117 réponses à ce sujet

[Ladi]

Know what would be an interesting situation? The Rachni end up going ballistic again, and the council tries to undo the genophage because the Krogan are the only ones able to stop them. I believe the extreme Paragon action is to destroy the cure Maelon cooks up? Then they'd really be up the creek without a paddle. Either you set the galaxy back 2000 years, or you doom it entirely.



I'm not sure Morinth is all about consensual. Her loyalty ability is called Dominate, after all

[enormousmoonboots]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Let's take a situation from ME2 that does have to do with sacrificing lives: the Collector Base choice. If you take the base, you give technology to Cerberus but save more lives, military and innocent, in the battle to come. If you destroy the base, those lives that could have been saved sacrificed. You have effectively seen them, and killed them with your choice knowing the consequences.

Unless you're playing an advance copy of ME3, you don't know that. You have no idea how the Collector Base tech will be used, or even if it will be at all--I, for one, seriously doubt that Bioware would give one alignment such a huge edge. Both sides need to be in approximately the same place for the majority of ME3, or else they'll have to write two or more totally seperate stories.

Furthermore, I think it's a reasonable assumption that Cerberus won't share it (they certainly didn't share the parts of Sovereign that they stole), and then you're not saving more lives overall anyway, you're just probably saving more human ones and killing more sentients altogether. In fact, I believe saving the Council netted you more total lives saved (what was it, ~800 humans versus a crew of 10,000?).

So I don't think Samara would buy that logic.

[Dean_the_Young]

Since I played ME2, I do know that. It's the entire foundation of the end-game choice, the implications of which they spell out for you: you can take revolutionary technology leap in order to fight the Reapers at the cost of Cerberus and Human dominance of the galaxy, or not. Since Cerberus will certainly use it, and the Alliance all but assured to benefit from it as well, that's a technological revolution of benefits you can accept or deny.



When you were taking the ME1 choice, you were weighing10,000 soldiers against the lives of dozens of billions of civilians. You were savings soldiers to risk the innocent.

[enormousmoonboots]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since I played ME2, I do know that. It's the entire foundation of the end-game choice, the implications of which they spell out for you: you can take revolutionary technology leap in order to fight the Reapers at the cost of Cerberus and Human dominance of the galaxy, or not. Since Cerberus will certainly use it, and the Alliance all but assured to benefit from it as well, that's a technological revolution of benefits you can accept or deny.

Sure there are implications, but I'd gamble that like the final choice in ME1, they will all essentially land you at the same place. And again, you don't know how it will be implemented. Maybe they go into the base's computer and find that it'll take ten years to decode and reverse-engineer the technology in it. The Reapers are coming in three months? Whoops, tough luck.

But that's still not saving more overall lives, which is what you're arguing Samara operates by.

[Ladi]

Ah, he can resist at her current power level. What if she goes away a while, sexes a bunch more people (which she can do more openly now that Samara is out of the picture) and comes back stronger?



Also it's possible to fail to resist her if your Para/Gade isn't high enough, so in that scenario it would be silly indeed to leave her alive, because only Samara's entry saves you.

[Dean_the_Young]

enormousmoonboots wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since I played ME2, I do know that. It's the entire foundation of the end-game choice, the implications of which they spell out for you: you can take revolutionary technology leap in order to fight the Reapers at the cost of Cerberus and Human dominance of the galaxy, or not. Since Cerberus will certainly use it, and the Alliance all but assured to benefit from it as well, that's a technological revolution of benefits you can accept or deny.

Sure there are implications, but I'd gamble that like the final choice in ME1, they will all essentially land you at the same place. And again, you don't know how it will be implemented. Maybe they go into the base's computer and find that it'll take ten years to decode and reverse-engineer the technology in it. The Reapers are coming in three months? Whoops, tough luck.

If you're openly metagaming, then there's no point to roleplaying with choices, and there's no point in wasting time with you over this.

But that's still not saving more overall lives, which is what you're arguing Samara operates by.

Samara operates under protecting innocent lives. Soldiers, policemen, dominated individuals do not count. They know the risks when they started (or were compelled).

[Dean_the_Young]

Ladi wrote...

