3478 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Casuist wrote...

- Claims Liara is working for the Shadow Broker

I have nothing for this tidbit. I first believed it was false information but it Cerberus would know of Liara's ties with SB after the comic.

- Preemptively informs the citadel species of Shepard's involvement with Cerberus

Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. Shepard never hides his affiliations ingame (Hell, he's flying in a ship with the Cerberus logo painted on the side) and reactions would've been a lot worse if they found out with Shepard in the room.

- Information seeding regarding Horizon and Virmire survivor

The Alliance were the ones who sent Ash / Kaidan, they just got tipped off by Cerberus that Horizon was going to be hit.

- Fails to inform Shepard about false turian distress signal

Already explained his reasoning ingame, he had to or else the Collectors could've been tipped off that their plan wouldn't have worked and we wouldn't have had knowledge of the Reaper IFF in the first place.

- Is at least somewhat aware of the collectors-as-enemy before Freedom's Progress

He sent Shepard to Freedom's Progress to see if Shepard could find anything and to see if Shepard would be interested in helping Cerberus, he said Shepard could leave Cerberus if he wanted to after Freedom's Progress but all he can ask for is for Shep to check it out.

Shep confirmed the Collectors, TIM had a suspicion.

- Conceals interest in preserving Collector station until very end

False. He didn't know you'd be able to keep it until EDI uploaded the base's schematics to him and he looked them over.

[Dave of Canada]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Collector Base is not needed in the same sense that the Native Americans didn't need firearms to resist European colonizers. With enough numbers and arrows and maybe a few of those European horses...

A better analogy is more akin to Native Americans trying to resist the Nuclear Bomb.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think people say it should be better, but what they really mean is Cerberus should know better than to do some of the unethical things they do, and if they had just refrained from doing so many ridiculously cruel and crazy things, it would not blow up in their faces so often.

One may influence the other, but I think they are seperate reasons that happen to coexist within Cerberus:

Cerberus is incompetent when it comes to researching technology

Cerberus is unethical to the point of being monstrous in its experiments.

One tells us how likely they are to get anything useful from the base.  The other tells us how they're likely to use what they do get.  Either is enough for me to say "No" to their getting the base.  Together it becomes "Hell, no!"

[General User]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Collector Base is not needed in the same sense that the Native Americans didn't need firearms to resist European colonizers. With enough numbers and arrows and maybe a few of those European horses...

Yeah, that's about where I am on this.  Our victory depends on a united front, which destroying the base can help create.  Sticking with the same analogy, I gotta feel that reaching for the Reapers "firearms" will only get us smallpox.  Starting with TIM and Cerberus.

[upsettingshorts]

Sidenote: It'd be interesting to pursue a "no burning bridges" playthrough of ME1-2, where you save and remain on friendly terms with the Council, save various people and races, discourage the Quarians from going to war,as well as keep the Base and thus keep friendly ties with Cerberus.

[Dave of Canada]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sidenote: It'd be interesting to pursue a "no burning bridges" playthrough of ME1-2, where you save and remain on friendly terms with the Council, save various people and races, discourage the Quarians from going to war,as well as keep the Base and thus keep friendly ties with Cerberus.

That's my "main" playthrough. I've done everything "paragon" except for Project Overlord and the Collector Base because I don't see the logic behind the paragon choices. At all.

[Iakus]

AriesXX7 wrote...


I also have to agree with Shand on this, but for a different reason. The 5th fleet did not actually destroy Sovereign, at least not in the sense you're implying. Sovereign's shields were more than capable of withstanding their attack(s). Because it continued to remain in control of Saren's body (via implants) without releasing itself from the connection, before the avatar was destroyed,  Sovereign "died" along with it's destruction. That's why, I believe, we see the Reaper's body going limp when the shields lower.
It is also why Harbinger 'released control' right before either the base blew up, or the EMP blast reached the Collector General, to avoid the same fate as Sovereign. 

I always thought that the simultaneous destruction of Saren and Sovereign was done for cinematic reasons.  The fights inside and outside the Citadel  mirroring each other.  I didn't read too much into that.

That being said, it still takes an entire fleet to destroy a battle-ready Reaper.  As it stands right now, a united galaxy could hurt the Reapers.  Maybe hurt them badly.  But I doubt they could totally defeat them.  Yet.

