tangent about why your line of thinking is superior. Let's just leave it unsaid. I'd rather not be banned.

[guntar74]

Gonna be great if our characters actually a Cerberus mole that TIM sent to infiltrate and expand into the new galaxy.

 

But no seriously I hope they are done with Cerberus and many other factions. Time for new things

[Giantdeathrobot]

I wonder what the odds are that we'll get an actual pragmatic this time, like Jon Irenicus.

 

Or even a truly Magnificent Bastard like Sun Li?

 

We do need a villain that outsmarts the PC. Seems it's been too long since Bioware had one that offered such a challenge. 

 

But I'll just reiterate: please no more Cerberus. Apart from the ending, if there's one part of the original trilogy that needs to be dead and buried, it's TIM's silly Sith empire.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I wonder what the odds are that we'll get an actual pragmatic this time, like Jon Irenicus.

 

Or even a truly Magnificent Bastard like Sun Li?

I always laugh at how the namesake of that trope, Field Marshall Erwin "The Desert Fox" Rommel,  isn't an example of that trope since he was too nice of a guy to count. I would love to have a Rommel-like character. 

[God]

And yet you defend them based on how you just admitted they are not written. And yes, I am mostly generally very literal. Words mean things. When a law is passed, it and it's writers mean a particular thing and that is how it is to be interpreted. It's called Originalism. The problem with your approach is that you disregard words and context to make things fit into whatever shape you wish at that particular moment.

It's easier to see the flawed man with all the backstory TIM gets in the comics and, I assume, the books. None of that is present in the games though. He may want human dominance, but he sees himself at the top of humans in that scenario. He wants his own power more than anything else. He may indeed completely believe that it is in humanity's best interests, but that doesn't make it so.

 

 

 

I defend them based on speculation that I've made due to a lack of concrete, solid information that depicts their goals: beyond their standard of improving humanity, we can't say what Cerberus' specific goal is for each experiment. This is why I brainstorm a justification that is plausible. I'm not saying it's what happens. I'm not saying that that's what Cerberus is going for. But I am trying to create a plausible goal that does justify such methodology.

 

On that, I gathered that you were an originalist. And to an extent, I can agree on recent issues that affect current societal and cultural norms and values. But it is precisely the reason why I do not support such an view of older texts and laws (like the Constitution) as they were written at a time that didn't take changing values and ideas into consideration: simply put, it's outdated. It's precisely why what you see as a problem with my approach is what I consider the problem with yours: the writers of the Constitution for example didn't write that document with the 21st century (or 20th, or even 19th) in mind. They wrote it according to their own values, problems, issues, and ideas at the time. It's not adaptable. It demands we adhere to the interpretation of late 18th century politicians and philosophers without even considering the changes, progress, growth, and evolution of our own culture. It doesn't allow for us to interpret the issues as their relevance to today. It only allows us to think in terms of what the founders wanted or thought, not what we ourselves want or think should be.

 

Technically speaking, that's still untrue. The expanded universe materials are regarded by BW as canon, and thus TIM does indeed follow his motivations and ideology from the books inside the games. The only exception to this is ME Deception, which has more or less been disregarded by BW as canon (and an informal apology to the fans from them).

 

And with the motivations given in the books and comics from TIM's perspective, he clearly isn't a power-mad lunatic. Besides, the game itself doesn't elaborate on this point. There's no sense for you to tell me that I'm wrong here and say that TIM is objectively power-mad for himself. It's simply not true at all.

 

And the outcome of Cerberus' actions is just dead humans and slowing down the defeat of the Reapers. That's been my entire point.

 

 

 

Prior to ME3, that was because we never allowed them to actually succeed. The outcome of their actions is what it is because we never let them reach their fruition. In ME3 itself, what they do is partially based off of indoctrination, but their movements and efforts again are heavily hindered by what we do. 

 

Your point has been more of "Cerberus' actions were inherently wrong and tyrannical, and you're wrong and tyrannical for thinking that they're right!"

