Mass Effect

[HotChops]

  On 4/2/2011 at 5:09 PM, AgamemnonV2 said:

  On 4/1/2011 at 3:43 AM, TheMightyEthan said:

  On 3/31/2011 at 11:01 PM, HotChops said:

I think it's pretty open ended. In my view, my super-paragon Shepard never worked for Cerberus...

 

... He just commanded a Cerberus vessel with a Cerberus crew and weaponry, used Cerberus intel and a Cerberus AI and wore a Cerberus uniform

Not just paragon, renegade too. Regardless of how you play Shepard makes it very clear throughout the entire game that he's not working for Cerberus, he's merely accepting Cerberus' help because their goals happen to be aligned. Sure he's using Cerberus equipment and getting intel from them, but he's not under their command. He's not working for Cerberus, he's working with Cerberus.

This has never been something I have accepted, especially with vanilla Shepard. With vanilla (also considered canon) Shepard, Cerberus is responsible for his unit's attack on Akuze. Plus there's also the side quests from the first game that show that Cerberus was part of a lot of sick and terrible experiments. It's a wall banger that he even ACCEPTS to work with Cerberus. I was really disappointed how shoe-horned you are to work for the bad guys. Just some terrible writing on Bioware's part (aside from the whole "you died" bit as well). Retcon is Bioware's motto I guess.

 

I think that it's part of the moral ambiguity that Bioware wanted to inject into the franchise, much like 2004's Battlestar Galactica. The idea is that we're facing galaxy-wide extinction and you have to ask yourself what you'd be willing to sacrifice to prevent that. Indeed, the actions of Cerberus have proven to be immoral, but what if Illusive Man was truly convinced that those actions were necessary to prevent massive extinction? What if he was also convinced that the Alliance and Citadel Council were not going to take the necessary action?

 

I've just started looking into the recently released ME comic, Mass Effect: Evolution. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that it's made me change my opinion of the Illusive Man.

 

Likewise, I've started to speculate that there may be a big plot twist coming to the third game. This is merely speculation, but possibly spoilerific nonetheless:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

It's entirely possible that the Reapers are not the manifestation of evil that we were led to believe they are. If you pay attention, there are more and more hints that the Reapers perform their "cleansing cycle" for a vital reason. Granted, most of this comes from indoctrinated servants of the Reapers, but we've heard a number of times that the Reapers are actually the "salvation" of all living creatures, and that despite their destructive actions, "life continues to exist." And let's not forget that the Reapers are machines. Someone from a very, very long time ago had to have created one or more of them, and the question to ask is: Why would someone create a machine that regularly wipes out all sentient life in the galaxy?

 

 

Or perhaps I'm just becoming indoctrinated... do you guys hear someone whispering?

[TheMightyEthan]

@Agamemnon: There's no such thing as a "canon" Shepard. All Shepards are equally canonical/non-canonical. Bioware has put forward a lot of effort to make sure that none of the extended universe stuff (books, comics, etc) contradicts any possible playthrough.

[RockyRan]

Kind of reminds me of something:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Why does the game think saying "fuck you" to Cerberus at the end is a Paragon action? I've never understood that. Yeah, the game wants you to THINK Cerberus is evil, but I think it's a complete dick move on the part of Shepard to take all the stuff Cerberus has given to you (your life back through a multi-billion credit Lazarus project, a completely rebuilt and upgraded Normandy, their two best and most valuable soldiers, etc, etc.,), and on the single most important thing that the Illusive Man wants, Shepard turns around and says "fuck you". How in any way is this action the "nice" one?

 

[SanaEquiesterer]

Wow, so I just beat the main story for the first time.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Did anybody have everyone survive on their first playthrough with an imported character? Maybe I should have chose Legion for the first specialist job, but if it had to do with upgrades, Tali got popped in the face like some sucker when a door got stuck just because I didn't get the last upgrade for my pistols, shotguns, and SMGs. At least Samara got in some last words before she died. I thought the death of the characters would have been a little more emotional than bam, thud, cue some sad piano keys.