[Heldenbrand]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sidenote: It'd be interesting to pursue a "no burning bridges" playthrough of ME1-2, where you save and remain on friendly terms with the Council, save various people and races, discourage the Quarians from going to war,as well as keep the Base and thus keep friendly ties with Cerberus.

That's my "main" playthrough. I've done everything "paragon" except for Project Overlord and the Collector Base because I don't see the logic behind the paragon choices. At all.

I don't think you're supposed to have much logic in your Paragon choices, essentially they are based upon a moral perspective rather than the 'best path'.  I agree that destroying the Collector Base tends to be a decision made solely off the assumption that it would be Cerberus alone that handles it.  But I find solace in the fact that they were willing to hide a still active Reaper derelict from the combined research and development power of Council/Alliance for the sake of their own use.  It had the potential as a goldmine of information not only to make them realize the threat of the Reapers, but also to expand their power.  

If Cerberus was willing to withold that, I have no doubt they would also withold information on the Collectors for the sole purpose of saving humanity.  As a paragon your choices have to look at the picture of saving the entire galaxy, not just one species.  It's the same as there was no logical reason to save the Rachni Queen; it was safer to kill her, given the history of the race, but if you go off your gut feeling it turns out all right in the end.

[upsettingshorts]

Heldenbrand wrote...
you go off your gut feeling it turns out all right in the end.

And the Paragon's near 100% success rate in this regard is a huge problem with the series.

[Casuist]

Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. Shepard never hides his affiliations ingame (Hell, he's flying in a ship with the Cerberus logo painted on the side) and reactions would've been a lot worse if they found out with Shepard in the room

So TIM burning Shepard's bridges before s/he has a chance to walk over them is a good thing? Having the council and alliance informed, involved and allied is in everyone's best interests, unless those interests include advancing Cerberus' aims unrelated to the Reaper threat.

Already explained his reasoning ingame, he had to or else the Collectors could've been tipped off that their plan wouldn't have worked and we wouldn't have had knowledge of the Reaper IFF in the first place.

The suspicion of the IFF was present beforehand (and could have been derived from further investigation of the derelict reaper regardless)... the collector ship mission provided confirmation. Generally, none of my Shepards in-game are particularly keen on TIM paternalistically deciding that Shepard would tip the Collectors off if s/he knew too much. NOT making Shepard aware of the situation further increases the likelihood of failure.

False. He didn't know you'd be able to keep it until EDI uploaded the base's schematics to him and he looked them over.

...which is why he had a team immediately ready on call to go investigate the base immediately after the mission's conclusion.... (yes, that's metagaming the confirmation of deceit... but thinking that TIM was likely planning on taking advantage of the base for Cerberus' goals ahead of the mission requires no meta).

[Heldenbrand]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Heldenbrand wrote...
you go off your gut feeling it turns out all right in the end.

And the Paragon's near 100% success rate in this regard is a huge problem with the series.

Depends, on your perspective.  Sending in the 5th Fleet to save the Council results in a tremendous loss of human life, only to have the Council come back and essentially call you a traitor in the second game.  I wouldn't call that 100% success rate.  Helping out Nassana Dantius essentially gave her leeway to expand her power and kill dozens of workers.  Preserving the cure for the genophage might actually result in what everyone fears, a return of the Krogan Wars and a war that scars the galaxy all over again.

I cannot call paragon 100% perfection, it just depends on the perspective you view it at.

[Dave of Canada]

After a devastating loss of almost the entire Citadel fleet and Alliance warships, Shepard had to personally kill Sovereign's puppet before any damage could've been done to Sovereign. After over a bajillion deaths and large scale destruction of the Citadel, you're expecting me to believe that the galaxy as a whole (that refuses to believe you) can stand against this?



Knowing how to shut down their defenses, weaponry and tactics (indoctrination) would be very valuable. For example, you unite the galaxy and then the turians get indoctrinated... damn, you just lost a lot of that "galaxy" you were uniting!

[upsettingshorts]

Heldenbrand wrote...

Depends, on your perspective.  Sending in the 5th Fleet to save the Council results in a tremendous loss of human life,

Name the single character who actually calls you out on this.  I'll give you a hint: Not a single person who played this game cares about her opinion.

only to have the Council come back and essentially call you a traitor in the second game.

