3478 réponses à ce sujet

[packardbell]

Shandepared wrote...

packardbell wrote...

Because TIM would use it for nefarious purposes as evidently shown in the upcoming book.

I don't consider getting revenge against a traitor who betrayed not only Cerberus, but also humanity, to be "nefarious purposes".

Betrayed them for good reason or his daughter would of ended up like Jack.

[Bad_sheep]

But that won't matter won't it? Once the reapers kill all life form because of your morality...

[tvih]

Is a corrupted existence really that much better than no existence? If you become as bad as that which you are trying to defeat, you're kinda doing it wrong

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Yes, any existence is better than no existence. At least if you exist, you can do something about it, with a chance (no matter how great or small) of success.

1*10^(-32)% is STILL greater than 0%. I destroyed the base in my ME2 playthroughs, but when defending the decision to destroy the base, I don't get this whole morality argument. There are a ton of good, practical reasons to destroy the base.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 14 juillet 2010 - 07:32 .

[smudboy]

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

Yes, any existence is better than no existence. At least if you exist, you can do something about it, with a chance (no matter how great or small) of success.

1*10^(-32)% is STILL greater than 0%. I destroyed the base in my ME2 playthroughs, but when defending the decision to destroy the base, I don't get this whole morality argument. There are a ton of good, practical reasons to destroy the base.

Like?

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

smudboy wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

Yes, any existence is better than no existence. At least if you exist, you can do something about it, with a chance (no matter how great or small) of success.

1*10^(-32)% is STILL greater than 0%. I destroyed the base in my ME2 playthroughs, but when defending the decision to destroy the base, I don't get this whole morality argument. There are a ton of good, practical reasons to destroy the base.

Like?

Haven't we been over this? There are tons. The one most important to me and the one most relevant to Shepherd, assuming that this is the first playthrough and that there has been no metagaming/no perfect 20/20 hindsight, is that as a small infiltration team working with non-existent intel (nobody knew what was on the other side of that relay right?), there was absolutely no way to guarantee that there isn't a second Collector base, or a second Collector cruiser - basically, that there are not more Collectors out there that would attempt to re-take the base.

It was an infiltrate and destroy suicide mission - to survive, Shepherd HAD to leave, whether he decided to bomb the place or set off the radiation pulse. After he leaves, there is no guarantee that when the Cerberus salvage team arrives the base has not been re-populated by Collectors from a second base or another cruiser.

Maybe it has, maybe not; the point is, Shepherd doesn't know. His objective - the only objective - is to deny the Collectors use of the base. And given the s**tty intel, the best way to do this is to destroy the base. Hindsight is perfect, but given what Shepherd knew at the time, blowing up the base is the most logical, most realistic and most sensible option from a military perspective. Realistically, Shepherd doesn't have the luxury of going back to a previous save point if he screws up.

For all we know, in that cut-scene where Cerberus ships are converging on the Collector base (if you kept it), there's a Collector cruiser about to spring an ambush. 

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

BTW, I realize I come off as sounding righteous. It's just my take on it; e.g. how I rationalized it.

[Giggles_Manically]

Rule #1 of War-

Never leave any enemy stronghold behind.

[maegi46]

if you destroyed the base, you WILL lose to the Reapers, end of story. GG

[smudboy]

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

smudboy wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

Yes, any existence is better than no existence. At least if you exist, you can do something about it, with a chance (no matter how great or small) of success.

1*10^(-32)% is STILL greater than 0%. I destroyed the base in my ME2 playthroughs, but when defending the decision to destroy the base, I don't get this whole morality argument. There are a ton of good, practical reasons to destroy the base.

Like?

Haven't we been over this? There are tons. The one most important to me and the one most relevant to Shepherd, assuming that this is the first playthrough and that there has been no metagaming/no perfect 20/20 hindsight, is that as a small infiltration team working with non-existent intel (nobody knew what was on the other side of that relay right?), there was absolutely no way to guarantee that there isn't a second Collector base, or a second Collector cruiser - basically, that there are not more Collectors out there that would attempt to re-take the base.

It was an infiltrate and destroy suicide mission - to survive, Shepherd HAD to leave, whether he decided to bomb the place or set off the radiation pulse. After he leaves, there is no guarantee that when the Cerberus salvage team arrives the base has not been re-populated by Collectors from a second base or another cruiser.

Maybe it has, maybe not; the point is, Shepherd doesn't know. His objective - the only objective - is to deny the Collectors use of the base. And given the s**tty intel, the best way to do this is to destroy the base. Hindsight is perfect, but given what Shepherd knew at the time, blowing up the base is the most logical, most realistic and most sensible option from a military perspective. Realistically, Shepherd doesn't have the luxury of going back to a previous save point if he screws up.

For all we know, in that cut-scene where Cerberus ships are converging on the Collector base (if you kept it), there's a Collector cruiser about to spring an ambush. 

I highly doubt we'll have Fight the Collectors in ME3.  The narrative made no mentioned of other forces, and to assume others is pure speculation.  The Suicide Mission was to Stop the Collectors, and that's what happened.  Although I do not deny anything is possible, it's highly unlikely this'll be an issue.