 

 

So much for you loving to debate me. I can't say I'm surprised that you'd avoid it. Like I said, the Gold class don't like being challenged. It somewhat surprises me that you're in the Army, as most leftists hate the military, but thank you for your service. Personally, I enjoy talking to liberals, though your tyrannical mindset does bother me.

 

 

 

When you resort to condescending immaturity (such as right now) as well as trying to provoke a political debate (which is against the rules of the forum, and I certainly don't want a ban, thank you very much), then yes, I can sideline my desire for honest argument. 

 

On the next note, I really am insulted now: keep your thanks, especially after your back-handed compliment. What you're saying now, about leftists hating the military, is downright insulting and false. We don't hate the military, we hate how its used as a hammer for stupid reasons. But I'm going to sidestep this issue and simply move on. What's one guy's insincere reactionary gratitude for my own experiences that are mine alone? It's not worth my own resentment. Again, as I've said, my 'tyrannical' views are only tyrannical because you don't like them. It sucks that it bothers you, but at the end of the day, I really don't care. This is a discussion for another place, and one I'm not going to get drawn into.

 

First though, I'm going to count to 10... Alright, angers gone, back to serenity. I apologize for the outburst. Let us leave it at that.

 

As I said before, use and even utility of the knowledge does not condone or justify the actions. Not using the knowledge doesn't bring people back or undo what was done, so why not use it?

 

 

 

And I think you're completely false here with the first sentence, and completely contradictory of your first sentence with the second.

 

First, you take a deontological view that no ends could justify the means, then advocate using the ends to justify the means? This is a contradiction. Which is it? Are you taking a deontological approach of the ends not justifying the means, or are you taking the more teleological exitus acta probat route?

And there is no reason to believe your order or purpose is good for humanity. I'm not for a strict democracy either, and favor a republic. The reason I don't like the ending of ME3 is that we have to pick from the Catalyst's options. The appropriate end of the game would be for Shepard to ask the Catalyst the same question I've been asking you; "who are you to decide the fate of this galaxy?" The galaxy doesn't need the Reapers, their order, or their solution. It needs them to go away.

 

Well the original endings did leave a lot to interpretation, though the EC takes some of that away.

 

 

 

Why not? Strong, centralized leadership that is decisive and sovereign on the political and macroeconomic level? I'm not advocating a cult of personality around the sovereign or leadership, and I'm not trying to deny or oppress the people from their hobby's and beliefs. My view isn't even Marxist, although I have a very healthy respect and admiration for his political theory. 

 

The Catalyst would simply retort that it is the most advanced and intelligent intellect in the galaxy (it is) and that it has the power to back up its assertion (it does) with the history and track record of organics that prove that we are not capable of sustaining ourselves in the long-term. I entirely agree with the Catalyst in its assertion. Who is the Catalyst to you? Quite simple: It is, for all intents and purposes, god. Just as my Shepard decides the fate of the galaxy based on his own experience, strength, capability, and vision. Without it, your petty individualism will simply tear yourselves apart and cause far more suffering and destruction than any solution that Shepard, the Reapers, or Cerberus could ever create. It's why I support order and authority over unfettered freedom and individual liberty, until we ourselves can function as gods, with the vision and power to achieve total egalitarianism and utopia (a longshot dream that's admittedly unlikely if not impossible, but still worth striving towards).

 

It does: namely, we don't need to worry about a 10,000 year technological dark age as was implied in developer statements. We know that there won't be galactic scale holocaust from hunger and exposure for the vast majority of the galaxy's denizens. We know that galactic society will completely recover within a few decades (as stated by twitter canon). But other things, like Renegade control, are still entirely up for interpretation.

[God]

Yes, it is optional to do the ME1 Cerberus missions. So let's not do them. Where are those benefits?

 

It being optional just means that if you played it, that Shepard did it. If not, he/she didn't. The only exceptions are when Bioware makes canon events occur even without Shepard's involvement. The definite ones are the destruction of the Alpha Relay, Liara as Shadow Broker, and Cerberus recovery of Human Reaper bits. I think Bring Down the Sky might also happen, though without Shepard to stop them, the Batarians are successful in the asteroid drop on the planet.