They still offer to reinstate you nominally as a representative of their authority and personally endorse you.

Helping out Nassana Dantius essentially gave her leeway to expand her power and kill dozens of workers.

Pretty sure she does that anyway.

Preserving the cure for the genophage might actually result in what everyone fears, a return of the Krogan Wars and a war that scars the galaxy all over again.

Might.  We'll see.

Whereas the Renegade choices?  Either make Shepard out to be a reprehensible jerk (stronger term banned on forum) or remove content from the game entirely.  Renegade Shepard's expediency is never rewarded.  Second chances offered to dangerous people never results in it coming back to haunt him. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2010 - 12:44 .

[AresXX7]

didymos1120 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

How is the smile evil? Shepard smirks slyly at the end of Mass Effect 1 after he climbs from the rubble in the Citadel Tower.

Things are going well, no reason not to smile.

You have to admit, this is pretty sinister looking:



And I don't think that it's accidental on Bioware's part.  Still not a valid in-game reason, because Shep can't see this.

I'd say it has to do with the context given in each example, TIM just got himself a huge advantage with a new source of serious tech no one else has access to, Shep just survived & won against a Reaper.

General User wrote...
 
Here’s what I’m mulling over: did killing robo-zombo-Saren kill Sovereign or just disrupt him sufficiently to drop his barriers? Would Harbinger have been “killed” if he hadn’t released control in time? If you’re reading the Cerberus Daily News, following the deal with the AI ghost ship and such, you may recall how an organic mind can “plug into” the virtual world, but if the mind stays too long or is removed too quickly the person suffers serious neurological damage. This is how I tend to think of the “assuming control” thing the Reapers do, a capability they have but wouldn’t necessarily over use for fear of what could go wrong.
 
I’m not sure I can follow you all the way to the point that killing a Reapers avatar will necessarily kills the Reaper, though it is true that Harbinger does release control of collectors before they die. It just seems odd that a being which has a distributed consciousness (We are each a nation…blah, blah, blah) would be so put out of sorts by the destruction of a single avatar. Unless of course, blinded by rage at this annoying chap (or chapette) Shepard, Sovereign “puts all of himself into” one avatar.
 
Ironically blowing up the base may mean such questions will never get answered.  Drag.
 

I think, based on the Harbinger/CG repeated connection you used, disrupting him sufficiently or momentarily  to bring down it's shields (smilar to a state of shock) would have been a better way of looking at it IMHO. I was just paraphrasing what has been said by using the term "died".

[mosor]

iakus wrote...


One may influence the other, but I think they are seperate reasons that happen to coexist within Cerberus:

Cerberus is incompetent when it comes to researching technology

They're not incompetant. They did give you EDI researching reaper tech after all. Furthermore, researching alien technology and conscepts are going to lead to way more failures than sucesses, Even researching concepts we're familar with lead to failures more often than not. However, failure =/= wasted time. As any reputable scientist will tell you, failures can give you almost as much insight and information as sucesses. One of the biggest driving force of human progress is making mistakes from the unfamilar and learning from them. If we didn't risk exploring the unfamilar and adapting when things go wrong, we'd still be stuck in the stone ages.

Cerberus is unethical to the point of being monstrous in its experiments.

Unethical yes. They did make mistakes and are ruthless in persuing advances. However, Cerberus' ultimate ethic, the survival of humanity in a hostile universe, trumps all the other ethics we bleeding hearts have.

One tells us how likely they are to get anything useful from the base.  The other tells us how they're likely to use what they do get.  Either is enough for me to say "No" to their getting the base.  Together it becomes "Hell, no!"

As I said above, they'll get useful info, even if the experiment is a failure. As for how they'll use it? Stopping the reapers, possibly making humanity more powerful? Reason enough for me to give it to them and have their personel take the risks.

[General User]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Collector Base is not needed in the same sense that the Native Americans didn't need firearms to resist European colonizers. With enough numbers and arrows and maybe a few of those European horses...

A better analogy is more akin to Native Americans trying to resist the Nuclear Bomb.

I don’t know if there’s any reason to be that pessimistic. It’s like Shandepard wrote, the Reapers are on Plan D at this point, but we’ve got Shepard 2.0 and three major victories under our belt, we killed their vanguard, neutralized/co-opted their major allies and took out a vital installation.

