Talk:Cerberus

Differences Between ME1 and Ascension
Is it just me, or does the Mass Effect's Cerberus and Ascension's Cerberus seem different. What I mean is:


 * You can take them down in Mass Effect, yet in Ascension (which is set months later) they are still around and appear to be as strong as ever.
 * Mass Effect portrays them as a black-ops group which has ties to the Alliance Military, while in Ascension they're shown as something of an independent group.
 * The assassination of the leading Terra Firma candidate chronologically happens way before the events of Mass Effect takes place, meaning that (if we are taking the Alliance Black-Ops idea) they were still part of the Alliance. As Admiral Hackett points out at the conclusion of UNC: The Negotiation when renegade options are used, the Alliance is against using assassination. I know that this doesn't exactly mean that they won't use it, but it implies that they won't use it over nothing, and it seems like there would be no real reason for the Alliance as a whole to want the Saracino in charge of Terra Firma.
 * The Illusive Man appears to be in absolute control, which also lends itself to Cerberus being an individual organisation in opposition to an Alliance group.

I don't know but somewhere it doesn't seem to add up. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Spectre N7 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it adds up just fine.

As I said, this all seems to add up quite nicely. SpartHawg948 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because one of their operations was shut down, there is no reason to assume they have been crippled. An organization of the sort described in the novel and the book is not going to be dependant on a couple of little podunk installations and a few scientists and commandos. This is a group, after all, that maintains businesses as fronts for their plans and has their own hidden space station! I think a group with those resources could take a hit like the one they got in ME and keep going.
 * Groups of this nature are not the monolithic entities that they are oft times made out to be. They often have several wings, or branches. Classic example is the Irish Republican Army. Throughout their history they have maintained, among other things, a combat arm, a leadership arm, a diplomatic arm, a financial arm, etc... They even established their own political party. There is no reason to assume that Cerberus,a group with the resources I have previously described, can't also have more than one wing. These don't seem like the type of people to put all their eggs in one basket.
 * Also, we know that they were still "technically" part of the Alliance at the start of ME, but a group like this couldn't just decide to go rogue on day and then disappear. They would need to pave the way with years of groundwork, preparing hidden installations and networks of contacts that the Alliance knew nothing about.
 * As for the Illusive Man, so what? Someone had to be in charge of Cerberus even while it was part of the Alliance. Organizations like this, even massive ones, still ultimately have one man at the helm. That's why, for example, we have Directors at the FBI and CIA. Does the fact that Leon Panetta has absolute control over the CIA make it any less an instrument of the US gov't? Of course not.


 * Also, Shepard is a badass Spectre. Dismantling their operations on Binthu and Nepheron is a piece of cake to a high-level soldier with state-of-the-art armour and firepower, not to mention an elite squad and a warship. On the other hand, while Hendel might be a good biotic, he's still little more than a security chief, while Kahlee is basically a computer technician. And the two of them were countering one of Cerberus' most important, decade-long operations. So to them, Cerberus represents a very different level of threat. --Tullis 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, bearing what you said in mind, I think the Illusive Man and Cord-Hislop was developed while the Alliance black-ops group were out there - it would seem to me like they almost wanted Shepard to wipe the known organisation out, so the independent "Cord-Hislop" group would be nothing more than a ghost's shadow. As for Tullis' comment - Bear in mind that they did have the support of quite a few Quarians on the Idenna, crap volus copies or not kinetic barriers don't last forever. And the majority of the Cerberus strike team was killed by Gillian - Frankenstein's Monster anyone? Anyway thanks again for clearing that up, it's much appreaciated. I hope we get some official answers in ME2 Spectre N7 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cerberus Fatigues?
Did anyone else notice that your casual clothing usually worn on the Normandy is different for Mass effect 2? If you look at the Subject Zero trailer, it can be seen clearly and it is very "Cerberusy." --Jdunn1 18:19, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

What if Cerberus is not really rogue?
I think there may be a chance that Cerberus is not really rogue. This is based partially on their originally stated status as a black ops group, the whole point of which is to allow governments to distance themselves in the case of failure. There may be the possibility that the Alliance simply took this one step further by declaring them rogue as a means of hiding their support of a group which should be dismantled in the eyes of the galactic community. Thoughts? --Jax Montag 07:10, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

I Think that's possible since Cerberus "spend a fortune" in getting Shepard back, Also, most Cerberus operatives don't know how Illusive Man obtains the money, saying that is better "not to know".