There is no guarantee, evidence, or allusion to there being any more Collectors.

The objective was to Stop the Collectors.  It was not Deny the Collector Base to the Collectors.

Nice joke.  Yes, TIM is smirking to himself smuggly, unknown that one of his Cerberus vessels is in fact a Collector Ship in disguise...

[Giggles_Manically]

maegi46 wrote...

if you destroyed the base, you WILL lose to the Reapers, end of story. GG

Im going to go out on a limb and say that Bioware wont go down that road my friend.

Most likely it will result in different forces available ala Dragon AGes final battle.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

because boom boom splosions are cool.





DO YOU SEE?

[mosor]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Rule #1 of War-
Never leave any enemy stronghold behind.

Wrong. Read Sun Tzu. The #1 rule of war is to know your enemy. Lets face it, you don't know much about the reapers. The base presents an opportunity.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

maegi46 wrote...
if you destroyed the base, you WILL lose to the Reapers, end of story. GG

thanks for that crystal clear piece of bull****

[Giggles_Manically]

mosor wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Rule #1 of War-
Never leave any enemy stronghold behind.

Wrong. Read Sun Tzu. The #1 rule of war is to know your enemy. Lets face it, you don't know much about the reapers. The base presents an opportunity.

The Art of War is the #1  rule about war in its entirety, and it says quite clearly that leaving a stronghold standing is a waiting disaster.

Aslo EDI datamined that place so we get data anyway (see datapad, and uploaded Schematics to TIM)

[Heimdall]

I just didn't trust TIM to share any discoveries with anyone but Cerberus, thereby making it only useful to defend human planets (Seems like something he'd do, wait untilthe aliens are nearly all dead before unleashing new technology to save humanity) My Shepeard had no interest in helping TIM conquer the galaxy and creat the first galactic empire.



Also, my Shepard was not terribly impressed by Collector tech, it's not like the turians haven't already invented a gun better than the Collecter cruiser's and they never really did **** against Shepard otherwise.



The moral aspect chimed in as well

[Giggles_Manically]

Shandepared wrote...

An enemy stronghold isn't left standing though; instead it has become YOUR stronghold. In any case you need information on the enemy you're facing. There is no rational reason to blow up the base, not one. Not a single one of you has given a rational reason. All of your reasons boil down to snubbing TIM.

Beyond him being a stupid rasist git, his glorious organization is nothing but space bimbos who manage blow up everything more complicated than a battery operated toothbrush every time they go near it. My main reason is just how epically Cerberus fails at 99% of the stuff they do.

Their logo should literally be : LOOKS LIKE TEAM CERBERUS IS BLASTING OFF AGAIN!

Even those Bozos had a higer succes rate than cerberus

[Heimdall]

^ point

[mosor]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

mosor wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Rule #1 of War-
Never leave any enemy stronghold behind.

Wrong. Read Sun Tzu. The #1 rule of war is to know your enemy. Lets face it, you don't know much about the reapers. The base presents an opportunity.

The Art of War is the #1  rule about war in its entirety, and it says quite clearly that leaving a stronghold standing is a waiting disaster.

Aslo EDI datamined that place so we get data anyway (see datapad, and uploaded Schematics to TIM)

A bigger disaster is  fighting an enemy you know nothing about. Knowing your enemy is more important and supercedes leaving a base (which quite frankly you can destroy any time with another bomb).

You got to be kidding me with EDI downloading schematics right? How does knowing the layout of the collector base give you any hard intellegence about the reapers. The only thing you know absolutely certain EDI got was the floor plan. The potential to find far more useful info is greater with an intact base.

[Giggles_Manically]

Thanks.



I actually liked Saturday morning Pokemon when I was 12. Good show and some interisting humor.

[Giggles_Manically]

mosor wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

mosor wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Rule #1 of War-
Never leave any enemy stronghold behind.

Wrong. Read Sun Tzu. The #1 rule of war is to know your enemy. Lets face it, you don't know much about the reapers. The base presents an opportunity.

The Art of War is the #1  rule about war in its entirety, and it says quite clearly that leaving a stronghold standing is a waiting disaster.

Aslo EDI datamined that place so we get data anyway (see datapad, and uploaded Schematics to TIM)

A bigger disaster is  fighting an enemy you know nothing about. Knowing your enemy is more important and supercedes leaving a base (which quite frankly you can destroy any time with another bomb).

You got to be kidding me with EDI downloading schematics right? How does knowing the layout of the collector base give you any hard intellegence about the reapers. The only thing you know absolutely certain EDI got was the floor plan. The potential to find far more useful info is greater with an intact base.

Yeah so you want to put money on cerberus going 5 days or 5 hours before they all end up dead and start it up again for the reapers?

Me I am putting down 5 minutes.

Also reading Saladhin battles are more than based around intelligence alone. Numbers, dispositon, morale, equipment,  positioning, suprise, and experience all give sway into a battles results. Intelligence is great to use on a foe, but it is not the only or most vital piece of the puzzle to a war.

[Giggles_Manically]

What I think it comes down to is that the Pro-Cerberus/Humanity side has this guy has their role model:





While the Pro-Alliance/Council/Galaxy crowd has this man as their role model: