338 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

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

 

They always seemed like Cobra to me. 

https://www.youtube....h?v=DN034sBeF4c

[Jay P]

FTFY.

 

Did you ever find confirmation that Mass Effect: Andromeda would be staying in the Milky Way Galaxy?

[Giantdeathrobot]

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.

 

Likewise. I was pretty confused when Legion suddenly decided that the Reaper-upgraded Geth were ''life''. As if the Geth didn't even consider themselves life beforehand. And when legion in ME2 clearly stated the Geth will forge their own future, away from Reaper influence.

 

EDI, however, just made me facepalm. I liked the idea of having a sentient ship as a character, an ally. But of course Bioware thought we couldn't relate to that and decided the cameltoe-wielding fembot body + robosexual Joker was the best way to go.

[Degrees1991]

I hope not I really hope not.

[Killdren88]

I hope not. I hated that Cerberus took the spotlight from the Reapers. I wanted Harbinger, not Kai Lang.

[Ghost of Margie Thatcher]

It's hard to see how it would make sense.

[MrStoob]

Cerberus get a lot of stick for being the comedy panto villain, but Harbinger twirls his moustache while looking over his cape with the best of them.

[Guitar-Hero]

I wanna romance the entire fleet, by that i mean all the ships.... If joker can mac on your ship then i want to one up him.

[dreamgazer]

Cerberus get a lot of stick for being the comedy panto villain, but Harbinger twirls his moustache while looking over his cape with the best of them.

 

Cerberus as indoctrinated servants > Collectors and "I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS" Harbinger. 

[dreamgazer]

Anyway: Cerberus as they were? Probably not.  

 

Something like Cerberus, a combo of its leftovers and Terra Firma supporters touting human exceptionalism? Probably. 

[N7Jamaican]

I would love if they played a minor role, and quite different role than what they had in ME1-3.

[Natureguy85]

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.

 

What is the exact quote that says Archer had useful information? It's been awhile since I played and I had stopped Overlord anyway. Project Overlord had to do with the Geth, who are either allies or destroyed through the Rannoch arc. At any rate, useful isn't always enough. It was unnecessary.

 

By plan I mean specific actions or steps. It's like if a politician vaguely states "I will grow the economy." It's then the media and the citizens' job to ask "Ok, how will you do that?"

 

Cerberus' existence doesn't mean they are doing anything right other than staying under the radar.  What is your view of humanity that is advanced via Cerberus?

 

As much as you think Cerberus would be a massive success story without Shepard's interference, Overlord would have resulted in the doom of civilization without that interference. Archer wasn't right. Where are the million sons saved so the million mothers don't have to mourn? If that happened you'd have an argument but for all you know Archer gave Hackett a way to shave and not snag his scar.

 

Why kill Archer in self defense? What if he thinks it's in humanity's best interest? How do you know it's not?

 

You are correct that Shepard stops the cells in the first game and we don't know if something might have eventually come from the research. But if you don't do those missions, there won't be any benefits. That would actually have been cool to see Cerberus working with or using Husks, Thorian Creepers, or Rachnii if you didn't stop their cells in the first game.

[Natureguy85]

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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

If you're merely trying to speculate possible justifications in their heads, that would be fine. However you've been arguing for Cerberus as if those were true, when they are merely your headcanon. If that wasn't your intent, that's all well and good then. As I have said, your version of Cerberus would indeed have been much better than the one we got in the game.

 

Tyranny is the correct word and there are varying degrees of it, such as Soft Tyranny described by Tocqueville. Also, my opposition to Cerberus is not a ringing endorsement of the Alliance. I wish they'd pressed the ME2 idea more of the contrast. The Alliance is well meaning but ineffective while Cerberus is dangerous but at least willing to deal with the greater threat. The question then becomes what does Cerberus do and what is done about them once the Reaper conflict is over.

Your "could have beens" are not interpretation; they are a legitimate attempt at coming up with a better Cerberus. I like your ideas of what Cerberus should have been.

 

And how is this Sovereign selected? How can we trust the judgment of apparently lesser men an women to select such a Sovereign?

Words have meaning at the time they are written. Just like any contract, you can not simply reinterpret a law because words are used differently in modern times. It is certainly possible for any law, even the Constitution, to become outdated, but then it must be changed. The Constitution gives a process to make changes. The reason it is difficult to do so is to prevent the nation from taking wild swings due to a short-lived popular mood.

 

I agree that Cerberus' accumulation of power isn't bad on it's own. However, based on what I've seen, I have reason to think this will be bad for humanity and galactic civilization as a whole, let alone not beneficial to the same.

 

As for roleplaying, again Shepard is more defined than you apparently like. That's a legitimate criticism of the character design, but it's what Bioware decided to do.

 

You're dead on about Shepard's ability to doom other races. It would have been cool if they did a "he who fights monsters" or a "not so different" character arc with Shepard.

[Natureguy85]

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.

 

 

 

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!"

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

If a text like the Constitution is outdated, then it can and should be changed according to the proscribed process, not at the whims of one or a few who happen to rise to power. The meaning of the text doesn't change with the times. This is most applicable to law.

 

Canon or not, the games are Primary media. If important or critical information is in some other book or comic, they did it wrong. This is akin to saying I need to have read an Expanded Universe series for the plot of Star Wars to make sense. If it's side stuff like Anderson's mission with Saren or run in with Kai Leng, that's fine.

 

I was 100% sincere with my thanks as I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the US military. I never said you hate the military. I said many do, and it's true. There was no immaturity on my part, but yes, I was mocking you. You wouldn't be banned because I offered to move it to another forum.

 

There is no contradiction. Even if the ends don't justify the means, what's done is done. Let's say someone gave me stolen money that I had no way of returning. To put that money to good use would not justify or condone the theft, particularly if there were legitimate ways of gaining the same amount for that purpose.

 

Yes, the Catalyst would retort that it is the most advanced being, and maybe it is. However all that matters is that it is objectively wrong. The current cycle defies that Catalyst's premise that Synthetics always destroy their organic creators. This is one of the major reasons the endings sucked so much.

 

That dream is not worth striving towards because all attempts have been disastrous while my "petty individualism" has created the greatest society ever upon the Earth.

We don't need to worry about the Dark Age or mass starvation thanks to a rewrite in the form of the Extended Cut. Those were the logical consequences of the original endings. Control and Synthesis were ripe for interpretation before the Extended Cut, but are less so now.

 

Anyway, it's been fun but it sounds like you want to end the discussion. Very well.