 

 

But those last few upgrades were expensive. I don't know how many credits I would have saved, but I suppose next time I won't deplete every planet for resources I don't need.

 

I'll fiddle with some character changes, but it just doesn't seem right to go on to the DLC when some of your characters die.

 

EDIT:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Also, I went for the romance option with Tali. While I was slightly disappointed you didn't get to see her face, I think I would like it more if Bioware decided to keep it that way permanently.

 

Edited April 3, 2011 by SanaEquiesterer

[TheMightyEthan]

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Upgrades have nothing to do with who lives and who dies, it's all about whose loyalty missions you've done and who you pick for each job. You could play through the whole game and not get a single upgrade and still have everyone survive, or you could get every upgrade and still have everyone die.

 

By sheer luck I managed to have everyone survive on my first playthrough (which happened to be with an imported character).

 

 

*Edit* -

  Reveal hidden contents

Tali is a fine choice for the tech person as long as she's loyal. IIRC the tech person dies if they're not loyal or if you pick the wrong person to lead the secondary team.

 

Here's a good explanation of how to make everyone surive:

 

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Suicide_mission#Suicide_Mission

 

[TheMightyEthan]

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:34 AM, RockyRan said:

Kind of reminds me of something:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Why does the game think saying "fuck you" to Cerberus at the end is a Paragon action? I've never understood that. Yeah, the game wants you to THINK Cerberus is evil, but I think it's a complete dick move on the part of Shepard to take all the stuff Cerberus has given to you (your life back through a multi-billion credit Lazarus project, a completely rebuilt and upgraded Normandy, their two best and most valuable soldiers, etc, etc.,), and on the single most important thing that the Illusive Man wants, Shepard turns around and says "fuck you". How in any way is this action the "nice" one?

Paragon isn't the "nice" route, and Renegade isn't the "mean" route. I think the best way to think of Paragon and Renegade is like lawful/chaotic in D&D.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

So even though TIM/Cerberus helped Shepard it doesn't change the fact that they're a terrorist organization, and so a Paragon (read: lawful) character wouldn't work with them any more than is absolutely necessary.

 

That's if you're talking about the final conversation with TIM. If you're talking about the decision to destroy the Collector base then it's the Paragon choice because it's tainted by all the horrible things they did to people to create the technology, as well as the inherent risks in working with Reaper tech (indoctrination, etc).

 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I don't think calling them a terrorist organization is necessary. I'm not exactly a fan of that term in general.

[AgamemnonV2]

  On 4/2/2011 at 8:53 PM, HotChops said:

  On 4/2/2011 at 5:09 PM, AgamemnonV2 said:

This has never been something I have accepted, especially with vanilla Shepard. With vanilla (also considered canon) Shepard, Cerberus is responsible for his unit's attack on Akuze. Plus there's also the side quests from the first game that show that Cerberus was part of a lot of sick and terrible experiments. It's a wall banger that he even ACCEPTS to work with Cerberus. I was really disappointed how shoe-horned you are to work for the bad guys. Just some terrible writing on Bioware's part (aside from the whole "you died" bit as well). Retcon is Bioware's motto I guess.

 

I think that it's part of the moral ambiguity that Bioware wanted to inject into the franchise, much like 2004's Battlestar Galactica. The idea is that we're facing galaxy-wide extinction and you have to ask yourself what you'd be willing to sacrifice to prevent that. Indeed, the actions of Cerberus have proven to be immoral, but what if Illusive Man was truly convinced that those actions were necessary to prevent massive extinction? What if he was also convinced that the Alliance and Citadel Council were not going to take the necessary action?