 

Hammerhead was useless because I didn't use it. It's not meta-gaming as much as it is hindsight. What use was Hammerhead, other than being fun, in my opinion?

 

Liara becomes the Shadow Broker even without Shepard's help. True, that is meta-gaming, but it shows that it was not necessary. So Cerberus helps Shepard do something he doesn't need to do. I'm looking for something essential to stop the Reapers here.

 

The IFF is actually something necessary. It's actually the one place where you can argue that the risks Cerberus put it's people in were worthwhile. The one hole in that argument (and the plot with that section) is that they didn't know they needed the IFF when that team went there. That it's just lying there on a table was silly.

 

I can't say why you shouldn't because you've convinced yourself of your own greatness and cause. However you've not given any reason I should trust you with such power, any reason I should think you have humanity's best interests at heart, nor any reason to believe your interests are actually in humanity's best interest, even with good intentions.

 

Unseen and invisible, likely as they were meant to be. This is a case of Schrodinger's Cat logic: what happens next, the benefits, both exist and don't exist at the same time. There is no further mention in the story about Cerberus' actions in ME1. We only have what we want as our conclusions. I prefer to believe that the operations and experiments were successful. There is nothing that states otherwise. It isn't supported, but it isn't disproved. Hence the simultaneous existence and non-existence.

 

The second statement, I have no comment on. I never stated or argued otherwise on that. I am in concurrence, though not total agreement, but we'll leave it at that.

 

In lore? The Hammerhead is a fast, rapid deployable combat vehicle that is incredibly agile and maneuverable. It is capable of overcoming nearly all types of terrain via its ability to hover and even use jumping capability to overcome all but the most formidable (and tall obstacles). As for why it was useless? Well, the alliance was testing it and studying its capabilities: an off-hand comment by Cortez states that the labs testing the Hammerhead were likely demolished during the Reaper invasion of Earth. That's the last we hear in game of the Hammerhead and its fate.

 

The thing about the Reapers is that there's still largely no plan or idea from anyone on how to truly fight them. Cerberus gets points because they're the only ones trying (and even preparing). In universe, we don't know what exactly will constitute a war with the Reapers. TIM has some ideas, and he does in fact suspect that the IFF was necessary. Studying the Reaper in orbit around the brown dwarf in ME2 (and the weapon that killed it) are steps to coming up with a solution to the Reaper problem. 

 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything here. I don't need to. I suspect there's no reason that you'd accept, not just from me, but from anyone who made a case for authoritarianism (even the benevolent kind). You're a very laissez-faire type person with government and economics. I disagree, but this isn't the place, nor do I wish to be the person (at this point) to engage in such a discussion.

[God]

I always laugh at how the namesake of that trope, Field Marshall Erwin "The Desert Fox" Rommel,  isn't an example of that trope since he was too nice of a guy to count. I would love to have a Rommel-like character. 

 

His conduct isn't what earned him the title. Nor do I really think that behavior is really all that important of a qualifier here for the 'MB' title/trope.

 

Rommel had his issues, but his conduct was not one of them. He was a great general in the classical sense, as in he was an utterly brilliant tactician, and an above-average strategist, the qualities of a general or leader that were prized in the old system of warfare. He also had the overall better combat gear and equipment compared to the Allies. However, in terms of the shifting art of war, he was rather inept. He wasn't good at politics and winning the minds of his compatriots and peers, he was insufficiently skilled at logistical planning and communication, and he wasn't very practical with his forces in a truly devious strategic sense. 

 

Nowadays, wars and battles aren't won by who is the better tactician or strategist. And WWII is where that philosophy (along with the numerous conflicts of the late 19th century, early 20th century, and First World War) really lost its credibility, as the changing technology and philosophy of war made that mindset seriously obsolescent.

[Merengues 1945]

He wrote Halo 4 before coming to Mass Effect.

 

Halo 4 is well loved by a lot of people, but some of his writing was a bit derivative in terms of sci-fi tropes.

 

Come on, Halo 4 was the second best Halo after Reach... It made the Masterchief feel less of a machine, Cortana feel more human than before and it overall has a good plot for a racy-paced shooter.

 

If the new ME it's at the same level of writing, It would still be a more than decent game.

 

In any case, I hope they don't but being realistic, humans are hateful by nature, at some point in history, they'll return. History repeats itself, and at some point someon will try to  put human nterest over that of others

[God]

Come on, Halo 4 was the second best Halo after Reach... It made the Masterchief feel less of a machine, Cortana feel more human than before and it overall has a good plot for a racy-paced shooter.

 

If the new ME it's at the same level of writing, It would still be a more than decent game.

 

In any case, I hope they don't but being realistic, humans are hateful by nature, at some point in history, they'll return. History repeats itself, and at some point someon will try to  put human nterest over that of others

 

That's just it though, there's a reason for it: S-II's, by being made into the perfect human warriors, are more or less conditioned to be 'machines' in combat. It's even more prominent with the S-III's, who were trained to be that way to keep their enormous amount of anger and aggression under control (since, as Alpha company proved, that aggression became reckless after a period of constant engagement with the Covenant.)

[Ahriman]

Cortana feel more human than before 

I wouldn't call making AI more human than before a good writing, but everyone to his own.

[Vortex13]

I wouldn't call making AI more human than before a good writing, but everyone to his own.

 

Exactly, a robot or AI that is more humanized isn't something new; it's what occurs in 99.9999% of all sci-fi where the synthetic in question is an ally. A robot that wants to be a robot though….

 

Spoiler

 

 

Going off that point, I don't really see why a robot wanting to 'be human' is considered such a praise-worthy goal by the narrative of the majority of science fiction. It's either Pinocchio tropes, like Commander Data, or it's evil murderbots that want to kill us because 'reasons', like Skynet. There is no middle ground here; ME 2's version of the Geth had it, but it was quickly thrown out the airlock for ME 3.

 

Why is it that an artificial intelligence can't be content with being the entity that it is? Why does it either have to opine about wanting to be 'a real boy' or try and kill us?

[God]

Exactly, a robot or AI that is more humanized isn't something new; it's what occurs in 99.9999% of all sci-fi where the synthetic in question is an ally. A robot that wants to be a robot though….

 

Spoiler

 

 

Going off that point, I don't really see why a robot wanting to 'be human' is considered such a praise-worthy goal by the narrative of the majority of science fiction. It's either Pinocchio tropes, like Commander Data, or it's evil murderbots that want to kill us because 'reasons', like Skynet. There is no middle ground here; ME 2's version of the Geth had it, but it was quickly thrown out the airlock for ME 3.

 

Why is it that an artificial intelligence can't be content with being the entity that it is? Why does it either have to opine about wanting to be 'a real boy' or try and kill us?

 

In the case of Cortana (and the AI in Halo), this isn't entirely the case for every issue. For Cortana, the big reason is due to the connection between herself and the Master Chief's Spartan neural interface, she's able to interface directly with not only his armor, but his mind and senses: She sees what he sees, smells what he smells, hears what he hears, and can feel what he feels (on a physical level, not emotionally or mentally). She can't read his mind for instance, but she can feel what its like to have his own physical senses. As well, its simply part of her nature, possibly stemming from her creation: she is the only human AI that was created from a living person (a clone of Doctor Halsey, to be precise). 

 

It's also important to know that for the more sophisticated "smart" AI's in Halo (the AI that are capable of growth, development, sapience, sentience, etc.) are very broad with their personalities and even motivations: Many of them, such as Black Box feel (and know) that they are superior to humans, and are even somewhat aloof to them (though not hostile or outright mean to them). The reason many of them act human however is because that is essentially what they came from. All smart AI's are created from an external brain donor, someone who has given their brain to the creation of AI via neural network mapping to create the core matrix of an AI. 

 

The Forerunner even knowingly put their entire fleets and armies under the control of AI. They openly acknowledged that their Contender-class Metarch AI (Mendicant Bias and Offensive Bias) were quite possibly the most advanced and intelligent intellects in the known universe, more intelligent than them and capable of total rational thought and emotive responses: Mendicant Bias, after its defection to the Flood, acted very erratically and much anger and zeal towards the Forerunners, as it had been convinced by the Flood that the Forerunner were the true villains of the galaxy. There was no flaw in programming that was exploited, no physical tampering of hardware. The Gravemind simply convinced the AI that the Forerunners were selfishly hoarding power to maintain the status quo, rather than allow evolution to take its natural course (the Flood). 

[Iakus]

Exactly, a robot or AI that is more humanized isn't something new; it's what occurs in 99.9999% of all sci-fi where the synthetic in question is an ally. A robot that wants to be a robot though….

 

Spoiler

 

 

Going off that point, I don't really see why a robot wanting to 'be human' is considered such a praise-worthy goal by the narrative of the majority of science fiction. It's either Pinocchio tropes, like Commander Data, or it's evil murderbots that want to kill us because 'reasons', like Skynet. There is no middle ground here; ME 2's version of the Geth had it, but it was quickly thrown out the airlock for ME 3.

 

Why is it that an artificial intelligence can't be content with being the entity that it is? Why does it either have to opine about wanting to be 'a real boy' or try and kill us?

An AI shouldn't be a Pinocchio, who dreams of being human, or even anthropomorphized, really.  But an AI should be able to seem alive.  Not human, but still a living being.

 

I haven't played any of the Halo games, so I can't speak to whether or not the current lead writer might be able to pull it off or not.  But Chris L'etoile did well with Legion in ME2, I think.

[Vortex13]

In the case of Cortana (and the AI in Halo), this isn't entirely the case for every issue. For Cortana, the big reason is due to the connection between herself and the Master Chief's Spartan neural interface, she's able to interface directly with not only his armor, but his mind and senses: She sees what he sees, smells what he smells, hears what he hears, and can feel what he feels (on a physical level, not emotionally or mentally). She can't read his mind for instance, but she can feel what its like to have his own physical senses. As well, its simply part of her nature, possibly stemming from her creation: she is the only human AI that was created from a living person (a clone of Doctor Halsey, to be precise). 

 

It's also important to know that for the more sophisticated "smart" AI's in Halo (the AI that are capable of growth, development, sapience, sentience, etc.) are very broad with their personalities and even motivations: Many of them, such as Black Box feel (and know) that they are superior to humans, and are even somewhat aloof to them (though not hostile or outright mean to them). The reason many of them act human however is because that is essentially what they came from. All smart AI's are created from an external brain donor, someone who has given their brain to the creation of AI via neural network mapping to create the core matrix of an AI. 

 

The Forerunner even knowingly put their entire fleets and armies under the control of AI. They openly acknowledged that their Contender-class Metarch AI (Mendicant Bias and Offensive Bias) were quite possibly the most advanced and intelligent intellects in the known universe, more intelligent than them and capable of total rational thought and emotive responses: Mendicant Bias, after its defection to the Flood, acted very erratically and much anger and zeal towards the Forerunners, as it had been convinced by the Flood that the Forerunner were the true villains of the galaxy. There was no flaw in programming that was exploited, no physical tampering of hardware. The Gravemind simply convinced the AI that the Forerunners were selfishly hoarding power to maintain the status quo, rather than allow evolution to take its natural course (the Flood). 

 

I was speaking more for the depiction of AIs in the genre as a whole.

 

Cortana always had a relationship with the Master Chief, and its true that the nature of their situation would likely result in some form of attachment. Still, I was rather underwhelmed with the development over the course of Halo 3 - 4. It's a troupe that has been used ad nausum throughout science fiction; the quality of writing doesn't change the fact that it has been covered many, many times already in various forms of media. 

 

To be honest, the focus on MC and Cortona's relationship, and the stereotypical use of humanity as the Übermensch of the universe is what really turned me off to the setting.

[Vortex13]

An AI shouldn't be a Pinocchio, who dreams of being human, or even anthropomorphized, really.  But an AI should be able to seem alive.  Not human, but still a living being.

