427 réponses à ce sujet

[huntrrz]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Yes, but unless I am mistaken your confusing the Alliance and the Council on this.  The territories where the abductions are taken place is outside of Citadel jurisdiction.  The Council technically is not responsible for the safety of the colonies.  The Human Alliance is not bound by this technicality AFAIK. 

True, but only to a lesser extent - Horizon was also outside Alliance jurisdiction, and it was fairly obvious that they'd moved that far out specifically because they WANTED to be outside Alliance jurisdiction.

I agree that we don't know what percentage of colony losses were outside Alliance jurisdiction, and I'd agree that the Alliance is more responsible than the Council as they should specifically be safeguarding Humanity, but I think my points hold.

There's plenty of pigheadishness, denial and political convenience involved, but there's enough ambiguity to argue they're not COMPLETELY in the wrong ASSUMING they don't have full possession of the facts.

[Terraneaux]

huntrrz wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Yes, but unless I am mistaken your confusing the Alliance and the Council on this.  The territories where the abductions are taken place is outside of Citadel jurisdiction.  The Council technically is not responsible for the safety of the colonies.  The Human Alliance is not bound by this technicality AFAIK. 

True, but only to a lesser extent - Horizon was also outside Alliance jurisdiction, and it was fairly obvious that they'd moved that far out specifically because they WANTED to be outside Alliance jurisdiction.

I agree that we don't know what percentage of colony losses were outside Alliance jurisdiction, and I'd agree that the Alliance is more responsible than the Council as they should specifically be safeguarding Humanity, but I think my points hold.

There's plenty of pigheadishness, denial and political convenience involved, but there's enough ambiguity to argue they're not COMPLETELY in the wrong ASSUMING they don't have full possession of the facts.

Yup, the Horizon colonists didn't even want the Alliance out there.  

[Barquiel]

Cerberus Commando wrote...

I believe that Cerberus has changed and they are doing what's beat for humanity along with the whloe galaxy.

I don't think Cerberus has changed. They are still space-racists (but desperate in ME2).

[the_last_krogan]

once ive destroyed the reapers

im gunning for cerbrus

i will mount the head of the illusive robot on the helm of the normandy

[atheelogos]

Alexandus wrote...

While the Alliance and the Council sat making excuses, Cerberus acted.

While others cast blame at the Illusive Man, he made the hard choices the situation needed.

While all others let Shepard rot, Cerberus ressurected him.

While others doubted the Reaper threat, Cerberus recognized it as the threat it is.

Cerberus has my vote.

this

[Wildecker]

Cerberus Commando wrote...

Ok wilddecker, but you do know that Cerberus was apart of the Systems Alliance before they went Rouge right? What makes you think that they didn't take any war ships with them? And yes the thanix cannons are very very bad ass but, it can't hurt to save some collector tech to hook up on to the same ship already equiped with a thanix cannon! Doulble the fire power!

It's one thing to copy and then change or erase files when you're about to go under cover. It's a very different challenge to win the entire crew of even one warship to your cause and then making that ship vanish or suffer an "accident".
Let's see ... the first Normandy was an advanced ship. A frigate, the smallest class of FTL-capable warships in the Alliance Navy. When it gets hit and you order the crew to abandon ship, we see a bunch of crew members rushing to the pods - however, when you later explore the crash site and the wreckage, there are 20 dog tags from personnel who didn't make it. And that's not counting Navigator Pressly. So in total 21 personnel died (22 including you), and a couple more got away like the Doc and your love interest.
The bigger the ship, the larger the crew. The lesser your chance to run away with it. There's not much we know about Cerberus, but so far I haven't read about any military engagement "Cerberus vs. whoever". They are definitely more used cloak-and-dagger operations than into brute force.

That Collector ship was a cruiser. A lot bigger than the first and the second Normandy. Its sensors might have been worth a look as they were able to pinpoint the cloaked first Normandy. The gun? Bah - any Turian or Alliance Cruiser would have put huge holes into the Normandy - if they had achieved a target lock.

