2146 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

@ Arhijarn: Despite that the story, especialy the DLC, keeps making me doubting if Cerberus can be of more help than harm I must admit that it would be better if Cerberus got the potential usefull information from the base than no one.

Modifié par lovgreno, 30 septembre 2010 - 09:50 .

[Nightwriter]

lovgreno wrote...

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.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it's a long shot?

[ChickenDownUnder]

PD ORTA wrote...

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

All my Shepards blow it up. It just didn't seem worth keeping around.

Then there's how ME1 drilled into everybody's heads that Reaper technology was left around and meant to be picked up by other races, to guide them onto a path the Reaper's want.

I've heard this before, but I don't think the collector base fits this arguement. While the Citidel and Mass relays were placed in open space (easy to get to), the collector base was place in a very inhospitable environment, that can only be reached safely via the reaper IFF. As such I don't think the collector base falling into human hands was part of the reapers plan. 

While the Collector base was certainly well-protected, certain quests come to mind that involved checking out a crew of miners and so on that dug up a long-buried bit of Reaper tech, that made them go insane and turn into husks. Which your Shepard then has to kill.

If Reapers have the foresight to bury such tech all those years ago, as well as scattering other technology--and considering what even a presumed dead Reaper was still capable of doing in ME2--I wouldn't put it past them to also make use of the Collector base very unhealthy.

After all, despite how difficult it was to get through that Relay, the Collector base was just sitting there right next to it.

[Aradace]

smudboy wrote...

(puts on horns)
I dislike TIM. TIM lied to me. This is why I destroyed the base. Also, I wanted the opportunity to stick it to the man, and I took the Lost Operative mission opportunity to upload the data to the Alliance, because I dislike TIM.

If TIM gives me a weapon to fight the Reapers in ME3, I will eat it because I do not like TIM! Anything about TIM and the Reapers is bad, so I will attack them as best I could! I made sure Miranda and Jacob got killed in the Suicide Mission. After EDI transfers her program to her non-Cerberus made robot body, I can't wait to hit the self-destruct button in ME3 on the SR3, because Cerberus is bad!
(takes off horns)

Let's see here lol....If I insert "Alliance" everywhere you said "TIM" you pretty much get my sentiments on the Alliance in general.  Then again, I dont trust Cerberus either which is why on the Lost Operative Mission I uploaded the data to my own personal files.  Why? Because Cerberus IS the only group doing anything right now about the Reapers.  Which means I need them.  Which means I can keep that data for later use against TIM if need be if he tries anything TOO stupid. 

I had three characters before, which I have narrowed down to 2 basically with one being "junk data" that I keep around for my own amusement.  On my two "keepers" (no pun intended there lol) I have 8 playthroughs each (or am working on them atm.) that is a total of 16 Files I'll have when Im done.  8 of those will be keeping the base (which I dont like doing really but not for the reasons that most people dont.) and the other 8 I destroy the base.

As I said, on 8 of those, I keep the base.  Not because I like Cerberus, but because the actual tech (unless misused) could actually be used to fight the Reapers on more equal footing.  Which for ME3, I can see BW giving us a set of weapons and/or Armor/gear/whatever that has integrated this tech somewhere at some point in the game that will make our struggle against the Reapers as a whole, less "difficult" for lack of a better way of putting it.  However, I am not naieve in the least in thinking that TIM is NOT going to abuse this tech for his own ambitions as well. 

Now, my other 8, where I destroy the base, is the result of me deciding what I would personally decide in that scenario.  "But Aradace, that's awfully paragon of you, why would you..." Yea, well, before you get excited, I didnt destroy it because Im all for the light side of the force so to speak, but because of certain little nuances (spelling?) in the first game that got me thinking at the end of ME2.

In ME1, I dont remember where, but I believe it was during the discussion with Sovereign, that he/she mentioned something about how they "allowed" us to discover the mass relays, etc. etc.  And how most, if not all, of our current technology was based off of their tech.  Which in turn Sovereign mentions something about that by us using their technology, we develope or evolve (dont remember the actual term he/she used.) along the paths that they (the reapers) desire. 

