437 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

This ain't a scene, it's a god damn flame war!

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 02:54 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Alex_SM wrote...

well, the important point is that it may have been a bad Idea to use that simile.

it's just the internet. no worries.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dictionary word of the day:

great  (grt)adj. great·er,
great·est
1. Very large in size.
2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.
3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large.
4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay.
5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate.
8. Superior in quality or character; noble: "For he was great, ere fortune made him so"
(John Dryden).
9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
11. Grand; aristocratic.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 02:54 .

[Dean_the_Young]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Aiken Drum wrote...

Every time people have messed with Reaper tech it has gone poorly. I blew it without a moment's heartsearching. Sure the tech could be useful, but the price and the risks were too great. There was no way I was going to set TIM and Cerberus up with that. They couldn't even control mindless Rachni and Thorian Creepers, so letting them loose on the Collector base? I'd rather give a monkey a nuclear trigger disguised as a banana.

I know. I think that's the point of the game. just do ALL of the missions (even side missions for Cerberus, and noticed how alot of their OWN projects have internal conflict or some type of bloodshed). 
Opening scene m(attacked), Lazarus Project Base (attacked), Horizon (attacked), "disabled" Collectors' Vessel (attacked), and the Reaper IFF (attacked by your own cerberus people who were husks)... why keep a base to have cerberus repeat their cycle of projects and experiments always going wrong?

Wait... did you seriously just try to blame the Normandy SR1's death on Cerberus? And Horizon? (That one actually is true, but the only reason it survived at all, and other colonies weren't hit, was in a successful Cerberus-planed counter-attack.) The Collector Vessel I could understand anger despite it being something you would have done regardless, but the Reaper IFF was an unavoidable risk they tried to avoid in the first place.

[Alex_SM]

You misunderstand. Auswitz were incredibly useful tools for convincing the American people that a land war in Europe against a doomed foe who posed no real threat to America was, in hindsight, a really good idea, and something they could be proud of for generations... unlike WW1, where defeating the original big bad german empire was soon met with a collective yawn and return to traditional European-related isolationishm. Not even the Pacific War, against the enemy who really did attack us, launch a war against us and our possessions, and committed crimes equal to or greater than the ****s in many respects, not even that resonates in the same way as a good old reference to **** Germany.

Auswitz has provided the American justification for action for nearly half a century since the place died. Ask any given American why Hitler was so bad and their first word won't be 'invaded Poland', 'disregard of civil libierties', or 'ugly mustache'. Their first thought will be the concentration camps like Auswitz, which is probably the only one they remember. At which point Auswitz becomes the link to any number of modern crusades. Have to stop -strongman X-? He's like Hitler, which means Auswitz! Does -dictator Y- have internment camps? Auswitz!

WW2 is the American 'good war', completely justified violence, because of the ****s, and their most infamous crime is Auswitz. It remains on a scale unrivaled in American lexicon, and not because WW2 Europe was the most desperate, most fanatical, or most conventionally evil entity of the day. Other wars had those, and we've forgotten most of them.

Sad to say, but the spirit of Auswitz gets used more than a ten dollar ****.

well, that may have happend in the USA, but I can assure you that is not the same for Europe. 

Auswitz is horrible because it is a symbol for evil. It is a symbol for evil because it was used to kill a lot of people. If Auswitz is not used to kill a lot of people but rather to help a lot of people, the basis for it's symbology is baseless and nothing but a superstition. To say that using something in an entirely different way is becoming your enemy is a laughable conceit and inability to distinguish what makes your enemy terrible.

There's a large gulf between 'using' and 'continuing the prior actions exactly.' Auswitz was used after capture: it was used as a propoganda tool in the war, it's barracks were used for some time to keep holding the prisoners (and soldiers) while logistics were moved around. It was used as war crimes evidence. It has been used as political justification for entirely separate wars and actions.

It has even fallen so low as to be used as a prop in internet debates by people who don't recognize irony.

Congratulations, Alex. You've become Hitler!

Hey, if you can understand it in your own way and twist it a bit  you are free to do it, that's a war I can't fight; as a good spanish my english is not enough to join a dialectic battle. But that isn't what i've said. 