I know optimism is the cousin of idiocy but…to quote Ashley Williams (the Evil Dead one) “this moron’s on a roll.”

[Heldenbrand]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Might.  We'll see.

Whereas the Renegade choices?  Either make Shepard out to be a reprehensible jerk (stronger term banned on forum) or remove content from the game entirely.  Renegade Shepard's expediency is never rewarded.  Second chances offered to dangerous people never results in it coming back to haunt him. 

I can't disagree with you there, but generally when people go into a roleplaying game the concept of choices between good and evil are still growing as a method of storytelling.  Most RPGs before (excluding exception such as Fallout) never gave you a choice about morality to the degree that Mass Effect does, or at least represent its repercussions.  In a majority of novels good does win in the end and that moral tale is pretty necessary in a lot of ways simply to appeal to the largest population possible and probably calm some parents down about the impact of violence in video games impacting their precious snowflakes.

I have no doubt that as the concept of carrying decisions through on a larger epic story arc, both the writers and developers might improve on the 'dark side' of things, but for now I think that the basic story is in mind:

Play a bad guy, expect bad things to happen.  Whether that be sacrificing your team to get the job done and possibly yourself, or alienating plenty of others around you.

Modifié par Heldenbrand, 15 septembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[Dave of Canada]

General User wrote...

I don’t know if there’s any reason to be that pessimistic. It’s like Shandepard wrote, the Reapers are on Plan D at this point, but we’ve got Shepard 2.0 and three major victories under our belt, we killed their vanguard, neutralized/co-opted their major allies and took out a vital installation.

I'll just link this again. Assuming each are as strong as Sovereign... yeah.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 septembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[Casuist]

...investigating reaper tech and indoctrination is not dependent upon preserving the base. If at some level the "renegade" argument in this thread boils down to "we're all gonna die, WE'RE GONNA DIE if you don't do anything you possibly can!!!" Than this conversation doesn't really go anywhere (and, over 120 pages, hasn't). There's been a great deal of rational evidence presented that:



- The Collector Base is a potentially risky thing to investigate

- Cerberus is an irresponsible custodian of such technology in a manner that could as easily compromise galactic security as easily as it could help

- There are other means of investigating reaper tech



...and still, 120 pages later, you get posters suggesting there's no rational basis for destroying the base whatsoever. That's pretty silly.



I suppose I should be happy Cerberus isn't more competent... a dead or captured Sole Survivor on Akuze might have made for a considerably shorter game.

[Dave of Canada]

Casuist wrote...

...investigating reaper tech and indoctrination is not dependent upon preserving the base. If at some level the "renegade" argument in this thread boils down to "we're all gonna die, WE'RE GONNA DIE if you don't do anything you possibly can!!!"

... but how is that not a valid argument? If you don't do everything you can, you're risking the entire galaxy being destroyed.

- The Collector Base is a potentially risky thing to investigate

How so?

- Cerberus is an irresponsible custodian of such technology

EDI says otherwise.

in a manner that could as easily compromise galactic security as easily as it could help

You're assuming TIM and Cerberus are morons and will actually attack the Aliens before the Reaper threat is dealt with. Cerberus is anti-alien but their studies (screw-ups as people call it) often involve in protecting humanity and such, you've yet to see them work on an anti-alien plague because they know the threat the Reapers represent unlike everybody else in the galaxy.

- There are other means of investigating reaper tech

Like what? Examining the Sovereign salvage? They've already done that and it yielded in amazing progress for tech upgrades, the Collector Base is a thousand times better than this and you're blowing it up.

[AresXX7]

iakus wrote...

AriesXX7 wrote...


I also have to agree with Shand on this, but for a different reason. The 5th fleet did not actually destroy Sovereign, at least not in the sense you're implying. Sovereign's shields were more than capable of withstanding their attack(s). Because it continued to remain in control of Saren's body (via implants) without releasing itself from the connection, before the avatar was destroyed,  Sovereign "died" along with it's destruction. That's why, I believe, we see the Reaper's body going limp when the shields lower.
It is also why Harbinger 'released control' right before either the base blew up, or the EMP blast reached the Collector General, to avoid the same fate as Sovereign. 

