442 réponses à ce sujet

[Ktauliss]

Arijharn, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Scientific Research that is after "achievement at any cost" is ultimately too expensive to be sustainable and even setting aside the research angle Cerberus as run by The Illusive Man is as great a threat to "Humanity" as any alien race including the Collectors or the Reapers.



This is my 'Opinion' and I can have no other and be myself

[TheRaynmanFrost]

Don't have the patience to read all this tonight.



But Cerberus does what must, take it a little far but humanity, and judging by how these game are going, so must all life. They don't want dominance but rather survival, they don't want human to end up like quarians or protheans.



Second the illusive man should play a field role in me3, like either he gets in a massive fight with shepard as a boss which is ridiculously tough or, he's your only squadmate in a mission and you guys got to fight your way through a ridiculously large amount of foes.



alos he should be a biotic, teck, solider who dual wield assault rifles, hes that badass

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

I'd support the existence of Cerebrus and other organizations like the Salarian STG, Asari Justicars, etc.



If Cerebrus stuck to the goal of protecting humanity and serving it, but Cerebrus also wants to achieve this by making humans the dominant species.



That's too far.

[Arijharn]

Ktauliss wrote...

Arijharn, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Scientific Research that is after "achievement at any cost" is ultimately too expensive to be sustainable and even setting aside the research angle Cerberus as run by The Illusive Man is as great a threat to "Humanity" as any alien race including the Collectors or the Reapers.

This is my 'Opinion' and I can have no other and be myself

Of course, I'm not trying to 'persuade' you, only educate you on why I have decided the way I have. The only thing that gets my back up for example is that because of my responses you can tell by peoples posts to me that they think that I must be an immoral dirt bag and I don't believe this is the case at all (as I explained before, i think I'm MORE 'morally good' because I think it terms of the 'bigger picture' than what is immediately presented).

Of course, no one can see the future but I don't believe you should arbitrarily close options just because it makes you a bit queasy either, because just as it might not have any bearing on the future, it might have a bearing too.

[RiouHotaru]

Here's why Cerberus is wrong: It's fine to look out for your own self-interests...but not at the expense of the self-interests of everyone else.

[Turin_4]

Arijharn,

The thing about threats is that you can never be sure where the next
one comes from. For an example, do you think that when the US of A was
defending itself from possible soviet aggression during the cold war it
was aware of the enroaching threat from religious fundamentalism? My
point being is you can never be too careful, therefore I think covering
as many bases as possible is prudent.

Three problems here.  One, it was very possible to foresee the threat posed by religious fundamentalism to the USA in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s-and in fact, many did.  We just weren't sufficiently aware and proactive.  Two, under this reasoning anything that might bear fruit is permissible at any time, because after all, you never know.  And finally, you're completely setting aside the very real threat posed by the kind of ends justify the means science and politics-they're not just (sometimes) effective, they're also frequently very dangerous.

Considering the games are never going to go into detail of how
Husks work down to the real nitty gritty, perhaps it isn't the husk in
of itself that was interesting to Cerberus, but perhaps it was how the
nanotechnology managed to reanimate dead tissue. Lets just take this
one step closer to home, perhaps the information gleaned from how this
Husk worked through nanotechnology was instrumental in Project Lazarus'
successful resurrection of your Shepherd.

That would require giving Cerberus the benefit of the doubt.  Your argument only works if we already give Cerberus that benefit, and they haven't earned that consideration being mixed up in scummy ineffective evil as often as not.

And there you go, Project Lazarus in of itself, if they had
more research into that, there's your best example of what has
 'Cerberus [has] done in terms of 'mad science' that has a real shot at
saving those thousands if it's successful?

Except, again, Project Lazarus was in response to the Reaper threat-something which did not exist for the overwhelming majority of Cerberus's lifespan.  They were doing these awful things when the worst conceivable threat was batarians and the council.

Also bear in mind that it was Cerberus' 'mad science' that pushed
the Alliance military-industrial complex to give the go-ahead on the
SR1 Normandy construction in the first place, and that has already
proven its value or will prove itself if Shepherd's talk to
Rear-Admiral Malko-something is to go by.

