Ce sujet est fermé
It's like leaving a nuke in the hands of a sociopath. If you do pay attention throughout ME1 and 2 for Cerberus org doings or even read the summaries of the books...canon or not issues aside, you will know TIM is a crazy fanatic.
He sanctions crazy expt. If you choose the back story of the Sole Survivor for Shepard, I think you know what I mean. He allows the Cerberus scientists to set loose a thresher maw on a group of marines...geez. In the novel retribution, and of course the recent DLC overlord...fusing humans with VI and reaper tech???
Yah...it may help in the war against the reapers but in the hands of TIM, the situation is just gonna get a lot worse and we have no idea whether it will get better.
Why do people destroy the Collector base?
Débuté par
Cra5y Pineapple
, juin 01 2010 08:31
Retour en haut
#927
Posté 21 juin 2010 - 06:52
Dimipapa
-
- Members
- 7 messages
Because bioware needed a renegade option, even if the renegade option is the far wiser option. You have the collector base. You could learn almost anything about the reapers, a n y t h i n g. Not just from the standpoint of advancing technology, but more importantly you could find a weakness to exploit.
I have argued this extensively and the general consensus of the paragon boy scouts is that they just can't hand it over to TIM because he might dun rule teh universe with it. And my response to any misgivings about TIM is simple. Even if every bad thing that TIM could potential do with the base comes to fruition, it is far favorable to having the galaxy turned into a reaper juice smoothie.
Shepard sums it up best when he says "A threat this big rules go out the window". My canon run will include saving the base.
I have argued this extensively and the general consensus of the paragon boy scouts is that they just can't hand it over to TIM because he might dun rule teh universe with it. And my response to any misgivings about TIM is simple. Even if every bad thing that TIM could potential do with the base comes to fruition, it is far favorable to having the galaxy turned into a reaper juice smoothie.
Shepard sums it up best when he says "A threat this big rules go out the window". My canon run will include saving the base.
#928
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 07:02
Reever
-
- Members
- 1 441 messages
I "justify" it by saying that my Shepard thinks "If TIM does some bigh ****, I´ll be there to save the Galaxy anyhow!" 
I still played the suicide mission a 2nd time to choose the Paragon ending ^^
I still played the suicide mission a 2nd time to choose the Paragon ending ^^
#929
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 08:26
lovgreno
-
- Members
- 3 523 messages
Yes If the base contains anything usefull at all. If the pulse worked as intended. If Cerberus can use anything they find effectively. If the base isn't a trap. If the base must contain the only possible Deus Ex Machina to stop the reapers that cannot be gained in any other way. If Cerberus can be trusted without asking any questions.Dimipapa wrote...
Because bioware needed a renegade option, even if the renegade option is the far wiser option. You have the collector base. You could learn almost anything about the reapers, a n y t h i n g. Not just from the standpoint of advancing technology, but more importantly you could find a weakness to exploit.
I have argued this extensively and the general consensus of the paragon boy scouts is that they just can't hand it over to TIM because he might dun rule teh universe with it. And my response to any misgivings about TIM is simple. Even if every bad thing that TIM could potential do with the base comes to fruition, it is far favorable to having the galaxy turned into a reaper juice smoothie.
Shepard sums it up best when he says "A threat this big rules go out the window". My canon run will include saving the base.
The paragon boy scouts are all stupid and naive. The renegade badass wannabees are all stupid, insecure and arrogant. Or perhaps that is just a way of simplifying the more complicated reality? It makes things easier I suppose.
#930
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 08:37
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
The paragon position is based on creating various different fears to support their argument.
The renegade position however is quite straight forward: we need intel on the enemy.
The renegade position however is quite straight forward: we need intel on the enemy.
#931
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 08:37
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
Shandepared wrote...
The paragon position is based on creating various different fears to support their argument.
The renegade position however is quite straight forward: we need intel on the enemy.
Edit:
So you gave the base to Cerberus for fear that you'll not gain the intelligence by any other means.
Honestly, I would have agonized over the desicion had I been given the option to secure the base for the Alliance Navy. Cerberus is Cerberus' own worst enemy. Even the Lazarus Project would have amounted to a spectacular failure had Shepard not been there to mop up the mess (ironically). Regardless of Illusive Man's motives or methodology, I wasn't convinced that his organization had the "chops" to "get the job done" in this case. As far as I was concerned, it wasn't so much a matter of trust as it was a lack of confidence.
Modifié par Tighue, 24 juin 2010 - 09:07 .