 

I haven't played any of the Halo games, so I can't speak to whether or not the current lead writer might be able to pull it off or not.  But Chris L'etoile did well with Legion in ME2, I think.

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Chris was able to keep the distinction of aliens as aliens (synthetics included) prominent in the setting; and it was a nice breath of fresh air. Once he left, a great portion of the variety and uniqueness of Mass Effect left with him; EDI's 'romance' arc, the Geth's upgrade, etc.

[In Exile]

An AI shouldn't be a Pinocchio, who dreams of being human, or even anthropomorphized, really.  But an AI should be able to seem alive.  Not human, but still a living being.

 

I haven't played any of the Halo games, so I can't speak to whether or not the current lead writer might be able to pull it off or not.  But Chris L'etoile did well with Legion in ME2, I think.

 

You can't talk about AI - in the way we think of AI (i.e., speaking, reasoning in comprehensible ways, having a recognizable physical body with a somewhat relatable body plan) - without essentially anthropomorphizing it. Legion in ME2 is completely anthropomorphized - the minor differences are fluff. Speaking in third person, having a somewhat different type of social structure, etc.

[Vortex13]

You can't talk about AI - in the way we think of AI (i.e., speaking, reasoning in comprehensible ways, having a recognizable physical body with a somewhat relatable body plan) - without essentially anthropomorphizing it. Legion in ME2 is completely anthropomorphized - the minor differences are fluff. Speaking in third person, having a somewhat different type of social structure, etc.

 

True, but at least an attempt was made to make Legion and the Geth different from all the other AI in fiction. It was all abandoned come ME 3, but prior to that the Geth were different enough from the majority of the galaxy's inhabitants to warrant the 'alien' descriptor.

[Jorji Costava]

You can't talk about AI - in the way we think of AI (i.e., speaking, reasoning in comprehensible ways, having a recognizable physical body with a somewhat relatable body plan) - without essentially anthropomorphizing it. Legion in ME2 is completely anthropomorphized - the minor differences are fluff. Speaking in third person, having a somewhat different type of social structure, etc.

 

I've always thought of the subplot of organic/synthetic relations as being a thinly veiled metaphor for cultural difference, so the Geth having a different social structure is anything but fluff. This is especially so when you consider how shockingly similar the other alien cultures are to affluent 21st century humans: The aliens of ME like hanging out in clubs and dancing to electronic music, drinking in bars, playing video games, watching musicals, etc. It's highly unlikely that all these specific social practices could have evolved independently in completely different parts of the galaxy. I'm not suggesting that ME is under some obligation to be more realistic on this matter (we've seen how problematic that concept can get elsewhere on these boards), but I think it does highlight that the differences between the Geth and ourselves are deeper than they may appear.

 

This is where I have a disagreement with the whole Pinocchio arc of ME3; there's a difference between being somewhat anthropomorphic and wanting to be even more so. For me, to suggest that the Geth need to become more individualistic to 'evolve' or whatever just smacks of easy self-congratulation: "Of course our way of life is the best way that everyone should be striving towards." I would have preferred for the writers to have pursued a different path here.

[Vortex13]

This is where I have a disagreement with the whole Pinocchio arc of ME3; there's a difference between being somewhat anthropomorphic and wanting to be even more so. For me, to suggest that the Geth need to become more individualistic to 'evolve' or whatever just smacks of easy self-congratulation: "Of course our way of life is the best way that everyone should be striving towards." I would have preferred for the writers to have pursued a different path here.

You hit the nail on the head. The whole outcome of the plotlines surrounding the Geth and EDI have this almost smugness to them. The notion that neither of those characters were 'truly alive' until they became like us is so shallow; and in any real world situation would come across as incredibly xenophobic/racist.

Just replace the Geth and EDI with a minority population and talk about how those people didn't actually have worth until they decided to emulate every facet of the majority.

[Omega Torsk]

I'd prefer not seeing them as anything more than some kind of racist, futuristic cult. Can we just live and let die in regards to Cerberus and find another secondary antagonist?