Shipbuilding is one thing.  That's not what we're talking about here, and I think that's pretty clear.  We're talking about the kidnapping and torture aspects of Cerberus, not the military-industrial espionage aspects.

I disagree with you on that it was ultimately voluntary
though (maybe it's just semantics really) simply because it had
Shephard's involvement. Think about it, it was you who decided and then
you explained your decision phrasing it very carefully if you had
sufficient charm or intimidate.

If you use charm it was voluntary by any definition of the word: through no threat or coercion, the guy was persuaded to see reason.  That's voluntary.  It's not semantics just because you don't like the outcome:).  Had he refused, that would've been involuntary.

Resurrection of its soldiers in engagements when a body is
recoverable? Hell yes that would have enormous implications in combat
situations.

That's not what Cerberus was aiming for, though.  They made it very clear it was a one-off project, and still this falls under the purview of the Reaper threat.  More is permissible facing galactic sapient extinction than otherwise.

The only thing that gets my back up for example is that because of my
responses you can tell by peoples posts to me that they think that I
must be an immoral dirt bag and I don't believe this is the case at all
(as I explained before, i think I'm MORE 'morally good' because I think
it terms of the 'bigger picture' than what is immediately presented).

It's easy to be big-picture when you're not in the big picture.

[Destructo-Bot]

Arijharn wrote...

Destructo-Bot wrote...


To anyone who says that sacrificing one person to help one hundred is moral; I'm coming over to your house and killing you. I promise that your death will help at least 100 others to live. You have nothing other than my word about this. Think that one over.

It's as morale as the idea that saving that one mans life is worth it, even if it may damn 100's later. The thing is, you coming over to my life to attempt to kill me to prove your point is just as likely (if not less likely, since I'm now forewarned) as me killing you, either way we'd still potentially save 100 people down the line (if we both died, why we might save 200!)

I mean, isn't this sort of decision made almost every day by politicians who decide whether or not to send the country's servicemen/women into war? Some servicemen I know are okay with the idea of their deaths (although, not keen on the idea by any stretch of the imagination) because they believe strongly that they'll make the difference. This is consensual of course, but we don't really have an adequate metaphor in real life society to Cerberus (that is known)

That wasn't the point. The point is: How could you trust me?

What FORCES me to have pure intentions? What GUARANTEES I didn't make a miscalculation, wasting your life? Those given such power WILL abuse it, will make mistakes. And you can't weigh 100 lives to 1 in a vacuum. Kill Albert Einstein to save 100 blind-deaf-mutes? Who decides what the value of each is, and who decides how it is weighted?

That's the point.

[Poison_Berrie]

Arijharn wrote...
It's as morale as the idea that saving that one mans life is worth it, even if it may damn 100's later.

I mean, isn't this sort of decision made almost every day by politicians who decide whether or not to send the country's servicemen/women into war? Some servicemen I know are okay with the idea of their deaths (although, not keen on the idea by any stretch of the imagination) because they believe strongly that they'll make the difference. This is consensual of course, but we don't really have an adequate metaphor in real life society to Cerberus (that is known)

You are missing the point. You are not saving a person or using a volunteer, you are killing an unwilling. 
You are going over to a man's house, kidnap him, use him in your experiment and saying that if the experiment goes as planned his sacrifice will be worth it. 
Both ME1 and ME2 give examples where the experiment did not go as planned. Not to mention that they are often jumping right in, forgoing proper experimental practice, like controlled experiments, prediction models and animal/tissue tests.

It also dismisses the effect a single person can have. 
Jimmy is a poor kid living in a corrupt colony. Jimmy becomes a successful politician on his colony. He brings wealth and safety to the colony. He improves the lives of many of the colony's citizens.
Or he would have been if you hadn't kidnapped him for Cerberus experiments. But hey, at least he saved a thousand soldiers. That's a whole lot more important than what he would have done on the colony.

[Lord_Metal666]

People this is just a game, it isn't real life.



However if you must know I saved the station. I did this because I play a renegade, so it seemed like the logical thing to.

[wulf3n]

All of the cerberus operatives you see on the normandy are just pawns, they think they are doing whats best for humanity but in reality they are just cementing TIM's position of ruler of the galaxy. Take TIM's reaction to shepard doin his own thing, he doesn't want whats best for humanity, if that were the case he'd just let shepard do whatever he wants, no, what TIM wants is power for himself.