#932
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 09:13
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Tighue wrote...
So you gave the base to Cerberus for fear that you'll not gain the intelligence by any other means.
There was no fear involved; it was a logical decision. To win a war you need to capitalize on the strategic value of your victories. Just blowing up the base isn't make the most out of the defeat of the Collectors. It buys us time, time to build up meat for the grinder... unless you save the base, in which case you've bought time to study your enemy too.
#933
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 10:44
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
Shandepared wrote...
Tighue wrote...
So you gave the base to Cerberus for fear that you'll not gain the intelligence by any other means.
There was no fear involved; it was a logical decision. To win a war you need to capitalize on the strategic value of your victories. Just blowing up the base isn't make the most out of the defeat of the Collectors. It buys us time, time to build up meat for the grinder... unless you save the base, in which case you've bought time to study your enemy too.
That's a rather weighty responsibility to burden upon an organization so tenuously managed as Cerberus. I'd feel infinitely more confident in any such endeavor should it be left to the charge of the Alliance Navy. Cerberus has churned too many failures and fiascoes in its wake for me to justify any real hope that it yet retains the capacity to meet the renegade's challenge. In my view, giving the base to Cerberus is about as productive as blowing it up. To retread the unaddressed point in my previous post, it's entirely a lack of confidence in Cerberus on my part.
Modifié par Tighue, 24 juin 2010 - 10:45 .
#934
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 10:46
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Tighue wrote...
That's a rather weighty responsibility to burden upon an organization so tenuously managed as Cerberus.
The worst that happens is we gain nothing from it. I'd rather take the risk that we actually gain some valuable information and/or technology.
#935
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 10:57
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
Shandepared wrote...
Tighue wrote...
That's a rather weighty responsibility to burden upon an organization so tenuously managed as Cerberus.
The worst that happens is we gain nothing from it.
Or we gain something from it and, true to Cerberus' established form, that "something" winds up in the hands of someone who's operating with anything but the collective best interests of Cerberus and the Alliance in mind.
#936
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 11:02
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Tighue wrote...
Or we gain something from it and, true to Cerberus' established form, that "something" winds up in the hands of someone who's operating with anything but the collective best interests of Cerberus and the Alliance in mind.
When has that ever happened?
#937
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 11:06
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
Shandepared wrote...
Tighue wrote...
Or we gain something from it and, true to Cerberus' established form, that "something" winds up in the hands of someone who's operating with anything but the collective best interests of Cerberus and the Alliance in mind.
When has that ever happened?
Kindly refer to my previous posts and reread the points that you neither quoted nor addressed.
Modifié par Tighue, 24 juin 2010 - 11:06 .
#938
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 11:15
DPSSOC
-
- Members
- 3 033 messages
Tighue wrote...
Cerberus has churned too many failures and fiascoes in its wake for me to justify any real hope that it yet retains the capacity to meet the renegade's challenge. In my view, giving the base to Cerberus is about as productive as blowing it up. To retread the unaddressed point in my previous post, it's entirely a lack of confidence in Cerberus on my part.
Well let's consider that Cerberus is competent enough to be considered a real threat by the Council, they wouldn't worry about Shepard working with them if they weren't a credible threat. This would seem to imply that their successes out weigh their failures. I think Cerberus failures are a lot like dumb southeners; a very loud minority that gets a lot of screen time.
#939
Posté 24 juin 2010 - 11:38
thetruefreemo
-
- Members
- 229 messages
Suron wrote...
why are people still stupid enough to ask this question?
it's nothing to do with paragon or renegade.
my paragon saw the wisdom of keeping the base...however destroyed it because the ONLY person in position to take it over is TIM..
it's more a do you trust cerberus decision instead of a paragon/renegade decision.
Exactly that's why my paragon, cerberus-liking infiltrator kept it and my backstabber, renegade adept destroyed it.
and it's not clear yet which one is the wise choice...though I can't see either be damning come ME3.
So let's stop asking this idiotic question and show some intelligence, if you're able, by realizing everyone has different points of view and just because YOU feel one way does not make it factual.
#940
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 01:04
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
DPSSOC wrote...
Tighue wrote...
Cerberus has churned too many failures and fiascoes in its wake for me to justify any real hope that it yet retains the capacity to meet the renegade's challenge. In my view, giving the base to Cerberus is about as productive as blowing it up. To retread the unaddressed point in my previous post, it's entirely a lack of confidence in Cerberus on my part.
