798 réponses à ce sujet

[homestyle]

yeah, i agree.

i'm even more disappointed with anderson. His character in ME2 was not at all congruent with what happened in ME1.

The true Anderson in ME1 woud've told you about Ash's location (if not mission).

Anderson sided with you throughout ME1, but now that you came back he's turned his back? Cerberus is not an excuse. Shepard is the same Shepard.

Modifié par homestyle, 04 juillet 2010 - 07:15 .

[Zulu_DFA]

To all paragon wishful thinkers I'd like to remind, that Mr. Udina (aka best ambassador ever) is a kind of guy that the Systems Alliance puts forward to represent its interests before the Galactic Community.

Also paragon players might not know it, but Admiral Hackett, despite his fatherly voice, is a renegade character. He never reprimands Shepard for the bloodbath solution to any of the UNC missions. He goes just like: "A pity. But we knew it was going to happen." And in the end he uses the Renagade Shepard to assasinate a warlord who had been set up by the Alliance years ago. Hackett also calls the scientists that worked on Akuze "Alliance scientists".

As for the notion that it's all just a Renegade wish, to legitimate and justify Cerberus, that's a negative. To a renegade, Cerberus is justified not by its parent organization whether they've splintered from it or not, but by the goals Cerberus pursues. The ends justify the means. Not the beginnings. This is the reason why Cerberus may indeed come to odds with the Alliance some day... But so far it doesn't seem to have been happening.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Prince of Kemet: You make a valid point.

I very much doubt the Alliance/Council would ever welcome you back openly and allow you use their resources and money to deal with the reapers. They will likely send their fleets support Shepard once he has solid proof, but they won't help Shepard anything more then that.

Regardless of whatever motives Shepard has, or doesn't have, the Alliance/Council cannot and will not allow someone who worked/is working for a terrorist group to return into their fold. It is simply because of the bad public image they would receive for doing so. Every Councilor would be basically committing political suicide if they did that.

Galactic News after Horizon: "While some people are excited about Shepard's reappearance, others feel about it more like a betrayal"

Galactic News after the "suicide mission": "According to sources, whatever former Commander Shepard is doing it involves surrounding himself with criminals, merecenaries and other unsavory elements."

Even if Cerberus is still secretly part of the Alliance, and the Council is Human-led, the politicians may find it convenient and expedient to try Shepard for his "crimes". That would make a perfect all-equal start for ME3.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 04 juillet 2010 - 09:33 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

As the OP excellently pointed out, the Alliance represent corporate and not human interests (many humans lie outside the Alliance, but all major human corporations lie within the alliance as far as we know).
We know from ME2 that TIM has great influence with several if not all human corporations, or at the very least the sympathy and support of many corporations such as the one headed by Miranda's father.

So let's recap.
Alliance = corporate interests
TIM = has influence and support with those same corporations.
I am sure you can put two and two together.

While I do not believe Cerberus controls the Alliance, I strongly believe that Cerberus has a large amount of influence on the Alliance and this whole "splinter terrorist group" thing is mostly a cover story to appease the council. And that's not mentioning the sympathy Cerberus has amongst leading Alliance military personel.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 juillet 2010 - 10:40 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Your posts are less full of spam rewrite Zulu.. thank you

[lovgreno]

Since we know basicaly nothing about Cerberus all we can do is speculate. In other words we see what we want to see.
But it's hinted that Cerberus have connections in powerfull human organisations, both infiltration and people secretly or openly supporting Cerberus agenda of human supremacy. Wich makes sense as Cerberus needs strong sources of resources and information. but we don't know how high up this goes in human military, corporations and goverments.
If t hese connections were made public (Kasumis greybox perhaps?) it could cripple humanitys political and financial already low popularity. Since human leaders don't want to end up like the batarians did it would be understandable if they will deny anything and try to remove Cerberus and all proof they might have.
Some insecure humans like the Terra Firma party would of course think that giving anything to the aliens is a sign of weakness (heaven forbid that someone would think you are weak!) so human leaders will probably try to remove Cerberus discretely.

But all this is of course just speculations. If anyone thinks this discussion proves anything they need to try to think outside their own box.

