2146 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

Ah I see you once again resort to calling strangers that don't agree with you stupid Shand. Well if that makes it easier for you to stick to just one way of seeing the complicated world of Mass Effect I suppose that is your right. But since you can not take anyone who disagrees serious I don't see why I or anyone else should take you serious as well.



But I'm curious about one thing Shand: As the ME story clearly shows there are no perfect sollution to any problem, there is no way of knowing the full consequences, said consequences always are both potentialy bad and good and most importantly there are no right or wrong choices, renegade or paragon does not matter, untill we know how the story ends. So why do are you stubborn in claiming that the the renegade is the only right choice? This is just a game you know, it says nothing about the real world or us real people who plays it so there is no shame in considering many several ways of doing things. In fact that is one of the main themes of the games and we are constantly encouraged to think out of our own box.

[Nightwriter]

Yeah, the condescension does make a lot of what you say meaningless, Shand.

[Nightwriter]

Really? Let's ask lovgreno for a second opinion.

[Nightwriter]

Now, that's quite unfair. I am to be commended for how much I put up with you. I frequently have people telling me they don't know why I bother. Yet I debate with you anyway, despite the fact that by all rights I shouldn't, since you never read anyone's full posts but insist they read yours.



Hmm. Now that I say that I think I maybe shouldn't debate with you...

[Arijharn]

My only real gripe with the paragon decisions (and people arguing against keeping the CB) is that it involves so much hand waving and honestly meta-gaming (although I have to say that I feel General User's responses are very rationale, even if I disagree).



I mean, it's a game, so obviously they'll be able to triumph no matter what they do, but if the only way to actually play this game (successfully) was to play 'rationally,' then I can't see how at all paragons could win since a lot of people say they do it because they don't trust TIM, which to me just smacks of 'cutting off the nose to spite the face.'



Also @Nightwriter; I think despite the way in which he Shand says things, as antagonistic as they are he is actually right; condenscending attitude makes people get fed up with him, but it doesn't in and of itself make his points meaningless.

[Purge the heathens]

Now, now, no ad hominem arguments or we will need a third thread after his one has been locked down.

Both renegades and paragons will be redeemed in the end of ME3, that's a given. Someone will laud or reproach you for your decision about the base exactly once and it will never again be mentioned afterwards. But hasn't the argument so far been about what would be the reasonable decision if things were, like, real? That would disqualify "It's just a game and everything will work out, anyway", sorry. There may be some plot device that makes the Collector base look almost useless... but we don't know anything about it at this point.

EDIT: @Nightwriter

You probably have a bile fascination with these discussions. Nothing unusual or worrisome. :happy:

Modifié par Purge the heathens, 30 septembre 2010 - 08:12 .

[Arijharn]

I argue Renegade because I'm not meta-gaming. I think General User is the only one who makes reasonable points but I also see them as less 'optimal' in comparison to just keeping the Collector Base.



Keeping the base isn't morally objectionable, it's giving it to TIM, but I think that TIM would be easier to deal with in hindsight than I do the Reapers. I think people who say: "TIM will use it to make a Reaper" are misconstruing a conversation piece in which Shephard was only attempting to demonstrate the fact that TIM is ruthless, not that TIM is foolish.

[fongiel24]

Arijharn wrote...

Also @Nightwriter; I think despite the way in which he Shand says things, as antagonistic as they are he is actually right; condenscending attitude makes people get fed up with him, but it doesn't in and of itself make his points meaningless.

What's the point of even engaging in a debate if you're just going to write off the other side as "overly emotional" and answer their points with charges that their ideas are "stupid"? If you're going to do that and never at least explain why they're stupid, you should really consider just writing a blog. The whole point of debate is to flesh out the issue for both sides by forcing each side to present an opinion and defend it. If the other side's opinion is too "stupid" for you, why not just stay out of the debate and remain silent?

Slightly OT, but did anybody else's mind get blown at Shepard's suggestion that TIM would likely try to build himself a Reaper? The thought is horrific, but the idea of a non-sapient Reaper-type dreadnought being controlled by a rogue terrorist group presents all kinds of narrative possibilities, both for pro-Cerberus and anti-Cerberus players. A leashed Reaper would be the one technology that could truly be a game-changer in determining the post-ME3 strategic landscape.

[Nightwriter]

Arijharn wrote...