When we talked about using it no one was referring to use "the buildings". We where talking about using it's (possible) researches, experiments, etc...  Or before using the simil ethe topic was about that, the structures?

"If Auswitz is not used to kill a lot of people but rather to help a lot of people"

This statement doesn't make any sense in the conversation, that's obvious. But the fact is that it was used to kill a lot of people, which makes anything it was made/researched/innovate inside evil in any possible way.

Modifié par Alex_SM, 29 mai 2010 - 02:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Edited for off topic.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 02:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nevermind.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mai 2010 - 02:52 .

[Pacifien]

Might I suggest those who want to discuss WW2 in detail take it to PM?

[Dean_the_Young]

Pacifien wrote...

Might I suggest those who want to discuss WW2 in detail take it to PM?

Good idea. Too easily disatracted right now, and don't want to ruin the prior discussion. Editing text accordingly, suggest others do same.

Will be here if you PM me.

[/Mordin speach]

[MerrickShep]

This was one of the hardest decisions i've ever had to make.

I wish I knew exactly how it would impact the next game, it's obvious The Illusive Man has less than noble intentions for the base. But it has amazing tech and secrets that could help defeat the Reapers.

The station's value outweigh the potential risks. If TiM decides he wants to use this base for anything else other than defeating the Reapers I will stop him.

Since the beginning of the game TiM hasn't given me great reason to not trust him but I know nothing about him, why are his eyes like that, where did he come from, is he actually human, is he a Reaper pawn. Perhaps he was created by the Reapers since the dawn of Humanity and is the oldest pawn of the Reapers. I know not if this is true but who to say it isn't.

But I need odds against the Reapers and I believe I have all the odds so far.

I trust him until he is no longer needed.

TiM is way to Pro-Human, I want to destroy the base until I know that it wont be useful then the base will stay saved.

Modifié par MerrickShep, 29 mai 2010 - 07:54 .

[MerrickShep]

I hope this decision isn't like the one in ME1 to save or not save the council and it not really having any kind of effect whatsoever



Hopefully it give us good Intel on the Reapers we know how "A" reaper is created but we don't know how "THE" Reapers were created.



The first Reaper couldn't have been created like that the The Protheans/Collectors didn't create the Reapers so who the hell made the first Reaper

[Arijharn]

You know, I've done both on the same Shephard play through (I dread to think how convoluted my ME3 import list will look like since I just love to do the suicide mission again and again...) but the simple answers I have is:



Meta-gaming: Paragon - "I wont let fear compromise who I am" response which I personally believe is an incredibly stupid justification. Sort of like spiting Cerberus just because you don't agree with their past actions despite the fact that out of everybody who could help you, it's only the bad guys who do.

Non meta-gaming, personal response: Renegade - if only because I don't know what the Reapers can do, and therefore need as many options available to me as possible.

[atheelogos]

MerrickShep wrote...

I hope this decision isn't like the one in ME1 to save or not save the council and it not really having any kind of effect whatsoever

Hopefully it give us good Intel on the Reapers we know how "A" reaper is created but we don't know how "THE" Reapers were created.

The first Reaper couldn't have been created like that the The Protheans/Collectors didn't create the Reapers so who the hell made the first Reaper

"Reapers so who the hell made the first Reaper" The organic species they come from probably made them. That my theory anyway.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Aiken Drum wrote...

Every time people have messed with Reaper tech it has gone poorly. I blew it without a moment's heartsearching. Sure the tech could be useful, but the price and the risks were too great. There was no way I was going to set TIM and Cerberus up with that. They couldn't even control mindless Rachni and Thorian Creepers, so letting them loose on the Collector base? I'd rather give a monkey a nuclear trigger disguised as a banana.

I know. I think that's the point of the game. just do ALL of the missions (even side missions for Cerberus, and noticed how alot of their OWN projects have internal conflict or some type of bloodshed). 
Opening scene m(attacked), Lazarus Project Base (attacked), Horizon (attacked), "disabled" Collectors' Vessel (attacked), and the Reaper IFF (attacked by your own cerberus people who were husks)... why keep a base to have cerberus repeat their cycle of projects and experiments always going wrong?