Modifié par lovgreno, 04 juillet 2010 - 04:16 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Who would wanna jump ship from Cerberus anyway!? ... They get sh!t done without all the paperwork/delays of the alliance and they don't seem like utter morons like council, who don't even believe in the reapers even though sovereign exploded on their face! (insert sovereign sex jokes here).



Not to mention they brought you back to life, so without them....there is no Shepard. Without them no one stops the colonist abductions or the Collectors. To want to screw them over at every turn b/c they aren't the alliance and you have personal issues with them is just plain dumb.

[Commissar Gash]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Who would wanna jump ship from Cerberus anyway!? ... They get sh!t done without all the paperwork/delays of the alliance and they don't seem like utter morons like council, who don't even believe in the reapers even though sovereign exploded on their face! (insert sovereign sex jokes here).

Not to mention they brought you back to life, so without them....there is no Shepard. Without them no one stops the colonist abductions or the Collectors. To want to screw them over at every turn b/c they aren't the alliance and you have personal issues with them is just plain dumb.

That's how some Paragons work, they won't touch anything that isn't "good", it doesn't matter what it is and how important it is, they won't touch it.
Still the most stupid decision is: "I want to get back to the Alliance and I want the SR1 Normandy back, becuase the Sr2 is Cerberus and Cerberus is EVIL!!!!"

[Whatever Works]

I'm a Paragon but most Paragon's on this board make me facepalm. Some of their comments about on disappointment on why they weren't allowed to go on a killing spree at the start of ME 2 is hilarious and sad, and hilarious when you think of how contradictory it is.

[Zulu_DFA]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Your posts are less full of spam rewrite Zulu.. thank you

You are welcome. You see, the "direction" of Cerberus going "rogue" being a cover-up tracks well back to ME1, so it's probably hard written into the draft plot of the whole trilogy... But don't worry, I am sure, BioWare, will put enough holes into ME3 plot, primarily to accomodate more "cool stuff" like gasoline explosions, headbutts and somersaults. But the objective to cater to Paragon wishes will be right behind it, and you will be given an opportunity to "go spectre" both on Cerberus and the corrupt Alliance.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
it's probably hard written into the draft plot of the whole trilogy...

I will see your speculation and raise you a ridiculous and trite non-sequiter

Zulu_DFA wrote...
But don't worry, I am sure, BioWare, will put enough holes into ME3 plot, primarily to accomodate more "cool stuff" like gasoline explosions, headbutts and somersaults.

Look, idk. No reason they can't keep the main body fo teh story consistent and have "cool stuff" too.

Zulu_DFA wrote...
But the objective to cater to Paragon wishes will be right behind it

Ooooo, us Paragons are lucky to be included in the story... phew.

Zulu_DFA wrote...
and you will be given an opportunity to "go spectre" both on Cerberus and the corrupt Alliance.

the "corrupt Alliance"... well, I'm sure there's plenty there but I wouldn't have said it was a defining characteristic.

[Zulu_DFA]

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
 It does have a parliament, but that doesn't tell us much about how democratic it is.

The side-quest involving a guy campaigning for a seat in parliament who asks for your vote, however, does.  It's a representative democracy.  How seats are apportioned and what voting system is used are unknown, but individual citizens get to cast ballots. 

And the elaborate requirements necessary to meet to be able to cast a vote suggest that the system is discriminative, rather than representative.

That doesn't alter the fact that citizens vote for representatives, which is all that matters when classifying the form of government.  Whether or not the voting laws are models of perfection or not is irrelevant.

In the communist countries, believe it or not, people also vote for "representives".
In the US in 2000 people voted for Al Gore.

Like Josef Stalin said: "It doesn't matter how they vote. All that matters is who will count the ballots."

[Spornicus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
 It does have a parliament, but that doesn't tell us much about how democratic it is.

The side-quest involving a guy campaigning for a seat in parliament who asks for your vote, however, does.  It's a representative democracy.  How seats are apportioned and what voting system is used are unknown, but individual citizens get to cast ballots. 

And the elaborate requirements necessary to meet to be able to cast a vote suggest that the system is discriminative, rather than representative.

That doesn't alter the fact that citizens vote for representatives, which is all that matters when classifying the form of government.  Whether or not the voting laws are models of perfection or not is irrelevant.

In the communist countries, believe it or not, people also vote for "representives".
In the US in 2000 people voted for Al Gore.

