3478 réponses à ce sujet

[tvih]

It's funny really. It all boils down to both courses of action having their possible upsides and downsides. I just happen to lean on destroying the base being the "right" thing to do, based on a wide variety of reasons. For me it kind of boils down to whether to destroy The One Ring, or to keep it and try to use it for good. We all know how the latter worked out in the referenced work... Anyway, others may feel otherwise, based on whatever reasons of their own.



That people ridicule other people for their decision is just plain silly in the end in my books. I know my choice of action might end up not being the better one in the end - I think it's a smaller chance than it being a good one, but I fully admit it might not end up being that way. Hey, I'm only human, I can easily be wrong. So can everyone else. No amount of self-proclaimed superiority makes one more right than the other just because of said proclamation. In any case, all I and others can do is act based on what we feel should be done.



If my choice ends up being wrong, hey, I'll suck it up and deal with the consequences. Whic is not hard, as it is just a game, after all. It's not like the real universe's fate depends on what choice I make in my entertainment product even if I do use reasoning based on real life. If my choice ends up being better, I'll have no real reason to rub it in anyone's face when the time comes, either.

[Markinator_123]

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

I dont know I just got a bad feeling that keeping the base is going come back to hunt you somehow everybody says you did the might think when you destroy it dont get me wrong i do keep it in some games

This just shows that the paragon choice is the popular choice not the right one. There is a reason why you are in charge and not those misfits. Leadership requires making unpopular decisions.

 I know you are in charge  and you have to make tough choices but I dont trust the IM at all and If you are going to hand over something that you dont know anything about  to someone who cant be trusted well then that just plan stupid

That is a risk you are going to have to take. You don't blow up it because of your mistrust of the Illusive man. I don't trust Cerberus and I tell the Illusive man to "shut up" sometimes when I keep the base in some playthroughs. Nonetheless, my Shepard's eye is on the ball. My Shepard is completely focused on the reapers and right now the Illusive man is the enemy of my enemy.

[lovgreno]

Markinator_123 wrote...

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

I dont know I just got a bad feeling that keeping the base is going come back to hunt you somehow everybody says you did the might think when you destroy it dont get me wrong i do keep it in some games

This just shows that the paragon choice is the popular choice not the right one. There is a reason why you are in charge and not those misfits. Leadership requires making unpopular decisions.

True but leaders must also make popular choices or they will have no one following them after a while. For example giving the base to Cerberus will ruin your credibility with basicaly everyone else. If it still would be worth it remains to be seen.

Modifié par lovgreno, 16 juillet 2010 - 07:23 .

[bobdouglas1982]

Tighue wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Evil isn't going away buddy. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to get results, and when it's all life in the galaxy at stake, you cannot be playing idealist.

You have to keep in mind that paragon choices work

in fiction.

“Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men.”

 I agree you have to do what you think is right

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

No, you have to do what is reasonably sound. And what is reasonably sound is blowing up the base. It's also reasonably sound to keep the base.

But humour me, how many wars have been won with "moral courage"? If anything, moral courage may START wars, but it doesn't win them.

Both choices do have rational merits - however, in this discussion to bring up obscure and completely arbitrary non-combat related standards like "morality" is to be completely out of place.

Harbinger: This hurts you.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 16 juillet 2010 - 07:32 .

[bobdouglas1982]

Markinator_123 wrote...

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

I dont know I just got a bad feeling that keeping the base is going come back to hunt you somehow everybody says you did the might think when you destroy it dont get me wrong i do keep it in some games

This just shows that the paragon choice is the popular choice not the right one. There is a reason why you are in charge and not those misfits. Leadership requires making unpopular decisions.

 I know you are in charge  and you have to make tough choices but I dont trust the IM at all and If you are going to hand over something that you dont know anything about  to someone who cant be trusted well then that just plan stupid

That is a risk you are going to have to take. You don't blow up it because of your mistrust of the Illusive man. I don't trust Cerberus and I tell the Illusive man to "shut up" sometimes when I keep the base in some playthroughs. Nonetheless, my Shepard's eye is on the ball. My Shepard is completely focused on the reapers and right now the Illusive man is the enemy of my enemy.

The IM has an agenda and shows that he will trun on you fast If Miranda with you when you destory the base he trys to have her stop you. He has plans for that base keeping might and I am just saying might help with the reapers but it could start a whole new threat. I truly belive the reapers can be stop if the  galaxy stands up as one reapers can be destory yes there will be losses but but I belive you can win

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Tighue wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

No, you have to do what is reasonably sound. And what is reasonably sound is blowing up the base. It's also reasonably sound to keep the base.

But humour me, how many wars have been won with "moral courage"? If anything, moral courage may START wars, but it doesn't win them.