Modifié par Wildecker, 15 mars 2010 - 05:38 .

[JulianusApostate]

I helped out Cerberus in all of my games except one to see what would happen. I don't trust them, but the second game goes to great lengths to rationalize what Cerberus did -
1) The task cells are independent and only report to the Illusive Man every once in awhile on their progress, so the individuals are responsible for their actions, not Cerberus as a whole.
2) Some of the cells go rogue on TIM (like Jack's) doing things even HE doesn't approve of. Also, the Colony of the Dead. (I can't imagine someone as smart as him okaying a project to turn a human colony into husks. That makes no sense since they didn't collect the husks for an army later, and it just reduces humanity's desire for colonization (which is very high on the list of priorities))
3) If your whole team dies including you and you destroyed the base, he takes it with much more grace than if you're alive, saying that it was a victory and bought them vital time to prepare against the Reapers - even he knows they're the real threat. (If you destroy it and live, I feel like he's just afraid you're going to come after him if he's not in control)
4) He brings you back to life, and did NOT include a control chip.
5) In those mission reports he does stuff like funnel money to effected colonies and human groups that need help. (e.g. Horizon)
Anyway, those are reasons to work with him. You don't have to trust him though. If he betrays you, then how's he going to stop you destroying him? With Collector tech? The same tech that your ship just blew to hell? I think it's far more dangerous to not give humanity this chance.

Modifié par JulianusApostate, 15 mars 2010 - 05:55 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Senalda wrote...

The whole concept of working for Cerberus is the biggest turn-off in ME2. I mean, the organization has been painted out as being a sadistical terrorist organization that does human/alien experiments for no apparent reason. Why on earth would Shepard want to have anything to do with them, except maybe blowing them off the galactic map (again)? Even on my redneck rasist Shepard playthrough I'm having hard time understanding the idea. It's just wrong.

There are some hints that Cerberus has changed since the first game, but if such a thing has happened, there should've been some kind of groundwork laid out for that BEFORE ME2 started. Even in the book Ascension Cerberus is nothing more than power-hungry terrorist organization.

Exactly my feelings. 

If BioWare wants this twist that we now work for (or rather with) our former enemy, fine. But pleaaase, for the love of immersion, it would be so easy in a trilogy to make the twist more interesting, believable and...well... "twisty".
They could have made the experiments in ME1 a little less stupid, a little bit more ambiguous.
They could have made the arguments about changes in the general direction a bit more understandable. Making TIM apologize for having failed in the past as a support for humanity.
Even an end-justify-the-means approach doesn't explain half of the stuff Shepard encounters and stops during ME1. The only thing that is convincingly described is Pragia... oh what a surprise, its in ME2.
It certainly doesn't look like they knew in ME1 that they would make Cerberus work with the hero in ME2. 

And as i wrote somewhere else recently, this whole "work with the former enemy"-thing messes the renegade/paragon dualty to hell and back. The game itself constantly swaps between "supporting Cerberus is renegade" and "betraying Cerberus is renegade too". So... there's another example for how this part of the plot looks sloppy. 

This kinda destroys the base for a reasonable discussion about whether to trust Cerberus or not. It's just not convincing and consistent enough in the first place. All what we can do is brainlessly sticking to whether we want to be Renegade or Paragon and ignore the content of the dialogs (concerning Cerberus, that is, in other cases it works much better).

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 15 mars 2010 - 06:26 .

[Terraneaux]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Exactly my feelings. 