Bioware is running with this trope with EVERY SINGLE GAME however, and it's starting to get old. Mass Effect 2 had you playing Dr. Phil for 75% of the game just because "the best of the best" were all mentally screwed up. What exactly was wrong with keeping with the Alliance being the saviors of the galaxy and then building off of that instead? Nothing. If someone told me that I'd be working for Cerberus as part of the main plot in Mass Effect 2 after I had beaten Mass Effect 1, I'd punch them in the neck for lying.

 

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:36 AM, TheMightyEthan said:

@Agamemnon: There's no such thing as a "canon" Shepard. All Shepards are equally canonical/non-canonical. Bioware has put forward a lot of effort to make sure that none of the extended universe stuff (books, comics, etc) contradicts any possible playthrough.

This hardly coincides with what they usually say. Male default Shepard is on all advertising and they specifically say your Shepard dying in ME2 is not canon. So yes, there certainly is a canon play-through.

[SanaEquiesterer]

  On 4/3/2011 at 2:40 AM, TheMightyEthan said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Upgrades have nothing to do with who lives and who dies, it's all about whose loyalty missions you've done and who you pick for each job. You could play through the whole game and not get a single upgrade and still have everyone survive, or you could get every upgrade and still have everyone die.

 

By sheer luck I managed to have everyone survive on my first playthrough (which happened to be with an imported character).

 

 

*Edit* -

  Reveal hidden contents

Tali is a fine choice for the tech person as long as she's loyal. IIRC the tech person dies if they're not loyal or if you pick the wrong person to lead the secondary team.

 

Here's a good explanation of how to make everyone surive:

 

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Suicide_mission#Suicide_Mission

 

 

Thanks. I know of that wiki, I should have checked there after I beat it.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

No matter who you choose, however, there is suppressive fire as the tech closes the door. I find it silly that the fire team leader's ability to lead can change that.

 

And Samara was not ideal, which I can understand in hindsight since, as a Justicar, she worked alone. Miranda, Jacob, and Garrus work fine though. I had no idea a leadership ability allowed someone to take a shot that would otherwise be fatal for anyone else.

 

I know I sound like I'm bitching here, but I expected that since Bioware decided to make a history and loyalty mission for each character that tries to make you care for them, they would make the deaths more dramatic and a little more sense if they happen. While I haven't seen what happens if you choose the wrong biotic to play bug zapper, I can see that the wiki says they weaken and the rear guard gets carried off by the bugs. That makes absolute sense, but leadership ability brushing off a fatal wound?

 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

ITT: people discover ME2s much weaker writing

[HotChops]

  On 4/3/2011 at 3:29 AM, AgamemnonV2 said:

  On 4/2/2011 at 8:53 PM, HotChops said:

  On 4/2/2011 at 5:09 PM, AgamemnonV2 said:

This has never been something I have accepted, especially with vanilla Shepard. With vanilla (also considered canon) Shepard, Cerberus is responsible for his unit's attack on Akuze. Plus there's also the side quests from the first game that show that Cerberus was part of a lot of sick and terrible experiments. It's a wall banger that he even ACCEPTS to work with Cerberus. I was really disappointed how shoe-horned you are to work for the bad guys. Just some terrible writing on Bioware's part (aside from the whole "you died" bit as well). Retcon is Bioware's motto I guess.

 

I think that it's part of the moral ambiguity that Bioware wanted to inject into the franchise, much like 2004's Battlestar Galactica. The idea is that we're facing galaxy-wide extinction and you have to ask yourself what you'd be willing to sacrifice to prevent that. Indeed, the actions of Cerberus have proven to be immoral, but what if Illusive Man was truly convinced that those actions were necessary to prevent massive extinction? What if he was also convinced that the Alliance and Citadel Council were not going to take the necessary action?

Bioware is running with this trope with EVERY SINGLE GAME however, and it's starting to get old. Mass Effect 2 had you playing Dr. Phil for 75% of the game just because "the best of the best" were all mentally screwed up. What exactly was wrong with keeping with the Alliance being the saviors of the galaxy and then building off of that instead? Nothing. If someone told me that I'd be working for Cerberus as part of the main plot in Mass Effect 2 after I had beaten Mass Effect 1, I'd punch them in the neck for lying.