Well let's consider that Cerberus is competent enough to be considered a real threat by the Council, they wouldn't worry about Shepard working with them if they weren't a credible threat. This would seem to imply that their successes out weigh their failures. I think Cerberus failures are a lot like dumb southeners; a very loud minority that gets a lot of screen time.
I'd hope that the success of the organization isn't solely a measure of its ability to pose credible threats, whether real or perceived. You have a good point though. My misgivings about handing the base to Cerberus stemmed from having a lopsided history of failed experiments to refer to. The Illusive Man proved that he can get results, but those achievements were consistently tarnished by some noteworthy degree of failure. Lazarus was nearly undone by a lone operator who either cracked under the pressures of his job or simply betrayed Cerberus in secret. Teltin scientists produced but could not contain a powerful yet virtually unstable biotic without once divulging their methods to Illusive Man. There's a recurring theme of the head not always having control over what the body is doing.
In regards to Shepard working with Cerberus, I think the Council strictly views their former spectre as a political token that would be used to fill the ranks of "an avowed enemy." The Illusive Man could very well be using Shepard to that end, at least to some extent.
Modifié par Tighue, 25 juin 2010 - 03:15 .
#941
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 01:09
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
-
- Guests
I think the impression that Cerberus is inept, is a by-product of how the story is written. We see mostly failures, therefore the assumption is that they are inept. I think that one would need to assume that Cerberus successes are there, but not shown. It doesn't make sense to me if Cerberus is totally incompetent and a joke in the story. We are shown more Cerberus failures than Cerberus successes, does that mean that they are indeed incompetent, or tenuously managed?Tighue wrote...
That's a rather weighty responsibility to burden upon an organization so tenuously managed as Cerberus. I'd feel infinitely more confident in any such endeavor should it be left to the charge of the Alliance Navy. Cerberus has churned too many failures and fiascoes in its wake for me to justify any real hope that it yet retains the capacity to meet the renegade's challenge. In my view, giving the base to Cerberus is about as productive as blowing it up. To retread the unaddressed point in my previous post, it's entirely a lack of confidence in Cerberus on my part.
Off of the top of my head, I can't think of how the Alliance is shown to be any more competent than Cerberus is. Their failures for the most part are not revealed to us. Does that mean that Alliance failures do not exist? Their successes for the most part are not revealed to us. Does that mean that they are incompetent because we really don't see their successes?
Modifié par JohnnyDollar, 25 juin 2010 - 01:39 .
#942
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 01:20
Trenrade
-
- Members
- 228 messages
Skyblade012 wrote...
Or we could focus on building more of the ships we already have the technology for and which are already powerful enough to take on Reapers.
You obviously didn't pay attention in the first game on how he wiped out the entire council defense fleet (with geth help), and destroyed a good portion of the Arcturus fleet single handedly. Reaper tech is far more advanced than what anyone has in the galaxy atm, the thanix cannon is only a small scale version of what sovereign used. you seen how the alliance ships bombarded the reaper with everything they had but still barely scratched him at all until Shepard weakened him enough, oddly by killing Saren. The best weapon the galaxy has against the reapers is subterfuge and for all species to stand united.
Modifié par Trenrade, 25 juin 2010 - 01:23 .
#943
Guest_Tighue_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 03:35
Guest_Tighue_*
Guest_Tighue_*
-
- Guests
JohnnyDollar wrote...
I think the impression that Cerberus is inept, is a by-product of how the story is written. We see mostly failures, therefore the assumption is that they are inept. I think that one would need to assume that Cerberus successes are there, but not shown. It doesn't make sense to me if Cerberus is totally incompetent and a joke in the story. We are shown more Cerberus failures than Cerberus successes, does that mean that they are indeed incompetent, or tenuously managed?Tighue wrote...
That's a rather weighty responsibility to burden upon an organization so tenuously managed as Cerberus. I'd feel infinitely more confident in any such endeavor should it be left to the charge of the Alliance Navy. Cerberus has churned too many failures and fiascoes in its wake for me to justify any real hope that it yet retains the capacity to meet the renegade's challenge. In my view, giving the base to Cerberus is about as productive as blowing it up. To retread the unaddressed point in my previous post, it's entirely a lack of confidence in Cerberus on my part.
Off of the top of my head, I can't think of how the Alliance is shown to be any more competent than Cerberus is. Their failures for the most part are not revealed to us. Does that mean that Alliance failures do not exist? Their successes for the most part are not revealed to us. Does that mean that they are incompetent because we really don't see their successes?
Good points.