If BioWare wants this twist that we now work for (or rather with) our former enemy, fine. But pleaaase, for the love of immersion, it would be so easy in a trilogy to make the twist more interesting, believable and...well... "twisty".
They could have made the experiments in ME1 a little less stupid, a little bit more ambiguous.
They could have made the arguments about changes in the general direction a bit more understandable. Making TIM apologize for having failed in the past as a support for humanity.
Even an end-justify-the-means approach doesn't explain half of the stuff Shepard encounters and stops during ME1. The only thing that is convincingly described is Pragia... oh what a surprise, its in ME2.
It certainly doesn't look like they knew in ME1 that they would make Cerberus work with the hero in ME2. 

And as i wrote somewhere else recently, this whole "work with the former enemy"-thing messes the renegade/paragon dualty to hell and back. The game itself constantly swaps between "supporting Cerberus is renegade" and "betraying Cerberus is renegade too". So... there's another example for how this part of the plot looks sloppy. 

This kinda destroys the base for a reasonable discussion about whether to trust Cerberus or not. It's just not convincing and consistent enough in the first place. All what we can do is brainlessly sticking to whether we want to be Renegade or Paragon and ignore the content of the dialogs (concerning Cerberus, that is, in other cases it works much better).

This.  It's like someone on the writing team was like '...and Shep will be working with Cerberus, it's gonna be awesome!' and worked their hardest to make that happen without actually trying to write a good story.  

[Bwaksson]

I disagree. Joining Cerberus is IMO excellent story-material. Being able to see a confrontation from "the others" point of view is always more interesting than just sticking with the same side allt he time. If nothing else its more novel. The only thing I miss is in ME1, I'd like to take Saren up on his offer of joining the Reapers. I'd like that
Sure you could as a player have been given the option to join, but that would have made the game twice as large (not necessarilly bad though) and we would still be waiting for it.

As for a Cerberus fleet, they have one. Perhaps not very big but... They approach the Collector station if Shepard die. Seems cruiser size and I count six of them. Even if that is their entire fleet it's atleast something.

The council/Alliance doesn't do much for Shepard compared to Cerberus but the council does tell you why. They represent billions of individuals and can't act on theories supported by only a handfull of them without proof. Which is why they give you the authority to act on it if you think it's important. Say they did believe Shepard and started to make a vast fleet and prepare for/try to stop the reaper return. What if it wasn't true? What if it was just Saren playing Shepard for a fool? How then would they justify that desition to the general public? "What if it is true?" just doesn't cut it when dealing with such decisions.

IMO the Council does alot for Shepard. But when he/she is killed they can't do anything. The only ones interested and capable is Cerberus (And I'm assuming the shadow broker just wanted shepards body to sell it tot he highest bidder) so it is a logical continuation once you've decided to let Shepard snuff it in the Prologue.

In essence, I support Cerberus on the scale it is in ME2 (Even though I assume EDI hasn't been given real info on Cerberus). But I would not vote TIM for Human councillor for example. On a galactic scale his methods simply doesn't work, that's why I'm also a bit suspicious of his intentions with the Collector base. Working for Cerberus is fine but one shouldn't let them get to powerfull.

quote]SimonTheFrog wrote...

Even an end-justify-the-means approach doesn't explain half of the stuff Shepard encounters and stops during ME1. [/quote]

Miranda's reason is good enough in my opinion. Having Rachni/Creeper/husk shock-trooperswould be very usefull and I still wish you can have rachni teammates in ME3 (). Learning how to control them would be usefull.
Thresher maws are dangerous. Studying them makes sense. And while you're studying it you might aswell se if anything about it has potential as a bioweapon.

OffT: Why is it pronounced 'serberus' in English? The original name of the threeheaded dog is pronounced 'Kerberos'. Is it just another latinisation along the lines of  f.ex. Ceasar? I  am slightly annoyed every single time i hear 'serberus'. Perhaps that's just me

[Terraneaux]

Bwaksson wrote...

As for a Cerberus fleet, they have one. Perhaps not very big but... They approach the Collector station if Shepard die. Seems cruiser size and I count six of them. Even if that is their entire fleet it's atleast something.