Like Josef Stalin said: "It doesn't matter how they vote. All that matters is who will count the ballots."

Great, now we're going to have a huge debate on the 2000 election and the ethics of government....

[DarkSeraphym]

Wow, you've really been doing your homework here Zulu.

I find myself in agreement with all of your points. The more I think back on it, the more I think that Cerberus is likely acting as a black ops organization for the Alliance. Though, thinking about your points has led me to think of something that also adds to your argument that Udina may be aware of this connection between Cerberus and the Alliance.

Out of all of the possible choices you have for setting up the Council and setting up your representative or Counilor if you keep an all-human council, there is only one that directly strips you of your Spectre status: Ambassador Udina. If you chose Anderson instead, you are reinstated as a Spectre but it is mentioned it is not nearly as powerful as before and the Council seems to have far more control of them directly. Likewise, you are also reinstated for every other combination possible but this particular one.

Anyways, moving onto my point; perhaps the reason that Udina removes your Spectre status is because doing so would place you back into the Alliance hierarchy and thus make it far easier to TIM to keep you in line. As far as we know, there are still Spectre's under Udina but for some reason he simply refuses to reinstate your status as one. This could just be out of a bitterness or a distrust of Shepard, but I have a feeling it has far more to do with the fact that the "renegade" Shepard that would normally choose that set-up for the Council knows that Shepard goes a bit too far and as such is a bit of a "dark horse" so to speak. Without his Spectre status, Renegade Shepard's promotion becomes far more relevant and places control of him directly into the hands of Cerberus and by transition, the Alliance.

The reason this doesn't happen in any of the other possibilities for Shepard is because Udina is never directly put into a position to make this happen on his own. If you save the Council, he lacks the clout to tempt them into keeping you from becoming a Spectre. Likewise if you let them die and yet make Anderson Chancellor, the only way he'd be able to tempt Anderson into revoking your status would be if he told Anderson the truth of Cerberus and the Alliance and that simply cannot be allowed. The only time you ever get your Spectre status revoked is if Udina becomes Councilor of the Human Citadel Council and directly has the ability to revoke it in his hands. Your theory provides a motive for why he would revoke Shepard's status in the first place because Udina seems like the only person in the game with any real political sense.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 06 juillet 2010 - 08:25 .

[Prince of Kemet]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Wow, you've really been doing your homework here Zulu.

I find myself in agreement with all of your points. The more I think back on it, the more I think that Cerberus is likely acting as a black ops organization for the Alliance. Though, thinking about your points has led me to think of something that also adds to your argument that Udina may be aware of this connection between Cerberus and the Alliance.

Out of all of the possible choices you have for setting up the Council and setting up your representative or Counilor if you keep an all-human council, there is only one that directly strips you of your Spectre status: Ambassador Udina. If you chose Anderson instead, you are reinstated as a Spectre but it is mentioned it is not nearly as powerful as before and the Council seems to have far more control of them directly. Likewise, you are also reinstated for every other combination possible but this particular one.

Anyways, moving onto my point; perhaps the reason that Udina removes your Spectre status is because doing so would place you back into the Alliance hierarchy and thus make it far easier to TIM to keep you in line. As far as we know, there are still Spectre's under Udina but for some reason he simply refuses to reinstate your status as one. This could just be out of a bitterness or a distrust of Shepard, but I have a feeling it has far more to do with the fact that the "renegade" Shepard that would normally choose that set-up for the Council knows that Shepard goes a bit too far and as such is a bit of a "dark horse" so to speak. Without his Spectre status, Renegade Shepard's promotion becomes far more relevant and places control of him directly into the hands of Cerberus and by transition, the Alliance.

The reason this doesn't happen in any of the other possibilities for Shepard is because Udina is never directly put into a position to make this happen on his own. If you save the Council, he lacks the clout to tempt them into keeping you from becoming a Spectre. Likewise if you let them die and yet make Anderson Chancellor, the only way he'd be able to tempt Anderson into revoking your status would be if he told Anderson the truth of Cerberus and the Alliance and that simply cannot be allowed. The only time you ever get your Spectre status revoked is if Udina becomes Councilor of the Human Citadel Council and directly has the ability to revoke it in his hands. Your theory provides a motive for why he would revoke Shepard's status in the first place because Udina seems like the only person in the game with any real political sense.