True, the writing does tend to work against Cerberus in both Mass Effect games. I'd like to have learned more about their less ambiguous successes prior to hearing Illusive Man's plea at the eleventh hour though. At that point, I felt obligated to make a decision based on what Shepard already knew. While I'll admit that it's unreasonable to accuse the organization of total incompetence, I still think Cerberus has some serious issues to address before they can be expected to handle a project as significant as the collector base.
I'm sure the Alliance has a history of equally appalling, boneheaded actions to account for. I think the distinction is that the Alliance operates slightly more "above ground" by comparison. Cerberus doesn't answer to anyone. But yeah, I find myself less willing to hand the base over to either faction the more I consider it.
Modifié par Tighue, 25 juin 2010 - 03:43 .
#944
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 03:44
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
You already know about Cerberus' successes.
They got the Normandy built, twice.
Stopped a batarian attack on the Citadel.
Produced the most powerful human biotic in the galaxy.
Resurrected Shepard.
Lured the Collectors to Horizon and defeated them there.
Located the Derelict Reaper and the weapon that destroyed it.
Recovered the IFF.
Got through the Omega-4 Relay, something nobody had ever done.
Successfully stopped the Collectors.
You could also include their successful infiltration of the Migrant Fleet's security protocals.
They got the Normandy built, twice.
Stopped a batarian attack on the Citadel.
Produced the most powerful human biotic in the galaxy.
Resurrected Shepard.
Lured the Collectors to Horizon and defeated them there.
Located the Derelict Reaper and the weapon that destroyed it.
Recovered the IFF.
Got through the Omega-4 Relay, something nobody had ever done.
Successfully stopped the Collectors.
You could also include their successful infiltration of the Migrant Fleet's security protocals.
#945
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 04:08
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
-
- Guests
By the same token, look at how the council is portrayed in the story. Inept and useless. At least this is the impression that we get. I think they are written that way to give Shepard and his/her squad more importance. It shrinks the galaxy down to the Normandy. If one goes strickly by paragon virtues, then the Council is the hub of galactic society post Reapers. Sure doesn't look that way though. They appear to be bungling idiots, oblivious to the obvious.Tighue wrote...
Good points.
True, the writing does tend to work against Cerberus in both Mass Effect games. I'd like to have learned more about their less ambiguous successes prior to hearing Illusive Man's plea at the eleventh hour though. At that point, I felt obligated to make a decision based on what Shepard already knew. While I'll admit that it's unreasonable to accuse the organization of total incompetence, I still think Cerberus has some serious issues to address before they can be expected to handle a project as significant as the collector base.
I'm sure the Alliance has a history of equally appalling, boneheaded actions to account for. I think the distinction is that the Alliance operates slightly more "above ground" by comparison. Cerberus doesn't answer to anyone. But yeah, I find myself less willing to hand the base over to either faction the more I consider it.
The paragon is all about saving the council and building allies, but the Council's actions or lack of them, make some of the paragon's decisions look foolish.
So I think once again, the player probably needs to assume that the Council is quite aware of the Reaper threat, and is working feverishly behind the scenes to neutralize that threat. The denial of the Reaper existence by the Council, probably should be assumed as a political ploy to give any type of credibility to the Council and justify certain decisions made by the paragon.
How the writers will portray the Council and Cerberus in ME3 is anyone's guess. If the writers do it the wrong way, it gives even more credence to the statement that the humans are "Mary Sues" in the ME series.
That is my take on it how it looks right now anyway.
Modifié par JohnnyDollar, 25 juin 2010 - 05:26 .
#946
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 07:59
N7Recon
-
- Members
- 33 messages
The problem with most of Cerberus's successes is that the player probably considers them to be Shepard's. Consider surviving the Omega-4 relay... technically a Cerberus success but you can't blame most players for thinking of it as Shepard's success since she 'did all the work'.
The choice to destroy the base is presented in emotional terms, "selling out the soul of our species". But it could just as easily be made on technical/strategic grounds.
Considering the fits having a data link with the Collector vessel caused (and assimilating an IFF caused), there's no reason to believe that a whole base wouldn't have much more sophisticated counter-measures. The Cerberus ships sent to do research could be infected with a sort of virus with a payload that is delivered/manifested later. It sure would suck to have systems "malfunction" during battle with the Reapers because they were hacked.
Still, given the missions in ME 1 & 2, it seems that a common thread is relative power/capability. The Geth, Quarians, Krogan, Rachni, Batarians, Salarians, Council, Cerberus, Alliance, Aria, Liara, Shadow Broker...all of them has one or more missions where you can make them stronger or weaker, more friendly to you or more angry with you.