So.... how did Cerberus have more Reaper IFF's?  Because that's what you needed to get through the Omega IV relay.  

[glitter_guld]

Bwaksson wrote...

...

OffT: Why is it pronounced 'serberus' in English? The original name of the threeheaded dog is pronounced 'Kerberos'. Is it just another latinisation along the lines of  f.ex. Ceasar? I  am slightly annoyed every single time i hear 'serberus'. Perhaps that's just me

For the same reason as many people here write Kaiden and Shepherd. You'll get accustomed in time, heh...

[AntiChri5]

Shandepared wrote...

Cerberus Commando wrote...

I believe that Cerberus has changed and they are doing what's beat for humanity along with the whloe galaxy.

What is best for humanity is all that matters. If anyone else benefits that is just incidental.

I might be able to accept that if i was at all confidant that Cerberus was acting in the interests of mankind (rather than simply their own) or that even that they were competent enough to accomplish something.

[Blackbaron15]

Cerberus killed my whole unit on Akuze.

So no im not particulary fond of the terrorists

[Bwaksson]

Terraneaux wrote...

Bwaksson wrote...

As for a Cerberus fleet, they have one. Perhaps not very big but... They approach the Collector station if Shepard die. Seems cruiser size and I count six of them. Even if that is their entire fleet it's atleast something.

So.... how did Cerberus have more Reaper IFF's?  Because that's what you needed to get through the Omega IV relay.  

Don't know. Perhaps TIM just didn't want to tell Shepard that the IFF-plans had gotten of the derelict reaper or wanted it looked into. Literarly.
But since they approach the Collector base from different directions I assumed that they had been hiding among the debris since before shepard got there and just waiting for someone to clear it out. As theories goes it does have a few holes but...

glitter_guld wrote...

Bwaksson wrote...
...

OffT:
Why is it pronounced 'serberus' in English? The original name of the
threeheaded dog is pronounced 'Kerberos'. Is it just another
latinisation along the lines of  f.ex. Ceasar? I  am slightly annoyed
every single time i hear 'serberus'. Perhaps that's just me [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

For the same reason as many people here write Kaiden and Shepherd. You'll get accustomed in time, heh...

Considering that I still havent recoverded from Ceasar I doubt I'll ever get accustomed to it. Occupational hazard i guess. But i honestly have no clue why it's like that? Why didn't the inventor of English make the C in cerberus a k-sound? OffT I Know

Why do they write Kaiden?

[SimonTheFrog]

Bwaksson wrote...

I disagree. Joining Cerberus is IMO excellent story-material. Being able to see a confrontation from "the others" point of view is always more interesting than just sticking with the same side allt he time. If nothing else its more novel. The only thing I miss is in ME1, I'd like to take Saren up on his offer of joining the Reapers. I'd like that
Sure you could as a player have been given the option to join, but that would have made the game twice as large (not necessarilly bad though) and we would still be waiting for it.

As for a Cerberus fleet, they have one. Perhaps not very big but... They approach the Collector station if Shepard die. Seems cruiser size and I count six of them. Even if that is their entire fleet it's atleast something.

The council/Alliance doesn't do much for Shepard compared to Cerberus but the council does tell you why. They represent billions of individuals and can't act on theories supported by only a handfull of them without proof. Which is why they give you the authority to act on it if you think it's important. Say they did believe Shepard and started to make a vast fleet and prepare for/try to stop the reaper return. What if it wasn't true? What if it was just Saren playing Shepard for a fool? How then would they justify that desition to the general public? "What if it is true?" just doesn't cut it when dealing with such decisions.

IMO the Council does alot for Shepard. But when he/she is killed they can't do anything. The only ones interested and capable is Cerberus (And I'm assuming the shadow broker just wanted shepards body to sell it tot he highest bidder) so it is a logical continuation once you've decided to let Shepard snuff it in the Prologue.