 

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:36 AM, TheMightyEthan said:

@Agamemnon: There's no such thing as a "canon" Shepard. All Shepards are equally canonical/non-canonical. Bioware has put forward a lot of effort to make sure that none of the extended universe stuff (books, comics, etc) contradicts any possible playthrough.

This hardly coincides with what they usually say. Male default Shepard is on all advertising and they specifically say your Shepard dying in ME2 is not canon. So yes, there certainly is a canon play-through.

 

"canon" is the wrong word to use. Yes, they do have a default Shepard for the sake of advertising and functionality in the absence of a previous save file, but it's not canonical.

[TheMightyEthan]

  On 4/3/2011 at 3:29 AM, AgamemnonV2 said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:36 AM, TheMightyEthan said:

@Agamemnon: There's no such thing as a "canon" Shepard. All Shepards are equally canonical/non-canonical. Bioware has put forward a lot of effort to make sure that none of the extended universe stuff (books, comics, etc) contradicts any possible playthrough.

This hardly coincides with what they usually say. Male default Shepard is on all advertising and they specifically say your Shepard dying in ME2 is not canon. So yes, there certainly is a canon play-through.

The only canon is the stuff that happens no matter what (like becoming a Spectre, joining Cerberus, etc), and the not-dying-in-the-suicide-mission thing. Outside of that there's no "canon" as far as game events go. I've read/heard that in numerous Bioware interviews (having trouble finding a link atm, will follow up when I do).

 

Default Shep != canon Shep.

[Vargras]

  On 4/3/2011 at 4:21 AM, Faiblesse Des Sens said:

ITT: people discover ME2s much weaker writing

 

Jacob.

 

/thread

[TheMightyEthan]

  On 4/3/2011 at 2:57 AM, Faiblesse Des Sens said:

I don't think calling them a terrorist organization is necessary. I'm not exactly a fan of that term in general.

I called them a terrorist organization without really thinking about it because that's how they're described in the games and books. However, putting aside your dislike for the label generally, I would agree that it doesn't really apply to Cerberus; I can't think of anything they've done that really seems like terrorist activity.

[AgamemnonV2]

  On 4/3/2011 at 4:21 AM, Faiblesse Des Sens said:

ITT: people discover ME2s much weaker writing

Found that out a long time ago, bro.

[HotChops]

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:13 PM, TheMightyEthan said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 2:57 AM, Faiblesse Des Sens said:

I don't think calling them a terrorist organization is necessary. I'm not exactly a fan of that term in general.

I called them a terrorist organization without really thinking about it because that's how they're described in the games and books. However, putting aside your dislike for the label generally, I would agree that it doesn't really apply to Cerberus; I can't think of anything they've done that really seems like terrorist activity.

 

I'm not sure what the most appropriate term for Cerberus is either, but we do know that members of Cerberus have been involved in:

 

-kidnapping

-assassination

-election rigging

-media manipulation

-illegal experimentation

-torture

-blackmail

 

Ultimately, they seem to simply be a shadow political group that will do anything to meet accomplish their goals.

 

In that respect, they don't seem too different from a lot of political groups.

[HotChops]

  On 4/3/2011 at 4:41 PM, Badmin said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:13 PM, TheMightyEthan said:

I can't think of anything they've done that really seems like terrorist activity.

 

The events of Mass Effect: Ascension?

 

But that's not terrorism in the traditional sense. Today, many governments like to label any criminal activity as terrorism, but it's arguably not so. In my opinion, terrorism is the act of committing violent crime (usually against civilians) for the purpose of inciting fear and terror within a population.