[Abirn]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Here's why Cerberus is wrong: It's fine to look out for your own self-interests...but not at the expense of the self-interests of everyone else.

I support this in theory.  This theory gets thrownout the window however, when a race of giant supercomputers are threatening to wipe out all life in the known galaxy.

Someof you guys are as bad as the council in terms of ignoring the reaper threat in these cerberus right/wrong discussions.  Perhaps worrying about right and wrong should be done AFTER you ensure the survival of all life in the galaxy.  Sometimes there are more pressing issues to attend to.  This would be one of them.  

[Poison_Berrie]

Abirn wrote...
Someof you guys are as bad as the council in terms of ignoring the reaper threat in these cerberus right/wrong discussions.  Perhaps worrying about right and wrong should be done AFTER you ensure the survival of all life in the galaxy.  Sometimes there are more pressing issues to attend to.  This would be one of them.  

Except you act as though Cerberus is the only organization that could do anything against the Reapers.
Sure they are the only organization that seems to acknowledge their existence (in front of you). They are also the once with evidence (which they have coincidental not represented to other races). 
Cerberus is not the most powerful organization in the galaxy however. 

In all likelihood had you not been spaced at the beginning of ME2 it's quite possible that the council would have sent you to investigate the disappearing colonies (with some persuasion from the human counselor and you) as a SPECTRE.

The reason you end up with Cerberus is plot related.

[Remaix]

Cerberus has some good points. It has some good people. I can't deny that. Especially the Cerberus operatives working on the Normandy. However... I also can't ignore the fact that some things Cerberus has done were just wrong, with little to justify it.

Maybe Cerberus would be a great ally for the Reaper threat... but no one's saying they're the ONLY ones who can help you. Even if it is, in the end, 'for the greater good'... I just can't side with them. I'm not sure how much 'the greater good' is worth it if you have to walk Cerberus' path to achieve it.

And, still, as has been mentioned and as I have mentioned, Cerberus is most likely not the only thing that can help you. Hell, for all it's resources and power, it's not even all that big.

It's not what has to be done. It's just one way of achieving it. There are most likely other ways. Better ways.

[Ktauliss]

I enjoy a good debate, and I don't go around making value judgments about 'people'

The only thing that gets my back up for example is that because of my responses you can tell by peoples posts to me that they think that I must be an immoral dirt bag

simply because I do not or cannot share an opinion.



In terms of game lore you are told repeatedly Cerberus operates on 'Cells', Each group 'cell' is autonomous with the exception of the person in charge (Miranda in the case of Lazarus Project).



What I am trying to get at is that it is easily possible the majority of people in Cerberus are good decent people. But, you have the Illusive Man. This is in fact why in previous posts I have said that Cerberus As Run By The Illusive Man is such a threat. Salarian STG would be an equal Threat if it was controlled by One Salarian (who thought say like Mordin, and was only interested in the good of Salarians). Saren certainly proved that the Spectres could be a significant threat if left without effective oversight

[Turin_4]

I mean, isn't this sort of decision made almost every day by
politicians who decide whether or not to send the country's
servicemen/women into war?

It's not the same at all for the reason you described later on in this post, so I have to wonder why you brought it up at all: that sacrifice is consensual, and the people making the decision are elected officials by the people.  Two layers of consent, really.  Who elected Cerberus, and exactly when did their kidnap and torture victims consent to participate in their experiments?  

But Cerberus does what must, take it a little far but humanity, and
judging by how these game are going, so must all life. They don't want
dominance but rather survival, they don't want human to end up like
quarians or protheans.

I don't know where you get this-Cerberus's goals in the books, from their supporters, and by their actions clearly aren't just parity with the other races, but supremacy.

Of course, no one can see the future but I don't believe you should
arbitrarily close options just because it makes you a bit queasy either,

If you're closing off an option because it's so nasty it makes you queasy, that's not arbitrary at all.  Just because you don't agree doesn't make it arbitrary.

I support this in theory.  This theory gets thrownout the window
however, when a race of giant supercomputers are threatening to wipe
out all life in the known galaxy.