Wait... did you seriously just try to blame the Normandy SR1's death on Cerberus? And Horizon? (That one actually is true, but the only reason it survived at all, and other colonies weren't hit, was in a successful Cerberus-planed counter-attack.) The Collector Vessel I could understand anger despite it being something you would have done regardless, but the Reaper IFF was an unavoidable risk they tried to avoid in the first place.

Think about it. The moment Cerberus developed interest in Shepard (while he was SR1+Alliance bound) that's when all the Collectors bull**** broke out and happened (getting attacked in the first scene, getting attacked in a  cerberus lazarus base, etc). Even with Shepard's new SR2 ship he was constantly attacked... like 3 to 4+ different times alone... the last time being your entire crew getting captured by the collectors, thus heading to their collector base, being the suicide mission (where he then want you to keep their base for study)... all coincidental, right?

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 29 mai 2010 - 11:39 .

[Ieldra]

atheelogos wrote...
"Reapers so who the hell made the first Reaper" The organic species they come from probably made them. That my theory anyway.

I think there was once an organic species who thought to collectively "ascend" by programming their minds into an artificial construct, thereby giving them some kind of eternal life. Their individual minds were meant to be preserved. Thus "each of us is a nation". The Reaper creation process we see in ME2 would not do that, so I assume it has degenerated over the millions of years. The "ascension" process turned from the collective salvation project of a whole species into an ideology forced upon other species, and the number of constructs grew as more and more species were transformed through the cycles. Resulting in the current scenario.

[Dean_the_Young]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Aiken Drum wrote...

Every time people have messed with Reaper tech it has gone poorly. I blew it without a moment's heartsearching. Sure the tech could be useful, but the price and the risks were too great. There was no way I was going to set TIM and Cerberus up with that. They couldn't even control mindless Rachni and Thorian Creepers, so letting them loose on the Collector base? I'd rather give a monkey a nuclear trigger disguised as a banana.

I know. I think that's the point of the game. just do ALL of the missions (even side missions for Cerberus, and noticed how alot of their OWN projects have internal conflict or some type of bloodshed). 
Opening scene m(attacked), Lazarus Project Base (attacked), Horizon (attacked), "disabled" Collectors' Vessel (attacked), and the Reaper IFF (attacked by your own cerberus people who were husks)... why keep a base to have cerberus repeat their cycle of projects and experiments always going wrong?

Wait... did you seriously just try to blame the Normandy SR1's death on Cerberus? And Horizon? (That one actually is true, but the only reason it survived at all, and other colonies weren't hit, was in a successful Cerberus-planed counter-attack.) The Collector Vessel I could understand anger despite it being something you would have done regardless, but the Reaper IFF was an unavoidable risk they tried to avoid in the first place.

Think about it. The moment Cerberus developed interest in Shepard (while he was SR1+Alliance bound) that's when all the Collectors bull**** broke out and happened (getting attacked in the first scene, getting attacked in a  cerberus lazarus base, etc). Even with Shepard's new SR2 ship he was constantly attacked... like 3 to 4+ different times alone... the last time being your entire crew getting captured by the collectors, thus heading to their collector base, being the suicide mission (where he then want you to keep their base for study)... all coincidental, right?

Oi vey... the mindblowing... look correlation does not equal causation. Human colonies went disappearing about the time the Alliance got a Council seat, but that does not mean the Alliance is behind them.

Cerberus wanted to preserve Shepard, not kill him. The Lazarus Project wasn't even something they knew was a guaranteed success beforehand. The Collectors have been out for Shepard, and those close to him, for some time.

The only time you in the Normandy SR2 were attacked was from the Reaper IFF virus, when it broadcast your position and shut down systems. Nothing at all suggests it was anything other than a Reaper trap device against Cerberus. Nothing suggests it was a byzantine ploy by TIM. Everywhere else you went to known danger.

You have intended to go to the Collector base anyway.. You've known this since the Collector Ship. Whether you go right after your crew vanishes or not is up to you.

TIM doesn't even know that base can be kept beforehand: EDI only comes across the possibility well after you've passed through the relay. It would be impossible for him to plan any such conspiracy on the basis of something he doesn't know.