I think we're already in agreement.

We are, but not because of "moral courage."

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

I don't even get this whole "morality" thing anyway. Morality is different for everyone, and can be used to argue both FOR and AGAINST keeping the base.

Morality arguments against keeping the base:
- "I won't let fear compromise who I am"
- "Suck it TIM, you're a terrorist!"

Morality arguments FOR keeping the base:
- When faced with genocide on the scale of species eradication, it would be IMMORAL to not do anything that can possibly be done to prevent the deaths of so many people (Jesus anyone?)
- As a TRUE hero, Shepherd should have the "moral courage" to face the derision of the galaxy in order to save it - e.g. Save the very same people who hates him for giving the base to Cerberus
- If one were to truly care about the galaxy, than one would be willing to bear the sins and the sacrifices of his/her decision in order to save the galaxy and even be denounced as a villain in the process.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 16 juillet 2010 - 07:45 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Tighue wrote...

tvih wrote...

Freakaz0idx wrote...
By destroying the base you still have no evidence to show the Council or Alliance that the reapers are a threat. They have every reason to think that Shephard is a nutcase because we still haven't proven anything with solid evidence. Council space will be ill prepared when the reapers show up and they'll be slaughtered.

I thought about this point of view, too. However, given how thick-headed the Council is, I think they'd just chalk up the main threat having been the Collectors themselves, not a mass fleet of Reapers - i.e. they'd just chalk up the Sovereign as having been a Collector creation, and then they'd bury their heads in the sand again.

The readings etc from the derelict Reaper should already have proven that Sovereign is not an isolated incident, and that Reapers existed far before the Geth (I seem to recall them insisting on Sovereign actually being a Geth development) but with the base discovered, they'd probably still just blame it on the Collectors, whether you keep it or not.

Also it'd be one thing if you could hand over the base to the Council, then I'd have to think about the decision a bit more, but giving it to TIM... chances are he wouldn't let the Council races know about it and examine it anyway, therefore probably invalidating it as any sort of presentable proof.

I agree. The Council would likely view the attack on the Collector base as cold hard evidence that Shepard is a menace, one that must be either disavowed or eliminated. I doubt they'll applaud their former operative for picking fights with elements in the Terminus Systems simply because they were perceived to be allied with the "reapers." Renegades and paragons are lined up to be equally screwed simply for having engaged the Collector base in the first place.

 they never said he was a former operative... the asari councilor still considered him a spectre

[Sniper11709]

JaegerBane wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

I don't particularly like the point I'm about to raise, but it comes down to the fact that Shepard only has experience with failed/rogue Cerberus cells. It would be pretty silly to have a mission where you visited a Cerberus cell where nothing bad was happening. Cerberus has a ton of private funding, and unlike a government, funding goes dry when you suck at what you do. Cerberus is a successful, albeit extreme, organization with blemishes in their track record but still get results.

This is some pretty far out conjecture. We know TIM likes to have personal involvement in everything Cerberus does, so the idea that we've only seen the bad cells and there's actually a selection of 'better' cells that pull stuff off all the time simply isn't supported by what we know. TIM has involvement in all of them, and his track record is poor.

Just look at Project Lazarus - by all accounts, the most important and expensive of all Cerberus activities, overseen by no less than TIM's right-hand agent. And look how close *that* came to flatlining.

Cerberus' 'success' tends to be from the fact that their income is guaranteed no matter how much they screw up. When the 'blemishes' that you mention seem to define their most resourced and funded ops, I'm not sure it makes sense to hope that there are other cells that miraculously succeed.

The potential gain of keeping the base far outweighs its potential risks.

Can you seriously back this up with anything further than opinion? We have no info whatsoever as to what exactly Cerberus could produce from that base... but we have plenty of info on the potential consequences of their involvement. Their lack of intelligent risk management, their lack of patience, their questionable judgement - it all boils down to a very ugly picture. Combine that with the issue that every species that has tried to deal with the Reapers by building bigger and better has failed miserably.

This is a case of taking a colossal risk on a vague wing and a prayer that it will be somehow worth it.

Nothing more.

Your making a big assumption on very 1 sided evidence aren't you?

Lazarus went bad because 1 person got greedy and went traitor, hell we never found out the whole story of what happened with the Lazarus attack so we can't really make many assumptions other then Wilson was a traitor (except some of the evidence makes me think it wasn't him).

Other then  that we hear about 9/10 ops that go bad over a 2/3 years period and most of them aren't because of Cerberus failed in some massive way, more often then not it's because someone else interfered or someone went traitor,now before you go on about how that means that TIM is incomptent let me point out that Cerberus can't really be too picky, the people with the skills required by Cerberus most likely would not have been okay with Cerberus tactics so they would have had to settle for people who could the get the job done even if they were security risks.