At the end of Mass Effect 2, EDI gives a partial explanation on how The Illusive Man gets his money: by having several "shell companies" that bring in about 6 billion credits. Also if the Alliance had that kind of money, they wouldn't be spending on a company everyone hates, while simultaneously struggling to repair the citadel and finance military operations. --208.83.214.226 23:48, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Anonymous

150?
Cerberus only has 150 agents at any one time? That number seems kind of low doesn't it?188.27.195.221 16:07, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does sound a bit weird. Especially due to the number of Cerberus agents that Shepard can kill on the original Mass Effect - and that does not include space-station(s) personal and various infiltration agents that the illusive man seem to depend on... --silverstrike 16:15, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that may be referring to the number of operatives on Miranda's command level. -- Echo Four Delta 18:28, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense if agents are in charge of operations, and not all involved in operations are classified as agents. For example on Normandy, Miranda is an agent, maybe also Jacob. Likewise in ME1 the agents in charge of operations you stopped are perhaps 2 or 3 people(General and the Scientist)

It is likely the number of people working FOR cerberus. The support staff probably believe theyre working for some B.S. company cerberus would use as a cover. So 150 for cerberus, with 1000 janitor/merc-level support staff. BeoW0lfe 1:30, January 23, 2012

Cerberus Symbol
One would assume that the "Cerberus Symbol" isn't *the* "Cerberus Symbol" at all, but rather the logo of one of their many fronts. Jack recognises it because she was raised by, and has been hunted by, Ceberus all her life... not because it being a Cerberus symbol is common knowledge.  Uli Talk 21:21, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, I was thinking that for a secretive organisation, they sure like to plaster their logo over everything.

Anyone else think the Cerberus icon resembled a demon or the devil? Or maybe a horned helmet? It is pretty cool either way 66.66.145.165 07:33, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cerberus is a real company recognized by many people. Its not like its a secret program that no one ever hears about. Everyone knows about Cerberus just not what exactly what they do. So wouldn't it make sense to have a logo for a company? No matter have how disdainful or secretive they are.--208.83.214.226 23:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Anonymous

Cerberus Operation Sites
I don't know why it's nowhere to be found, but we need a list of the planets and stations Cerberus consistently uses or has used. Not places they've operated on for short duration, like Omega, the Citadel, etc, i mean permanent or semi-permanent bases for cells. We have a list of Alliance worlds and installations, Prothean worlds, and colonies for just about every other major faction, so why not Cerberus? It's not like we don't have very many, Bekenstein, Trident, Nephron, Binthu, and Depot Sigma-23 for starters.
 * And what would be the criteria for ruling out 'short duration' locations? We really don't have any info on that kind of stuff. How do we know that Cerberus doesn't have long-term operations in place on the Citadel and Omega? They do operate in cells, after all. It's not like the Illusive Man would tell Shepard about them, or that Miranda or Jacob would likely even know about them. Colonies and worlds where Cerberus operates are two different things, especially if you want to distinguish Cerberus operations using nebulous categories that we don't have any info on, such as length of Cerberus presence there. SpartHawg948 06:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Image
As for me, the current image seems quite ugly as it is in a very low resolution and is not properly cropped out. Also I don't see any sense in having a 3D logo as it is the 2D one that is used throughout the game. SkyBon 20:56, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current 3D logo to the other one you were adding, which looked, to me at least, flat and boring. And If we want to be really technical, if there's no sense using the 3D logo, I don't see any sense in using the one you were adding either. Seems to me if we're using any (for the sake of making sense and being proper and whatever), we should be using the Cerberus logo from the Codex. It's also the version from Miranda's uniform, as well as Jacob's alternate, with the black replaced with white due to the black background. After all, that's also the version used throughout the game, isn't it? Even then though, choosing between the 'official' (aka Codex) logo and the 3D one, I'd choose 3D, because it just looks better, IMO. SpartHawg948 21:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also like the 3D image, hence me reverting it the first time, and also the 2D image is of the same resolution as the one you uploaded. In addition, the file size is smaller, which usually means lower quality, and compared to the image now, it looks flat and unappealing. If we are going to change it, the Codex image would be the way to go, but compared to this very nice 3D image, I would say the 3D image looks better than the Codex image in this case. Lancer1289 21:11, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually appplies to raster images. The resolution does not matter for vector images: 10,000x10,000 image can have the same size and quality of 10x10px one. You can scale them painlessly. You can read about vector images here. SkyBon 21:15, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, you can't. Sorry, was mistaken about what needs to happen due to the confusing nature of the link. You need to removed the URL. There's no reason to use it if you have the link set up as an internal link. Well, no reason unless you don't want the link to work. SpartHawg948 21:18, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I can. See this image as an illustration. P.S. link fixed. SkyBon 21:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