 

In ME Ascension, Cerberus commits sabotage, kidnapping, assassination and blackmail, but not for the purpose of terrorizing people into action. They do it in part to shape humanity's political policies, but primarily to advance humanity's capabilities. To be specific:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Cerberus attempts to push humanity towards biotics by engineering eezo accidents and aggressively experimenting with those exposed to it. The Illusive Man knows that humanity has to adopt biotics on a large scale in order to compete with the other galactic species.

 

 

At times it can be a pretty fine line, but I don't think it's accurate to call Cerberus a terrorist organization.

[Cyber Rat]

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:01 PM, HotChops said:

In my opinion, terrorism is the act of committing violent crime (usually against civilians) for the purpose of inciting fear and terror within a population.

 

Your opinion is wrong.

[HotChops]

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:16 PM, Cyber Rat said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:01 PM, HotChops said:

In my opinion, terrorism is the act of committing violent crime (usually against civilians) for the purpose of inciting fear and terror within a population.

 

Your opinion is wrong.

 

Well, since you have yet to offer any contradicting definition, let's try to be a bit more objective and academic about it.

 

According to Joshua Goldstein and Jon Pevehouse (2009), "terrorism refers to political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately. Beyond this basic definition other criteria can be applied... Generally, the purpose of terrorism is to demoralize a civilian population in order to use its discontent as leverage on national governments or other parties to a conflict."

 

Furthermore:

- "traditionally, the primary effect of terrorism is psychological"

- "is usually the calculated use of violence as leverage"

- "related to this is the aim of creating drama in order to gain media attention for a cause"

 

So, terrorism is a subjectively defined term. The truth is that terrorism is ultimately a one or more acts of criminality, and the application of the term terrorism is directed towards the means and the motivation. Thus, we can only examine Cerberus's actions and how they apply to the above criteria.

 

From what I've seen, Cerberus's actions are not terrorism. They are undoubtedly illegal and unethical. Many times the motivations of their actions are political, but they still avoid meeting enough criteria to be labeled terrorists.

[Cyber Rat]

I doubt any terrorist group has the intention of spreading fear and terror for the sake of fear and terror. It's a means to a goal, whether they are "noble" or just out for profit.

 

Your opinion:

  Quote

terrorism is the act of committing violent crime (usually against civilians) for the purpose of inciting fear and terror within a population.

 

Your quote:

  Quote

Generally, the purpose of terrorism is to demoralize a civilian population in order to use its discontent as leverage on national governments or other parties to a conflict.

 

Your initial post makes it sound like terrorist organizations are some G.I. Joe villains. Cerberus uses radical and terrorist means to achieve whatever goal they have set. Whether the goal is one that would benefit humanity or not is irrelevant. A human organization trying to advance human goals at other races' expense is not unlike a country-specific organization trying to advance their country's goals at the expense of the rest of the planet. And in both cases, you'll have humans and countrymen disagreeing with the organization that fights "for their benefit".

[TheMightyEthan]

  On 4/3/2011 at 7:09 PM, Cyber Rat said:

Your quote:

  Quote

Generally, the purpose of terrorism is to demoralize a civilian population in order to use its discontent as leverage on national governments or other parties to a conflict.

Your initial post makes it sound like terrorist organizations are some G.I. Joe villains. Cerberus uses radical and terrorist means to achieve whatever goal they have set.

Can you name a single act of Cerberus' that meets that definition, though? Sure they're trying to advance human interests at the expense of other races, but that doesn't make them terrorists. I can't think of they've done that would "demoralize a civilian population" so they could "use its discontent as leverage" on anyone.

[HotChops]

  On 4/3/2011 at 7:09 PM, Cyber Rat said:

I doubt any terrorist group has the intention of spreading fear and terror for the sake of fear and terror. It's a means to a goal, whether they are "noble" or just out for profit.

 

Your opinion:

  Quote

terrorism is the act of committing violent crime (usually against civilians) for the purpose of inciting fear and terror within a population.

 

Your quote:

  Quote

Generally, the purpose of terrorism is to demoralize a civilian population in order to use its discontent as leverage on national governments or other parties to a conflict.