My only real gripe with the paragon decisions (and people arguing against keeping the CB) is that it involves so much hand waving and honestly meta-gaming (although I have to say that I feel General User's responses are very rationale, even if I disagree).

You know, I totally agree with this.

I've always said that in real life I'd keep the base. I destroy it strictly because I choose to take BioWare themselves into evidence.

Cerberus has always been BioWare's punching bag. You know they're going to make something bad happen, make the base's technology a mixed blessing.

[Arijharn]

fongiel24 wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Also @Nightwriter; I think despite the way in which he Shand says things, as antagonistic as they are he is actually right; condenscending attitude makes people get fed up with him, but it doesn't in and of itself make his points meaningless.

What's the point of even engaging in a debate if you're just going to write off the other side as "overly emotional" and answer their points with charges that their ideas are "stupid"? If you're going to do that and never at least explain why they're stupid, you should really consider just writing a blog. The whole point of debate is to flesh out the issue for both sides by forcing each side to present an opinion and defend it. If the other side's opinion is too "stupid" for you, why not just stay out of the debate and remain silent?

I agree with you, but it seems that when people argue emotions than they can't be argued with rationally. And that's the whole point of this thread isn't it? To argue rationally for why you chose something? How is: "I did it because I don't like TIM and Cerberus is evil" in any way rational?

I just find the double standards preposterous in a way. Some people say: "Cerberus is evil, every cerberus person should be taken out and shot because they're traitors to the Alliance! I like Kenneth, Gabby, Kelly, Joker, Mess Sergeant Gardner and Dr. Chakwas though! ^_^"

When I try to argue for why Cerberus actually saved lives though I get my position dismissed because I'm obviously wrong and to question the righteousness of the Alliance and the Council is absolutely taboo! I mean, why is Cerberus automatically bad and why is the Council/Alliance automatically good? Haven't we seen evidence in ME2 (and even ME1) itself to the contrary?

Why do people have selective memories? Obviously I may be biased because I think it's the paragons (and I'm talking the zealous Paragons) who have selective memories because we renegade's do at least admit that while TIM is an absolute bastard, we judge any situation which ensures our (and I don't just mean humanity) survival is more preferable to galactic level extinction. People say: "I might not go to my 'grave' thinking I have done all that I could, but at least I can go to my grave knowing that I didn't compromise my morals." I find that thought to be absolutely contemptible, absolutely cowardly, because if I damn my morals I'm still saving everyone else, and that's my responsibility as a Spectre if nothing else. Besides, there's nothing to prevent me being put under investigation for War Crimes after the fact.

[lovgreno]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Really? Let's ask lovgreno for a second opinion.

He is too easily mislead by appeals to emotion.

Like you, he discounts an opinion if he does not like the person offering it. He is incapable of analyzing the position on its own merits.

Yes of course I am mislead by appeals of emotions, I am a human, not a totaly logical unfailiable god with acces to all truth and the ability to make the perfect conclusions. My wievs are limited to one individual in a big world more complicated than any human can understand. As all humans my arguments are very much coloured by my opinions and therefore should be considered NOT objective. How about you Shand?

No I don't care who you are hiding behind the internet. I don't know you so there would be no point in making opinionated assumptions about who you are, those would actualy say more about me.

What I did was discounting your argument wich is this: All who disagrees are idiots. This proves nothing to me.

But this thread isn't about Shand and frankly I am getting tired of talking about him, so back to topic please.

Here is two reasons that supports each side of the decision, and mind you these are just my own very unobjective reasons:
A reason to keep it: A lot can be learned from it.
A reason to blow it up: The risks are too great.

Anyone else want to give that a try?

[lovgreno]

Shandepared wrote...

I'm brutally honest, which people hate.

Yes it's easy to be "brutal" and "honest" whan hiding behind the net isn't it? Therefore I doubt many find it worth the effort to take your personal truths seriously. After all you, like me and everyone else on these forums, are just one person with an opinion among countless others with different opinions on this planet.

Ah there I go again being distracted by trivial things, sorry,  nobody is perfect you know? So, anyone got any reasons for both options? I would very much like to hear that.

[lovgreno]

Shandepared wrote...
There is no logical reason to blow up the base, or if there is I have yet to read it.

So make your own good reason for it then. You don't have to agree with any opinions we have if that is hard for you. I'm sure you could think of something with a bit of imagination.

[Nightwriter]

fongiel24 wrote...

What's the point of even engaging in a debate if you're just going to write off the other side as "overly emotional" and answer their points with charges that their ideas are "stupid"? If you're going to do that and never at least explain why they're stupid, you should really consider just writing a blog. The whole point of debate is to flesh out the issue for both sides by forcing each side to present an opinion and defend it. If the other side's opinion is too "stupid" for you, why not just stay out of the debate and remain silent?

Slightly OT, but did anybody else's mind get blown at Shepard's suggestion that TIM would likely try to build himself a Reaper? The thought is horrific, but the idea of a non-sapient Reaper-type dreadnought being controlled by a rogue terrorist group presents all kinds of narrative possibilities, both for pro-Cerberus and anti-Cerberus players. A leashed Reaper would be the one technology that could truly be a game-changer in determining the post-ME3 strategic landscape.

I can’t argue with this. I think every person has to earn the right to make their opinions worth hearing. An ear isn’t something that’s going to be handed to you. You can’t expect everyone to look past bad treatment and discourtesy to appreciate the value of your point.

Yeah, when Shepard made the "build your own Reaper" comment I goggled at the screen. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened. Up until the suicide mission I would've said it was ridiculous, but then the human goo baby Reaper arrived on the scene. Now anything's possible.

[Arijharn]

I didn't have the 'mind blow' thought when Shephard did the whole 'you're completely ruthless. Next thing I know you are constructing your own Reaper' as I dismissed it as hyperbolic.

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...

I didn't have the 'mind blow' thought when Shephard did the whole 'you're completely ruthless. Next thing I know you are constructing your own Reaper' as I dismissed it as hyperbolic.

Yeah a Cerberus built reaper feels like a too long shot and I admit I would prefer if the writers will think of something more original, but then again that is a very big and unexplored base and we don't know much about TIM and Cerberus either.

[Arijharn]

lovgreno wrote...
 and we don't know much about TIM and Cerberus either.

This is true. I don't trust TIM/Cerberus completely, but I trust that they'll get the job done to assist me in defeating the Reapers (and I can always benefit from their resources). TIM isn't someone I would put on my Christmas Card list, but I can trust him enough for this.

Funnily enough, the only issue I had against Cerberus was Teltin, because on the whole I don't buy the idea of a 'proof of concept' program to determine whether it was possible to engineer a human super biotic to be prudent to have the entire effort focussed on a single child (that and that I think controlling and inciting Anger in and of itself via torture to be essentially a dead end research, because you couldn't expect to torture your own soldiers if that was its eventual aim... it seemed less 'scientific' and more 'mad scientist' to the detriment of good storytelling.)

At least Overlord, as ethically unsound it was, actually proved that the Geth could be controlled... and could be in far latter stages of development than Pragia ever was.

[Icinix]

I support the destruction of the base, but I don't believe TIM has the knowledge or ability to harness what he has even if it's kept. At best, he may score a small bit of enhanced tech, at worst he'll unleash hell within.

With his track record of Rachni, Grayson, Quarian's and so fourth... I just don't like the potential outcome.



If you could hand it over to the Alliance on the other hand....

[Purge the heathens]

Funnily enough, the only issue I had against Cerberus was Teltin, because on the whole I don't buy the idea of a 'proof of concept' program to determine whether it was possible to engineer a human super biotic to be prudent to have the entire effort focussed on a single child (that and that I think controlling and inciting Anger in and of itself via torture to be essentially a dead end research, because you couldn't expect to torture your own soldiers if that was its eventual aim... it seemed less 'scientific' and more 'mad scientist' to the detriment of good storytelling.)

I have a little pet theory about that. When you ask Jack about the reason for the experiments, she says it had "something to do with pain breaking down mental barriers" to produce a more powerful biotic. If I conveniently interpret this to suit my needs and add some Harbinger comments (namely "sentient beings need never fear pain" and its admiration of Jack's biotic power), the fact that all Collectors are biotic and possession by Harbinger appears to be very painful for the chosen Collector AND a comment by Mordin (or someone else, I can't remember right now) that Collector tech is designed to be harmful even to the Collectors themselves...



Phew...



Well, then it looks like in Mass Effect, you can indeed torture someone to power. It could all be wrong, of course, but I like it anyway.