OK. So there's the file size issue apparently resolved. Still leaves all the others which went unaddressed. (Also, "In fact I can"? Can what? If it's in reference to "Actually, no, you can't", that was a clear reference to the inability of the reader [aka not you] to see what you claimed they could due to the broken link, which is now fixed. You're welcome, btw. :P) SpartHawg948 21:31, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some shading to the image. You can check it out. SkyBon 22:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it. The current image is still much better IMO. Lancer1289 22:49, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really looks no different. "Some shading" doesn't really address the other points that you have yet to address. SpartHawg948 22:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I will never persuade you two that a neat vector image is aesthetically better than a poorly-cropped blurry raster image. "IMO, period" what you are actually trying to say. SkyBon 23:01, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you have yet to address several things that you were asked to clarify. How is it badly cropped? How is it blurry? It looks fine, shows up fine, and looks more appealing than the 2D image. There is no valid reason to replace it with an image that looks flat and unappealing. The 3D image looks much more aesthetically pleasing, and better, than the 2D image, which again looks flat and, next to the current image, unappealing, no matter what is done to it. Mimicking the 3D image doesn't change the fact that it doesn't look the same, and looks like something that was manipulated to look better. Why switch when we have a better image that is current in use. And IMO is shorthand for "in my opinion". IMHO is shorthand for "in my humble opinion". And IMHO the current image is much better than the other one. Lancer1289 23:07, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * You say 'A' is better, I say 'B' is better and we are in a deadlock. It is clearly seen that the current image is poorly cropped from the white background as the traces of white at the borders remain. Plus, why do you think that 3D image is necessarily better than 2D one? BTW I am not lame, I know what IMO and IMHO are. SkyBon 23:18, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the vector image even approached looking like the actual Cerberus logo, I'd be all for replacing it. The vector image you have is in no way aesthetically better, because it looks exactly like what it is: An attempt to imitate the Cerberus logo. If it looked like it was professionally done and could actually pass as something in-game, then I'd give it a shot. -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:13, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it actually matter who did it? It is an exact vector reproduction of the existing logo. SkyBon 23:18, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed the point of my comment. I don't care if you make the logo, as long as it actually looks like the Cerberus logo. That is to say, I think your claim that it is "an exact vector reproduction" is false. Make it actually look like the current logo and your case for replacing it will be much stronger. -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, your answer to the unaddressed points is "You're just arguing your opinion", eh? No answer to the "how is this Cerberus logo any more 'official' than the current one" point? Since there seems to be no one standard 'official' logo, though the Codex image is likely the most 'official' of the lot, yet it's not the one you're arguing for, which would seem to negate one of your main points for using your image over the current one. SpartHawg948 23:30, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the color the only difference between the official logo and vector reproduction? SkyBon 23:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Codex image also seems to employ some 3D imaging. It's certainly not a flat featureless image like the vector reproduction. SpartHawg948 23:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the deadlock, we are actually two vs. one. Spart and myself vs., you, so we aren't in deadlock, you are outvoted, by two admins who say that the "flat featureless image" is worse than the current image. The image isn't the same, which has been pointed out. The current image is much better than the featureless 2D image because it seems to leap off the page, so to speak, better than the one you want to replace it with. Imitation =/= the same. The current image is much better than yet another, worse 2D image, that isn't even an exact reproduction.
 * If it came to a debate between the Codex image and this one, I'd actually argue for this one. This is just yet another one of the Cerberus logos that is used in multiple places in the game. This one, IMO, looks better than the Codex image, and seems to jump off the page more.
 * As to the short hand, well you asked and how was I supposed to know that you didn't know what IMO meant from the way you structured your sentence. Lancer1289 23:58, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Grayson Status SPOILERS
SPOILER WARNING