It is my hope that it will be impossible to get all factions on your side in ME 3...meaning making everyone strong turns out to be a liability rather than an advantage. For example, if Quarian/Geth war is made inevitable then making both sides stronger in ME2 should back-fire on pure Paragons. Similarly, making both sides weaker should back-fire on pure Renegades. Making one side strong and the other side weak should be the winning choice as it produces a strong victor that can help you rather than a pair of decimated sides that cannot help against the Reapers.
Similar with the Collector Base...only in that case pure Paragon/Renegade would be the best way.
Pure Paragons would save the Council and destroy the base = Strong Council/Weak Cerberus
Pure Renegade would not save the Council and keep the base = Weak Council/Strong Cerberus
Renegons/Paragades would have a harder path.
The choice to destroy the base is presented in emotional terms, "selling out the soul of our species". But it could just as easily be made on technical/strategic grounds.
Considering the fits having a data link with the Collector vessel caused (and assimilating an IFF caused), there's no reason to believe that a whole base wouldn't have much more sophisticated counter-measures. The Cerberus ships sent to do research could be infected with a sort of virus with a payload that is delivered/manifested later. It sure would suck to have systems "malfunction" during battle with the Reapers because they were hacked.
Still, given the missions in ME 1 & 2, it seems that a common thread is relative power/capability. The Geth, Quarians, Krogan, Rachni, Batarians, Salarians, Council, Cerberus, Alliance, Aria, Liara, Shadow Broker...all of them has one or more missions where you can make them stronger or weaker, more friendly to you or more angry with you.
It is my hope that it will be impossible to get all factions on your side in ME 3...meaning making everyone strong turns out to be a liability rather than an advantage. For example, if Quarian/Geth war is made inevitable then making both sides stronger in ME2 should back-fire on pure Paragons. Similarly, making both sides weaker should back-fire on pure Renegades. Making one side strong and the other side weak should be the winning choice as it produces a strong victor that can help you rather than a pair of decimated sides that cannot help against the Reapers.
Similar with the Collector Base...only in that case pure Paragon/Renegade would be the best way.
Pure Paragons would save the Council and destroy the base = Strong Council/Weak Cerberus
Pure Renegade would not save the Council and keep the base = Weak Council/Strong Cerberus
Renegons/Paragades would have a harder path.
#947
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 08:20
heretica
-
- Members
- 1 906 messages
I destroyed it the first time because it didn't feel right. I mean, the guy is not clear about what he wasnts and I have a hard time believe any of the things he says. I never know what are his motives. He might be lying to me.
And besides, my first Shepard didn't like to wake up in a Ceberus facility. I really felt bad for Major Kyle.
This second time, I'm going to save the base.
And besides, my first Shepard didn't like to wake up in a Ceberus facility. I really felt bad for Major Kyle.
This second time, I'm going to save the base.
#948
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 08:34
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Catt128 wrote...
I destroyed it the first time because it didn't feel right. I mean, the guy is not clear about what he wasnts and I have a hard time believe any of the things he says.
Really? I thought he was quite upfront about it. He says that the technology in the base will give them the tools they (humanity) needs to defeat the Reapers. Beyond that the base will ensure humanity can remain a dominant force in the galaxy even after the Reapers have been destroyed.
How much more plainly must he speak?
#949
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 08:35
LorDC
-
- Members
- 519 messages
That's where double standarts come in play. When doctors at Pragia facility fail with Jack escape it is TIM's fault because he organized that project and it doesn't matter that his officers misinformed him. But when Shepard(who spent all ME 2 executing TIM's plans) destroys Reapers operations all credits go to Shepard because... well because it's Shepard.N7Recon wrote...
The problem with most of Cerberus's successes is that the player probably considers them to be Shepard's. Consider surviving the Omega-4 relay... technically a Cerberus success but you can't blame most players for thinking of it as Shepard's success since she 'did all the work'.
Modifié par LorDC, 25 juin 2010 - 08:47 .
#950
Posté 25 juin 2010 - 08:42
STG
-
- Members
- 831 messages
Shandepared wrote...
Really? I thought he was quite upfront about it. He says that the technology in the base will give them the tools they (humanityCerberus) needs to defeat the Reapers. Beyond that the base will ensurehumanityCerberus can remain a dominant force in the galaxy even after the Reapers have been destroyed.