Does Udina strip paragon Shepherd as well?

[DarkSeraphym]

Prince of Kemet wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Wow, you've really been doing your homework here Zulu.

I find myself in agreement with all of your points. The more I think back on it, the more I think that Cerberus is likely acting as a black ops organization for the Alliance. Though, thinking about your points has led me to think of something that also adds to your argument that Udina may be aware of this connection between Cerberus and the Alliance.

Out of all of the possible choices you have for setting up the Council and setting up your representative or Counilor if you keep an all-human council, there is only one that directly strips you of your Spectre status: Ambassador Udina. If you chose Anderson instead, you are reinstated as a Spectre but it is mentioned it is not nearly as powerful as before and the Council seems to have far more control of them directly. Likewise, you are also reinstated for every other combination possible but this particular one.

Anyways, moving onto my point; perhaps the reason that Udina removes your Spectre status is because doing so would place you back into the Alliance hierarchy and thus make it far easier to TIM to keep you in line. As far as we know, there are still Spectre's under Udina but for some reason he simply refuses to reinstate your status as one. This could just be out of a bitterness or a distrust of Shepard, but I have a feeling it has far more to do with the fact that the "renegade" Shepard that would normally choose that set-up for the Council knows that Shepard goes a bit too far and as such is a bit of a "dark horse" so to speak. Without his Spectre status, Renegade Shepard's promotion becomes far more relevant and places control of him directly into the hands of Cerberus and by transition, the Alliance.

The reason this doesn't happen in any of the other possibilities for Shepard is because Udina is never directly put into a position to make this happen on his own. If you save the Council, he lacks the clout to tempt them into keeping you from becoming a Spectre. Likewise if you let them die and yet make Anderson Chancellor, the only way he'd be able to tempt Anderson into revoking your status would be if he told Anderson the truth of Cerberus and the Alliance and that simply cannot be allowed. The only time you ever get your Spectre status revoked is if Udina becomes Councilor of the Human Citadel Council and directly has the ability to revoke it in his hands. Your theory provides a motive for why he would revoke Shepard's status in the first place because Udina seems like the only person in the game with any real political sense.

Does Udina strip paragon Shepherd as well?

Technically, I believe it is possible only if Shepard chooses the "Focus on Sovereign" option and then opts to make Udina the head. Originally, I was not aware of this but I double checked to be sure so there are actually two possibilities behind Udina stripping you of your status.

Regardless of this fact, Udina runs into a huge issue if the council is left to perish. The Spectres are restructured and as far as we know, have far less power to do as they please than they used to. Udina would remove even a Paragon Shepard from the Spectres to place Shepard back into the Alliance hierarchy simply because (bear with me here since much isn't known how the Council is now structured if humanity assumes control of it) it would far easier for humanity as the Alliance and Cerberus to keep him under control then a body of people. Udina may be Councilor, but he isn't necessarily a tyrant as far as I can tell. The rest of the Council would have a say in what Shepard does as a Spectre, which may or may not be in the best interest of what Cerberus wants out of him.

[Zulu_DFA]

DarkSeraphym wrote...
Your theory provides a motive for why he would revoke Shepard's status in the first place because Udina seems like the only person in the game with any real political sense.

That's what I think. Although I doubt Udina has at his disposal any facts, that confirm for sure Cerberus being still connected to the Alliance (it would be dangerous), he still must receive instructions/recommendations from the Alliance on the desired policies (both as the Ambassador and the Councillor). Or he may even have been recruited earlier into Cerberus network, and is in fact a Cerberus agent (again without full knowledge, of course). Anyway, I was not surprised at all when Udina spoke less than ten words to me and denied an official hearing with the Human controlled Council. I am sure, TIM arranged it so that I would not have any illusions about "parting ways with Cerberus", even if I wanted to (which I didn't).

[Asheer_Khan]

Too bad that there was no option at the end of ME 1 to shot that douchebag bastard (aka Udina) right in the face in front of saved Council...



But at the end he is my nr2 on my hit list when Timmy holds number one place so they both don't known day and hour... but like Klingons says "Revenge is a dish best served cold"... and my Shepard have time, patience and two best assassins to aid her if necessary.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
To all paragon wishful thinkers I'd like to remind, that Mr. Udina (aka best ambassador ever) is a kind of guy that the Systems Alliance puts forward to represent its interests before the Galactic Community.