[Ieldra]

I have to agree to with you, Dean_the_Young. TIM does have a high conspiracy potential, but working against Shepard makes no sense at all. They've spent billions to bring him back, and billions more on the SR2. You don't do that if you intend to dispose of someone.



What I can imagine TIM doing, is implanting some experimental Reaper tech into Shepard to give him an edge but taking a considerable risk, or giving him, in spite of what Miranda knows, some kind of control chip. I don't think he has, with the evidence we can ****** TIM off at the end, but it wouldn't be beyond him.



What I do hold against him, though, is that he spends lives too lightly. For instance, with the science team on the derelict Reaper. They new the risks, still they went in "almost a hundred strong" instead of sending a few people in for a few days to see how they would react. TIM may have felt he had to rush things, but even from the Renegade view those scientists were valuable resources not so easily replaced.

[Pacifien]

I don't think the Illusive Man will ever see Shepard as more than a commodity. One he put considerable investment in and one that he wants to use by whatever means suits his purposes the best. That doesn't make Shepard necessarily expendable, but it does make him more a tool than a human being.

The fact that Shepard eventually turned on the Illusive Man, assuming you destroyed the base first, just demonstrates how the Illusive Man gambled on his ability to manipulate the man to do his bidding. He gave Shepard the best ship he could, filled it with honorable Cerberus employees, sent Shepard on a mission that was a direct threat to humanity. He did everything he could to show Shepard that Cerberus was the path of humanity's future. And as soon as Shepard disagreed with him, the Illusive Man went furious.

Okay, whenever someone disagrees with you, reacting with anger is one of the more common reactions for a person to have. Especially when there was something so substantial as the Collector Base to use against "the Reapers and beyond."

But anyway, I firmly believe the Illusive Man is a psychopath. No, not in a Norman Bates knife in the shower kind of way, but the actual American Psychiatric Association DSM kind of way.

[STG]

I think that TIM is slowly losing it. His "Cerberus is humanity" and "Don't you turn your back on me Shepard. I made you." comments are kind of out there. Ok he brought Shepard back from the dead but that is it, everything Shepard did before that, saving the Citadel and killing Saren had nothing to do with TIM.

[harry dread]

I don't think tim is a psychopath, he's more of a sociopath



http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

[ShadyKat]

Just one simple question.

Do you trust Tim? IMO, only a fool would trust a man who has no scruples or morals with such a weapon. Tim has shown time and again he would stab anyone in the back to achieve his dream. Those of you that trust Tim and Cerberus just remember that in ME3, when he turns on you.

[Dean_the_Young]

Trust TIM? No. Rely on him? Yes.



TIM is a predictable actor. He's an (overly) rational one as well. He isn't even a particularly cruel one: he doesn't do cruelty for cruelty's own sake. Knowing his position and his style, just watching yourself can keep you safe. Simple answer for anyone to be more or less safe from TIM is 'be more valuable to Humanity alive than not.'



You trusted the Alliance, the Council, even Ashley and Kaiden, and they wouldn't come through for you. You shouldn't trust TIM, that misses the point. But you can rely on him.

[Dean_the_Young]

harry dread wrote...

I don't think tim is a psychopath, he's more of a sociopath

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

The most important question to resolve would be 'is TIM incapable of forming attachments, or does he have one attachment (love for humanity overall) that outweighs all else?'

It's an important question because of how it affects the other aspects of the definition. Many people won't feel guilty about breaking laws if they think it's justified, for example, which is distinct from not being able to feel remorse or guilt. No one's accusing Shepard of not being remorseful enough about stealing th Normandy, after all. If TIM is an idealogue, as opposed to a natural sociopath, it would explain much more.

Going by TIM's character concept as someone who has both the best and worst of humanithy roled in one, I'd disagree that he's a sociopath. He's not incapable of loving, he just already has one love already (his mission, and what it represents to him). He's certainly not unreliable to his mission or remarkably impulsive, and most of his long-term plans have been realistic, if prone to complications.  He has a strong work ethic. He isn't authoritarian in his handling of Cerberus, nor does he have a complex about being appreciated for his works.


Sociopaths are born a certain way, and I'm not convinced that TIM is not an idealogue instead. (The differences can become minimal after a point.)