I always thought that the simultaneous destruction of Saren and Sovereign was done for cinematic reasons.  The fights inside and outside the Citadel  mirroring each other.  I didn't read too much into that.

That being said, it still takes an entire fleet to destroy a battle-ready Reaper.  As it stands right now, a united galaxy could hurt the Reapers.  Maybe hurt them badly.  But I doubt they could totally defeat them.  Yet.

I think the Saren/Sovereign situation was a consequence, or cliche even, of overconfidence on Sovereign's ("the bad guy") part.

Don't forget, while there may be a united galaxy, we're going to see an entire armada of Reapers involved this time too, not just one.

Modifié par AriesXX7, 15 septembre 2010 - 01:10 .

[upsettingshorts]

Heldenbrand wrote...
Play a bad guy, expect bad things to happen.  Whether that be sacrificing your team to get the job done and possibly yourself, or alienating plenty of others around you.

I think the crux of the issue is that Bioware can't decide what Renegade means.

Is it doing bad-ass things because they are cool?  Like pushing that merc out the window.
Is it being a selfish megalomaniac?  Like cynically murdering the Council (bottom option) in ME1.
Is it being purely rational and expedient at the cost of ethics?  Like not sparing the life of that merc in Samara's recruitment mission.
Is it simply an issue of impatience?  Like pulling a gun on someone to get them to talk.

The reason this is a problem is that a lot of the decisions fall under the purely rational and expedient label.  These are choices even people who want to be the good guy - and think of themselves as good guys - will still make given the right set of circumstances.  To never have them work out, to never see that adherence to rational self-interest pay off, it's totally frustrating. 

My problem with it has always been that it makes being a Paragon easy.  The Paragon choices that offer bad people second chances, take heavy risks (the priiiiize... couldn't resist), or distribute mercy like it's going out of style never backfires.  There's never a time when a Shepard making a Paragon decision has cause to look back and say that in hindsight their decision was - while it may have been honest and genuine - wrong.

That's getting way into metagaming, but at some point it starts effecting future playthroughs.  Why make Renegade choices if I know the Paragon one is always going to work out?  It makes the Paragon choice too easy.  Being the good guy should be harder.  That's part of what makes good guys admirable.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2010 - 01:06 .

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

- Cerberus is an irresponsible custodian of such technology

EDI says otherwise.

Many others would disagree with EDI.  Problem is, most of them are dead.

in a manner that could as easily compromise galactic security as easily as it could help

You're assuming TIM and Cerberus are morons and will actually attack the Aliens before the Reaper threat is dealt with. Cerberus is anti-alien but their studies (screw-ups as people call it) often involve in protecting humanity and such, you've yet to see them work on an anti-alien plague because they know the threat the Reapers represent unlike everybody else in the galaxy.

Not just that, but how many experiments are gonna go haywire simply because Cerberus can't seem to keep a handle on the technology they're studying.

Anyone wanna start a pool on how many husk infestations a Shepard who kept the base is going to have to clear out of Cerberus bases in ME 3?

[Casuist]

mosor wrote...

They're not incompetant. They did give you EDI researching reaper tech after all. Furthermore, researching alien technology and conscepts are going to lead to way more failures than sucesses,

This argument has shown up repeatedly and it really doesn't sit well...

- Escape of Rachni
- a fairly clumsy massacre of Alliance marines and murder of Kahoku leading to Shepard's involvement in ME1
- Teltin facility
- Overlord
- Derelict reaper (you're going in without even the slightest bit of precaution that Indoctrination still might be in effect?)
- Retribution (the experiment on Grayson is idiotic both in the lack of obvious safeguards (put a collar around his neck, plant a failsafe in his chest... ANYTHING other than simply making an extremely dangerous, powerful being and locking him in a room) and the ridiculous aggressiveness of the testing in the first place). Beyond that, choosing Grayson as a target out of spite when he's holding a considerable amount of information about the organization as a threat over your head is pretty idiotic.

Cerberus is frequently incompetent... or "breathtakingly and needlessly irresponsible" if you prefer.

[mosor]

iakus wrote...

Anyone wanna start a pool on how many husk infestations a Shepard who kept the base is going to have to clear out of Cerberus bases in ME 3?

If you don't keep the base and get intel on the reapers, I'll join a pool predicting the number of husk infestations. I call dibs on trillions+.