Now in that same period Cerberus had just as many if not more major activities that succeed. Things like influencing the Alliance to build the SR-1, building the SR-2, Lazarus (still a success, just had a few bumps),EDI, Finding a Reaper (Research team got indoctrinated but still a success), Hammerhead, Quantam Entanglement tech.

Modifié par Sniper11709, 16 juillet 2010 - 08:04 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Tighue wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

Tighue wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

No, you have to do what is reasonably sound. And what is reasonably sound is blowing up the base. It's also reasonably sound to keep the base.

But humour me, how many wars have been won with "moral courage"? If anything, moral courage may START wars, but it doesn't win them.

I think we're already in agreement.

We are, but not because of "moral courage."

I suspect that the renegade I quoted knew more about fighting and winning wars, in real life, than most of the participants in this thread likely ever will.

The decision to save or destroy the Collector base boils down to a moral judgement call. No measure of reasoning, either way, will mask the fact. The renegade opinion is that any possible risk or cost incurred is worth the potential payoff, especially given the nature of the enemy facing the galaxy. The paragon opinion is completely the opposite. Either way, the individual is making a gut check no matter how profusely they swear to be an agent of pure, cold reason.

you want to have as much hypothetical evidence as possible... legion can even count as being proof of the heretics/reapers... a intact collector's base, etc... I think keeping the base shouldn't be a renegade (what if the base still had captured people who were still alive in it?).

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 16 juillet 2010 - 08:15 .

[nov_pl]

You are dedicating every possible resource against the reapers. The base won't win the war but it will help. By the way, whoever said anything about standing against the reapers alone? What you should be doing is making sure you have every possible advantage in this war.

There you are.
How many friends you think TIM will make when people will learn that he has facilyty capeable of making a reaper?
What I think is that every race (even humanity) doesn't trust Cerberus. Knowing that Cerberus has facilyty and knoweledge needed to build the reaper (build from milions of humans/other race), and knowing TIM, who thinks that the end justyfies the means is more likely to make enemys not friends.

[Enfuego]

Markinator_123 wrote...

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

I dont know I just got a bad feeling that keeping the base is going come back to hunt you somehow everybody says you did the might think when you destroy it dont get me wrong i do keep it in some games

This just shows that the paragon choice is the popular choice not the right one. There is a reason why you are in charge and not those misfits. Leadership requires making unpopular decisions.

Correction:  Leadership some times requires making unpopular decisions.   Not every unpopular decision is correct and not every correct decision is unpopular.

Besides which, either choice can be considered unpopular depending on who you ask.  I'm pretty sure the decision to destroy it isn't too popular with Cerberus, or TIM (you know, arguably the most powerful individual in the galaxy).  On the other hand, keeping it wouldn't exactly be very popular with the council.

As a general rule, renegade choices represent the "quick and easy" path to accomplishing a goal.  The ends justify the means, yadda yadda.  Paragons tend to be concerned with a lot of outcomes and Renegades are only concerned with the immediate outcome.  If they have to pave over the last chipmunk colony in the galaxy to give humanity a 1% better chance of victory, they'll do it.  Some paragons might not want to live in a galaxy without chipmunks, especially if they're the one who finished them off.

The choice to destroy the collector base is not a "popular" choice or an easy choice.  It's the choice that says "the galaxy we save has to be worth living in, and a galaxy where Cerberus has a functional Reaper factory at its disposal is not a good galaxy."  The choice to keep the base is the choice that says "let's not burn any bridges that might still be useful."

[Sniper11709]

Tighue wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

...

you want to have as much hypothetical evidence as possible... legion can even count as being proof of the heretics/reapers... a intact collector's base, etc....

Honestly, I doubt the Council would get past the fact that Shepard attacked an unknown quantity operating in the Terminus Systems. They've all but labeled Shepard a fanatic for pushing the reaper issue. It's difficult to imagine any justification for the Omega-4 relay mission that includes the word "reapers" going over well.

Why would they mention Reapers? Maybe i'm missing part of this conversation (went back and checked what i could) but Shepard has already been burned by the Council so many times that i doubt Reapers would come up in anything official, what would most likely be used is that the Collectors were the ones attacking colonys and thus Shepard neutrilized them.

[Giggles_Manically]

This is why Bioware is a good game:

ME1: The Council descion

ME2: THe Collector base

DA: The DR, and the Landsmeet

KOTOR: Jedi Savior or Sith Lord

Jade Empire: Spirit Monk or Dark Lord



Every Bioware game gives us huge choices and presents us with situations that have so many layers that there is no real correct side to any choice we make in most of them.