 

Your initial post makes it sound like terrorist organizations are some G.I. Joe villains. Cerberus uses radical and terrorist means to achieve whatever goal they have set. Whether the goal is one that would benefit humanity or not is irrelevant. A human organization trying to advance human goals at other races' expense is not unlike a country-specific organization trying to advance their country's goals at the expense of the rest of the planet. And in both cases, you'll have humans and countrymen disagreeing with the organization that fights "for their benefit".

 

Note that one of those quotes is my opinion, the other is the opinion of two professors. Cerberus's actions do not meet either definition. You also seem to misunderstand me. You think that I'm justifying Cerberus's actions or labeling them based solely on their motivations.

 

Again, let's examine known Cerberus actions:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

In 2170, Cerberus sabotaged the Eldfell-Ashland freighter accident, causing eezo exposure in the nearby population. The crimes committed were sabotage and murder. However, these actions were not taken in order to scare or intimidate people, nor was it done to motivate politicians into any particular action.

 

According to the codex, in the 2160s and 70s, Cerberus attempted to steal antimatter -- most likely for the purpose of stockpiling weaponry. The crime was theft. No civilians were targeted, nor was the purpose of the act intimidation and fear.

 

In Mass Effect, ME Ascension, and Project Overlord, Cerberus conducts wildly illegal, dangerous, and horrific experiments with the purpose of creating super soldiers, biotics, and advanced AI. Again, the means involved the deaths of civilians, but not indiscriminately, nor with the purpose of creating fear and influencing policy.

 

 

 

All of these examples are criminal actions that involve civilians, but the acts themselves and their aims do not meet any academic criteria for terrorism.

 

If Cerberus were terrorists in the more narrow definition of the term, they would attack alien civilians in order to scare their population and/or motivate their policies. To my knowledge, they've never done that.

 

Likewise, they might stage an attack on humanity and pin the blame on an alien species in order to motivate public policy towards a hawkish stance. They don't do that either.

 

Take Commander Shepard's actions at the end of Arrival:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Shepard causes the deaths of 300,000 Batarians so that he can destroy the mass relay. The deaths of civilians was used toward a greater end. Does that make it terrorism? No. It just seems like terrorism because terrorists often use the deaths of civilians as a means to an end.

 

 

In summary, Cerberus may use civilians as a means to an end, they may conduct violent, criminal actions to meet their objectives, but because they do not aim to scare or intimidate the populace, wield violence purely for political aim, or go out of their way to get the public's attention, they do not fit the definition of terrorists.

 

It's more accurate to simply call them extremists and criminals.

[AgamemnonV2]

He's got a point there. Cerberus is far from a terrorist organization. They're much more like space Nazis. Which is fine, because that's worse than being a terrorist I would say.

[HotChops]

  On 4/3/2011 at 7:53 PM, AgamemnonV2 said:

He's got a point there. Cerberus is far from a terrorist organization. They're much more like space Nazis. Which is fine, because that's worse than being a terrorist I would say.

 

okay...um, not to come off as argumentative, but I don't think that's true either.

 

Cerberus occasionally works with aliens. The Nazis never and would never share resources with non-Aryan races. I still believe Nazi Germany would have turned on the Japanese as soon as the Allies were defeated.

 

Likewise, Nazi Germany was an aggressive military force that attacked everyone around them. Cerberus's stance is simply that human safety and stature should not be a secondary priority to appeasing other species.

 

Granted, the desire for security easily transitions into a first-blood attack policy. Likewise, a species-partisan stance easily turns into a species superiority stance, which easily leads to genocide.

 

Also like (and unlike) the Nazis, Cerberus conducts sick experiments on people.

 

However, like the terrorist label, I don't think it's fair to call them space Nazis. Heck, the Nazis were wholly devoted to Hitler. Disagreeing with Hitler was typically a death sentence. Jacob openly defies and disagrees with the Illusive Man and he doesn't even lose his job.