It wouldnt be appropiate to change his status after Retribution? i mean, for all of us who readed the book, we saw how he ended up.--Changonauta 20:15, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering it is after the tag, and story of the novel, I really don't see why not. I'll make the adjustments. Lancer1289 20:19, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good one Lancer, thanks --Changonauta 20:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I guess this was one of those things that got overlooked after the Retribution section was added. Lancer1289 20:29, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Its possible, i didnt want to modify it before discussing it here--Changonauta 21:23, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Cerberus gone mad?
I understand that Mass Effect 3's story isn't fully revealed yet, but why would Cerberus be out to kill Shepard? The Illusive Man wasted billions of credits to revive Shepard, so why would he kill the Commander now? Also, even if the Commander didn't tell the Illusive Man to "*bleep* off" at the end of the game, and if Shepard gave them the Collector Base, why would they be out to kill Shepard? It just makes no sense to me, and maybe someone could clear this up. LordDeathRay (Comm Chatter)  16:16, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's too early to say. We may not know the reasons until we have ME3 running in our consoles. But I doubt the Illusive Man would hesitate to kill Shepard because of how much he spent on reviving Shepard or if Shepard gave him the Collector Base. If there's cause for him to do so, the Illusive Man will have Shepard eliminated, plain and simple. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:40, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * People can we please watch the language. We all know what "F*ck off" means and we don't need it here. Please keep comments mature or don't say it.
 * Second, this is something that is much more appropriate in the Forums or in a blog post. Lancer1289 16:58, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if Cerberus kills Shepard, how will they be able to combat the Reapers? LordDeathRay  (Comm Chatter)  20:06, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * See my previous comment about where this would be much more appropriate. Lancer1289 20:10, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:LordDeathRay/Cerberus_gone_mad%3F LordDeathRay  (Comm Chatter)  20:55, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Miranda and Jacob
If you take Miranda (not sure about Jacob) to the final boss and choose to destroy the station. Doesn't she say she quits? I think sayin she's defiantly still a member could be considered wrong if you made that choice. Should this be noted? Tivis014 20:57, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * And what exactly should be noted? There are also canon issues with that one. Lancer1289 21:03, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself I was hoping someone else would to be honest because like you said it's tricky wording. Maybe add a * after they names and put a foot not or whatever saying possibly not still active or something? Tivis014 21:05, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again there could be canon issues with that and honestly, right now this issue is better left until ME3 comes out when we can get some definite details. Lancer1289 21:08, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

sorry if this is the wrong place to say this but will mirand and jacob be allies or enemies in ME3
 * As of now, they appear to fall into the Allies category. SpartHawg948 07:03, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Operator vs. Operative
Under Cells, it says an operative leads the cells. In game, EDI refers to the leader of a cell as an Operator. ClerkBosker 14:51, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * They are still operatives of Cerberus aren't they? Lancer1289 15:30, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * True, just like we are all users of this Wiki, but you are credited as an Administrator. Credit should be given. ClerkBosker 15:46, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * So what exactly are you getting at? Lancer1289 16:55, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * That the page should mention the distinction. ClerkBosker 18:52, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Chasca
The wiki says Cerberus deliberately destroyed this colony but where is the evidence for that in-game? The most you ever get is that somebody on the colony was concerned about giving "samples" to them and then when you are on the colony at the end a caption pops up "Cerberus has a lot to answer for here."

That's pretty vague. Even ME2 sheds no more light on this with Miranda merely saying, "The husks were already dead". We can only assume she is referring to Chasca there.

So I think the statement in question should be removed since it is speculation and not a hard fact.
 * No, what Miranda was referring to was the experiments on Binthu as part of UNC: Cerberus. The evidence in game is actually enough in this case as there are a few pieces, which give the whole picture. Lancer1289 13:43, February 15, 2012 (UTC)