[lovgreno]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

It's a moral quandary, there is no correct answer to this.  There is no 100% right or 100% wrong in this debate.  As far as the story goes, the writers stacked the deck against both sides.

It was not suppose to be a easy choice if I understood the writers intentions right. Both exploding and keeping the base is supposed to be a desperate leap of faith with little real knowledge to back it up. Anyone with a bit of imagination and willingness to listen to opposing opinions could easily make good arguments (both logical and moral) both for and against keeping it.

[Costin_Razvan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

This is why Bioware is a good game:
ME1: The Council descion
ME2: THe Collector base
DA: The DR, and the Landsmeet
KOTOR: Jedi Savior or Sith Lord
Jade Empire: Spirit Monk or Dark Lord

Every Bioware game gives us huge choices and presents us with situations that have so many layers that there is no real correct side to any choice we make in most of them.

And then they make it so that said choices have no real effect in sequels save for lines of dialogue...( well save for the DR or US ).

Truthfully,. I like the system used in Alpha Protocol, a LOT.

[Sniper11709]

Enfuego wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

bobdouglas1982 wrote...

I dont know I just got a bad feeling that keeping the base is going come back to hunt you somehow everybody says you did the might think when you destroy it dont get me wrong i do keep it in some games

This just shows that the paragon choice is the popular choice not the right one. There is a reason why you are in charge and not those misfits. Leadership requires making unpopular decisions.

Correction:  Leadership some times requires making unpopular decisions.   Not every unpopular decision is correct and not every correct decision is unpopular.

Besides which, either choice can be considered unpopular depending on who you ask.  I'm pretty sure the decision to destroy it isn't too popular with Cerberus, or TIM (you know, arguably the most powerful individual in the galaxy).  On the other hand, keeping it wouldn't exactly be very popular with the council.

As a general rule, renegade choices represent the "quick and easy" path to accomplishing a goal.  The ends justify the means, yadda yadda.  Paragons tend to be concerned with a lot of outcomes and Renegades are only concerned with the immediate outcome.  If they have to pave over the last chipmunk colony in the galaxy to give humanity a 1% better chance of victory, they'll do it.  Some paragons might not want to live in a galaxy without chipmunks, especially if they're the one who finished them off.

The choice to destroy the collector base is not a "popular" choice or an easy choice.  It's the choice that says "the galaxy we save has to be worth living in, and a galaxy where Cerberus has a functional Reaper factory at its disposal is not a good galaxy."  The choice to keep the base is the choice that says "let's not burn any bridges that might still be useful."

Why is Renegade the "quick and easy" way? I could have sworn that Renegade was "whatever it takes"
There is a difference between the two. Mostly that the second ones means that yes what we are doing is wrong legally/morally (whichever adjective applies to the situation) but we are willing to do what think is necessary .

Having just typed up my post i realize that in fact i'm wrong. Renegade encompesses both of the concepts mentioned above and the entire spectrum between them

[Sniper11709]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

This is why Bioware is a good game:
ME1: The Council descion
ME2: THe Collector base
DA: The DR, and the Landsmeet
KOTOR: Jedi Savior or Sith Lord
Jade Empire: Spirit Monk or Dark Lord

Every Bioware game gives us huge choices and presents us with situations that have so many layers that there is no real correct side to any choice we make in most of them.

And then they make it so that said choices have no real effect in sequels save for lines of dialogue...( well save for the DR or US ).

Truthfully,. I like the system used in Alpha Protocol, a LOT.

They have never really had a chance to show off their sequels before.
Jade Empire never got a sequel
KOTOR 2 was made by Obsidian, the same ones who made Alpha Protocol so the lack was not entirely Biowards fault
Except for the numbering system i don't think Dragon Age 2 was ever meant to be a "story" sequel, set in the same universe, building on it but never the story of the Gray Warden.
And then we come to ME, yes ME2 was a disappointment when it came to dealing with our ME1 choices but i'm hoping they can do the idea credit with ME3

Modifié par Sniper11709, 16 juillet 2010 - 09:24 .

[lovgreno]

tvih wrote... For me it kind of boils down to whether to destroy The One Ring, or to keep it and try to use it for good.

Interesting comparasion, especialy considering the very high risk of indoctrination. A indoctrinated Cerberus that gives the reapers back their base plus a lot of information and contacts are not a thing you should risk if you don't know there is something absolutely necesary for the coming war in that base. And all we know is in that base is a fried and radiated reaper larva, dito collectors, dito the collectors biomachinery and a nearby  black hole. Possibly (probably I would say) it may also the usual reaper indoctrination booby traps, a backdoor for possible collector reinforcements and who knows what else the reapers have come up with as a defence mechanism.

Modifié par lovgreno, 16 juillet 2010 - 09:26 .