 

Look, I don't disagree that Cerberus is a bad group with an immoral leader. I just feel obligated to jump in when people throw around labels like "terrorist" and "Nazi" because in some cases, it minimizes how bad real terrorists and Nazis are.

 

I totally concede that Cerberus pushes itself awfully close to those groups. If I were living in the ME world, I sure as hell wouldn't support them. I don't even hook up with Ashley because I think she's bigoted.

[AgamemnonV2]

  On 4/3/2011 at 9:01 PM, HotChops said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 7:53 PM, AgamemnonV2 said:

He's got a point there. Cerberus is far from a terrorist organization. They're much more like space Nazis. Which is fine, because that's worse than being a terrorist I would say.

 

okay...um, not to come off as argumentative, but I don't think that's true either.

 

Cerberus occasionally works with aliens. The Nazis never and would never share resources with non-Aryan races. I still believe Nazi Germany would have turned on the Japanese as soon as the Allies were defeated.

 

Likewise, Nazi Germany was an aggressive military force that attacked everyone around them. Cerberus's stance is simply that human safety and stature should not be a secondary priority to appeasing other species.

 

Granted, the desire for security easily transitions into a first-blood attack policy. Likewise, a species-partisan stance easily turns into a species superiority stance, which easily leads to genocide.

 

Also like (and unlike) the Nazis, Cerberus conducts sick experiments on people.

 

However, like the terrorist label, I don't think it's fair to call them space Nazis. Heck, the Nazis were wholly devoted to Hitler. Disagreeing with Hitler was typically a death sentence. Jacob openly defies and disagrees with the Illusive Man and he doesn't even lose his job.

 

Look, I don't disagree that Cerberus is a bad group with an immoral leader. I just feel obligated to jump in when people throw around labels like "terrorist" and "Nazi" because in some cases, it minimizes how bad real terrorists and Nazis are.

 

I totally concede that Cerberus pushes itself awfully close to those groups. If I were living in the ME world, I sure as hell wouldn't support them. I don't even hook up with Ashley because I think she's bigoted.

Let's take a look at Cerberus's activities.

 

In ME1:

 

They set Thresher Maws loose on civilians and soldiers just to see what the reaction would be.

 

They use the Geth spikes on civilians just to see what the reaction would be.

 

They set Rachni loose on civilians just to see what the reaction would be.

 

They try to use a Thorian on a civilian population just to see what the reaction would be.

 

They kill an Alliance admiral when he gets too close to exposing their operation.

 

 

In ME2:

 

They strap an idiot-savant into a nightmare-fuel torture chair just to see what his reaction would be.

 

They kidnap children and perform psychoanalytical and torture experiments just to see what biotic children would do.

 

They purposely let slip where Commander Shepard is supposed to be going just to see what the Collector response would be (in the process getting half [if not all] of Horizon's colonials abducted).

 

 

From the Shadow Broker's dossier:

 

They infiltrate news media organizations (10 to 1 says Khalisah al-Jilani is a Cerberus operative).

 

They kill off the Salarian corner market on narcotics trade on Trident just so they could take over their business.

 

They capture Asaris to test their biotic powers.

 

They kill the Pope to replace him with one that is more militaristic and centered toward humanity.

 

They assassinate an Alliance politician just to forward another one in their pocket. They assassinate some more Alliance politicians just to forward their gains to ensure new laws are passed to allow them to create new shell corporations.

 

They "neuter" a Matriarch's biotic powers because she was a political opponent.

 

 

So really, we can stop pretending that they're baby Jesus or something. They literally are the new space Nazi party in Mass Effect. Everything they do--whether it is murder, extort, torture, harass, blackmail, or embezzle--is done for the sole purpose of "ensuring humanity stays on top." How no one sees the "master race" tones on this one I've no clue. It sort of reminds me of the people who defend Loghain from Dragon Age. Both are complete monsters.