In essence, I support Cerberus on the scale it is in ME2 (Even though I assume EDI hasn't been given real info on Cerberus). But I would not vote TIM for Human councillor for example. On a galactic scale his methods simply doesn't work, that's why I'm also a bit suspicious of his intentions with the Collector base. Working for Cerberus is fine but one shouldn't let them get to powerfull.

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Even an end-justify-the-means approach doesn't explain half of the stuff Shepard encounters and stops during ME1.

Miranda's reason is good enough in my opinion. Having Rachni/Creeper/husk shock-trooperswould be very usefull and I still wish you can have rachni teammates in ME3 (). Learning how to control them would be usefull.
Thresher maws are dangerous. Studying them makes sense. And while you're studying it you might aswell se if anything about it has potential as a bioweapon.

OffT: Why is it pronounced 'serberus' in English? The original name of the threeheaded dog is pronounced 'Kerberos'. Is it just another latinisation along the lines of  f.ex. Ceasar? I  am slightly annoyed every single time i hear 'serberus'. Perhaps that's just me

I agree that "working for the former enemy" can be excellent material. But it just isn't well explained in ME2. Miranda just says "yes, there were mistakes... and we needed shocktroups". Nice in theory, but if you played the UNC missions in ME1 it was clearly not depicted as "end-justifiy-means"-research but ruthless and rather brainless torture and cr4p. 
Cerberus was just a one-dimensional villain and you blew up a significant part of it. 

Also, i have the feeling that both the death of shepard and the strange behavior of the counsel are just means to justify bringing in Cerberus to the story. The death feels so very forced into the plot. And the counsel was really happy with you after your paragon ending in ME1, it's just very very hard to believe that they turn on you like this after, what did Jacob say? six months? arghh.... i don't like this part of the plot at all... it could have been so elegant and naturally evolving and all we got is strange turns of events and really really unconvincing explanations why it should make sense. 

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 16 mars 2010 - 12:08 .

[Bwaksson]

SimonTheFrog wrote...
I agree that "working for the former enemy" can be excellent material. But it just isn't well explained in ME2. Miranda just says "yes, there were mistakes... and we needed shocktroups". Nice in theory, but if you played the UNC missions in ME1 it was clearly not depicted as "end-justifiy-means"-research but ruthless and rather brainless torture and cr4p. 
Cerberus was just a one-dimensional villain and you blew up a significant part of it.

I agree that killing Shepard is an odd move. Perhaps thought out after they wanted him/her to join cerberus.
But once you take that one odd step the rest follows naturally. Cerberus is the only organisation that can justify paying enormous amounts of money to bring back one person. And Cerberus has found enough evidence that the reapers exist to convince TIM. As Shepard is the very embodiment of the anti-reaper "movement" AND human it makes sence for them to really want Shepard on their team.
The missions in ME1 says very little about what they actually do with the rachni/creepers/husks so IMO it's really hard to tell. But, the ExoGeni did research on the Creepers aswell and they did manage to make them obidient for a while.
The thresher maw research you got more detail from Corporal Toombs and that did seem rather ruthless and pointless yes.
I agree that Cerberus in ME1 have fewer dimensions than I'd like. But I think that derrives in part from the fact that those bases are quite frankly rather dull. One small room with random boxes and one big room with a dozen cerberusians and  forcefields encompassing a few [Insert monster]. If there where someone you could talk to or a console to read at those places it would have gotten a bit more interesting I think.
As for "a significant part" I don't thats true. In ME2 Jacob tells you that you "blew up a few of our bases" if you claim not to recognise the name Cerberus. And I have the feeling that EDI's information of 150 'members' have been falsified. TIM gave her false information in case Shepard decided to turn on him or something. It's not like she had any other use for the information.

[Jonathan Shepard]

No.

Why?

Akuze.

[Destructo-Bot]

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

No.
Why?
Akuze.

Gesundheit!

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 16 mars 2010 - 03:00 .