Zulu you are a flaming troll. Udina is a toolkit.

[Costin_Razvan]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
To all paragon wishful thinkers I'd like to remind, that Mr. Udina (aka best ambassador ever) is a kind of guy that the Systems Alliance puts forward to represent its interests before the Galactic Community.

Zulu you are a flaming troll. Udina is a toolkit.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean that we all do or that he is a troll. 

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
To all paragon wishful thinkers I'd like to remind, that Mr. Udina (aka best ambassador ever) is a kind of guy that the Systems Alliance puts forward to represent its interests before the Galactic Community.

Zulu you are a flaming troll. Udina is a toolkit.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean that we all do or that he is a troll. 

short post met with short post (still trollish though Zulu)

[RobotNixon]

Shandepared wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Too bad that there was no option at the end of ME 1 to shot that douchebag bastard (aka Udina) right in the face in front of saved Council...

How progressive.

Khan is quite the Maverick.

[MadInfiltrator]

Though in the game, it's said that Cerberus was expelled from the Alliance, but kept both its private funding and maintained numerous operatives inside the Alliance, it is a very interesting idea to think that in reality thy are still a part of the human military.



But then, who would the Illusive Man answer to?

[Zulu_DFA]

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Too bad that there was no option at the end of ME 1 to shot that douchebag bastard (aka Udina) right in the face in front of saved Council...
But at the end he is my nr2 on my hit list when Timmy holds number one place so they both don't known day and hour... but like Klingons says "Revenge is a dish best served cold"... and my Shepard have time, patience and two best assassins to aid her if necessary.

And, if I were you, I wouldn't keep my hopes up. Both TIM and Udina are good for the franchise continuation.
 

MadInfiltrator wrote...
Though in the game, it's said that Cerberus was expelled from the Alliance, but kept both its private funding and maintained numerous operatives inside the Alliance, it is a very interesting idea to think that in reality thy are still a part of the human military.

Not military. Leather seats, remember?

But then, who would the Illusive Man answer to?

Who would Udina answer to? They are "the right men for the job" and trusted broad autonomy in their actions.

TIM gets funds from the Alliance. Naturally, if TIM stops fullfilling certain obligations to the contributors, the funding will stop. That's how Cerberus is kept in line. I am not saying that TIM can't get ideas about, eh, reforming the Alliance so that it gets even more suited for his needs, but for going rogue, that is actively hostile to the Alliance, TIM must have a damn good reason.

Look, Cerberus may be "rogue", illegal, terrorist or whatever. Or it may simply not exist "on paper".

But think of it this way: if Al Qaida was funded by Bill Gates and George Soros, participated in the R&D of the B-2 stealth bomber and was led by Martin Sheen, wouldn't the Al Qaida look like a US asset?

Or think of it this way: Cerberus-Alliance is a sort of symbiosis. The organisms are separate and may belong to absolutely different types of life, but both of them will die if their connection is severed.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 juillet 2010 - 08:50 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
And, if I were you, I wouldn't keep my hopes up. Both TIM and Udina are good for the franchise continuation.

That's more to the point, though I think you overrate how transfereable their personalities are... (esp Udina, TIM is more unique and one can be more positive about him, even if you know he's really a baddie)

But then, who would the Illusive Man answer to?

Who would Udina answer to? They are "the right men for the job" and (with?) ] trusted broad autonomy in their actions.

That's the thing that the TIM advocates deeply adhere to but completely lacks substance - TIM is an autocrat, who has neither proven his worth or proven his trustworthy in the decisions to make. The game itself is literally peppered with his examples of complete incompetance. And there is zero evidence to show he would not be a completely unsuitable choice going forward.... urgh.

But think of it this way: if Al Qaida was funded by Bill Gates and George Soros, participated in the R&D of the B-2 stealth bomber and was led by Martin Sheen, wouldn't the Al Qaida look like a US asset?

Zulu, I'm going to assume you are a little younger because surprise surprise... Saddam Hussein was actually a "US asset" before he went rogue!!! fkn yucko eh.
The facts (and analogies) are completely against Cerberus.