I agree that with the Reaper threat, Cerberus's dag-nasty evil activities can be permissible due to outright necessity.  That threat didn't exist for the overwhelming majority of its lifespan, though.

[ShadowWolf_Kell]

You know, back in the 1930s Hitler said the same thing regarding Germany. He was doing what was in the best interests of Germany.



Look how that turned out.



Then there's Napolean.... I could go on and on.

[TheRaynmanFrost]

How about we look at it like this, the illusive man had a family, job, white picket fence before humanity discovered aliens, but he cast everything away to help humanity. His actions maybe extremest but his intentions are good. If anything he understands the galaxy's predicament, he knew the reapers were the largest threat period. He knew Shepard could stop them. I think he merely does what he believes is right regardless of others, be it traps, assassinations, buying out companies, setting up scapegoats. Kinda reminds me of the US



Second i doubt he wants power, if he did he'd be more secretive and have a larger organization not stop at around 150 or so men. Also he wouldn't mark everything so everyone recognized them.



Look this arguments gonna go on forever, so my last thing is. The Illusive Man/Cerberus is the hand while the alliance and Shepherd or the glove

[OfTheFaintSmile]

You guys are assuming way too much with giving the base to TIM being a bad choice, we'll see in ME3 won't we?

[ShadowWolf_Kell]

OfTheFaintSmile wrote...

You guys are assuming way too much with giving the base to TIM being a bad choice, we'll see in ME3 won't we?

Well since Paragon will have united the Krogan, Geth, Quarians, Rachni, yada yada to assist against the Reapers, it only makes sense they toss Renegades a bone with the Collector base.

That said, it'll offer nothing to the plot that something else doesn't for the Paragon side.  Inevitably, the outcome(s) will be similar through differing means.

[Jackalen]

When i played ME2 for the first time i felt like the illusive man could use me in anyway and how many times he wanted, afterall he saved me. I would do anything to save humanity from the Collectors/Reapers.

I agreed with him and saved the base for futher research to fight the Reapers, even if the cost is cerberus dominace or whatever people can speculate his motives into.

Modifié par Jackalen, 10 février 2010 - 03:58 .

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

Renegades stop being pragmatic and have moved on towards being "evil" in ME2, given the scars, red eyes, the option to just kill people for whatever reason, or praising the death of others.



The Renegade is no longer all about having the mission succeed and is instead just an evil guy.

[DaBigDragon]

The Illusive Man's desire to protect and improve humanity is admirable, but he has no ethics. He's both good and bad.

[ShadowWolf_Kell]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

Renegades stop being pragmatic and have moved on towards being "evil" in ME2, given the scars, red eyes, the option to just kill people for whatever reason, or praising the death of others.

The Renegade is no longer all about having the mission succeed and is instead just an evil guy.

I haven't played Renegade in either game, so wouldn't know.

Still, it doesn't make sense that you would seriously screw up your ME3 game by your actions in ME2, and literally be forced to replay ME2 to rectify that.  BioWare isn't that hardcore.

[OfTheFaintSmile]

I think it will be like someone said, if you blew up the base then you will co-operate and co-exist with the other alien races in an egalitarian fashion while renegades would be responsible for setting up a human dominated empire. If so, I'm happy with my renegade path choice

Modifié par OfTheFaintSmile, 10 février 2010 - 04:07 .

[Lord_Metal666]

ShadowWolf_Kell wrote...

OfTheFaintSmile wrote...

You guys are assuming way too much with giving the base to TIM being a bad choice, we'll see in ME3 won't we?

Well since Paragon will have united the Krogan, Geth, Quarians, Rachni, yada yada to assist against the Reapers, it only makes sense they toss Renegades a bone with the Collector base.

That said, it'll offer nothing to the plot that something else doesn't for the Paragon side.  Inevitably, the outcome(s) will be similar through differing means.

Well I'm full renegade, and I saved the Rachni, united the Geth, yada yada, killed the council, put humans in control, and saved the collector base. Looks like I have alot of bones to play with.

On thing I intend to do though is to wipe out the Quarians don't really like them due to what they did to the geth. Will sacrifice them to the reapers the first chance I get..