Ah, he can resist at her current power level. What if she goes away a while, sexes a bunch more people (which she can do more openly now that Samara is out of the picture) and comes back stronger?

Why assume her charisma and seductive powers gets any stronger as she kills people? Dominate may be a biotic for gameplay combat purposes, but there was no other suggestion that it's an actual expression of biotic power (as in, a manipulation of gravity and density). Her biotics get stronger, but resisting her was always about maintaining your own will against her charms, not that she raped yours.

[Ladi]

Shandepared wrote...

It's possible if the player deliberately chooses to succumb to it, yes. However in that scenario Shepard WILL NOT GET THE OPTION TO RECRUIT HER, YOU MORON!

Whoa, sudden name calling. And we were all being so civil

Actually, if you go the whole "Safety is a lie, I'm stronger, etc" and she says she wants you, if your Paragade is not high enough you will succumb to her and only get saved by Samara's intervention. However, you are still given the choice as to which one you wish to save. The Mass Effect wiki seems to support this.

Shooting her is an option, but it might not work with her powerful biotics. Dean's got a point in that her ability to influence minds might not strengthen.

[Iknimaya]

It sounds weird, but I can ONLY roleplay as default maleshep.



Femsheps voice is something I just can't... Feel...

And any other appearance than the default doesn't look right to me.

[nhsk]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since I played ME2, I do know that. It's the entire foundation of the end-game choice, the implications of which they spell out for you: you can take revolutionary technology leap in order to fight the Reapers at the cost of Cerberus and Human dominance of the galaxy, or not. Since Cerberus will certainly use it, and the Alliance all but assured to benefit from it as well, that's a technological revolution of benefits you can accept or deny.

When you were taking the ME1 choice, you were weighing10,000 soldiers against the lives of dozens of billions of civilians. You were savings soldiers to risk the innocent.

Technological benefits at what cost? Saving humanity by giving up humanity?

www.youtube.com/watch - Take note of the intro sentence, it's very wise words.

[mosor]

nhsk wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since I played ME2, I do know that. It's the entire foundation of the end-game choice, the implications of which they spell out for you: you can take revolutionary technology leap in order to fight the Reapers at the cost of Cerberus and Human dominance of the galaxy, or not. Since Cerberus will certainly use it, and the Alliance all but assured to benefit from it as well, that's a technological revolution of benefits you can accept or deny.

When you were taking the ME1 choice, you were weighing10,000 soldiers against the lives of dozens of billions of civilians. You were savings soldiers to risk the innocent.

Technological benefits at what cost? Saving humanity by giving up humanity?

www.youtube.com/watch - Take note of the intro sentence, it's very wise words.

Not sure why gaining technological benefits means giving up our humanity. Technologies are just tools. How we use them is determined by our morality, not the other way around.

[nhsk]

mosor wrote...

nhsk wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since I played ME2, I do know that. It's the entire foundation of the end-game choice, the implications of which they spell out for you: you can take revolutionary technology leap in order to fight the Reapers at the cost of Cerberus and Human dominance of the galaxy, or not. Since Cerberus will certainly use it, and the Alliance all but assured to benefit from it as well, that's a technological revolution of benefits you can accept or deny.

When you were taking the ME1 choice, you were weighing10,000 soldiers against the lives of dozens of billions of civilians. You were savings soldiers to risk the innocent.

Technological benefits at what cost? Saving humanity by giving up humanity?

www.youtube.com/watch - Take note of the intro sentence, it's very wise words.

Not sure why gaining technological benefits means giving up our humanity. Technologies are just tools. How we use them is determined by our morality, not the other way around.

Are you seriously saying that TIM has any morality? And even if he died there will always be some jerks who step up and wants to use it  under the claim of "we are working for humanity", either false from start or getting along the way by starting to abuse the technology like growing their own Reapers as a weapon against the Reapers - Yeah makes sense, or not.

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

Not sure why gaining technological benefits means giving up our humanity. Technologies are just tools. How we use them is determined by our morality, not the other way around.

The collectors don't hide some hyper-advanced cannon or anti-reaper shields. They built the base for a single purpose: reaper construction. We know how they do it. We have cerberus's long list of failures (new DLC!).
Do you really think that's a good combination?

Modifié par Barquiel, 14 mai 2010 - 08:13 .