So, with that in mind, what's to say that by keeping the base isnt what the Reapers wanted us to do to begin with?  If we take the base, use it, integrate it into our own tech, we are still developing along the paths that they choose.  Which could possibly give them the ability, opportunity, or whatnot, to somehow make a return in the aftermath of ME3 even if we somehow "stop" the Reaper fleet.  Their return may not be immediate so to speak, but in oh...say...50,000 years or so?  Right around the time the next civilization is getting to it's apex?  See where I'm going with this lol? In that scenario, by keeping the base, it almost literally turns the events of the ME series into a vicious circle:  A species discovers the Reaper plot to harvest organic life, and thwarts a single Reaper.  Which in turn makes the Reapers focus on said species.  Which in turn makes them begin harvesting that specific species....And basically repeating the events of ME1 and 2 all over again, right down to either destroying or keeping the base.  And basically, the only way to break that cycle, would be to destroy the base.

Yea, that's a bit extravagant I know but that's how I personally see events unfolding if the base is kept.  Basically, keeping the base is good for the short term.  Meaning, while it may help us destory or stop the Reaper fleet easier, it may have far reaching consequences later on as in many years after the events of ME3.  Where as destroying the base may make things more difficult for us in the short term, the far reaching benefits could be for the better.  But, in the immortal words of Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

[Commander Kurt]

Shandepared wrote...
A renegade is seeking knowledge when he keeps the base. A renegade is seeking to protect the galaxy from the rachni when kills the queen. [and more]

She is getting her hands dirty in order to keep the galaxy safe, just as with the rachni. As I said, I get the difference. But all these moral choices are ambigous in nature, and alot of players are mixing paragon and renegade depending on the situation. It is not strange to adapt your morals to the issue at hand, it is what people generally do in life. The reason for this is that there is more than just the moral aspect to every choice we make. You can argue that there are similarities between the renegade choices. There are. But there are also differences. Major ones. I would say bigger ones. Morals are fluid, dependant on the situation, while risktaking is regarded a set personality trait.

[Arijharn]

lovgreno wrote...

@ Arhijarn: Despite that the story, especialy the DLC, keeps making me doubting if Cerberus can be of more help than harm I must admit that it would be better if Cerberus got the potential usefull information from the base than no one.

True, but personally I think we 'owe it to future generations' to do what we must, and let them decide whether my actions are to be commended or damned because in the end it'll be them who I benefit or damn. In my opinion, morality is like superfluids, but I can see the benefits of Overlord, even if the price is high.

I'm more inclined to trust Dr. Gavin archer with the care of his brother than a faceless Cerberus scientist though, because you can at least see that Gavin actually sacrificed himself as much as his brother in a way (at least, that's how I interpreted it) and there is no guarantee that Cerberus wouldn't start the experiment up somewhere else.

It's a tricky issue of course.

[lovgreno]

Nightwriter wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

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.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it's a long shot?

Because it is kind of stupid to think you can controll a reaper I think. And it's much too dangerous to grow one just for science. I am trying very hard to see TIMmy as smart despite some of Failberus past adventures so I admit I may be a bit biased. A indoctrinated Cerberus however could have their limited agenda and isolated leadership twisted into thinking a new reaper would be the only way to "survive" and thus become quislings when the reapers come.

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...
It's a tricky issue of course.

As is all decisions, including the base dilemma. Wich is what was intended and what makes it a fun challenge to think about.

[Commander Kurt]

Nightwriter wrote...
This is a most interesting perspective. You're right.

I guess I'd think they're still similar in that both renegade decisions (for the rachni and the Collector base) are made with absolute survival in mind, and both paragon decisions require you to disregard the threat to survival at least a little.

Yes, I agree. But it´s not a clear cut case, and burning bridges might always prove costly. The collector base cannot kill you if you spare it, unlike the heretics and the rachni, that is probably the rationale from the devs point of view. Which means that the collector base probably will not kill you if you keep it.

[Commander Kurt]

lovgreno wrote...
Because it is kind of stupid to think you can controll a reaper I think. And it's much too dangerous to grow one just for science. I am trying very hard to see TIMmy as smart despite some of Failberus past adventures so I admit I may be a bit biased. A indoctrinated Cerberus however could have their limited agenda and isolated leadership twisted into thinking a new reaper would be the only way to "survive" and thus become quislings when the reapers come.

I do hope that Cerberus don't end up doing exactly the same thing Saren did, that would be unfortunate.

The more I think about it, the less I feel that this is a choice of major importance. Paragon Shepard got her schematics, and I doubt Renegade Shep will be made to regret her decision. These are choices that define you (Shep), not your game.

[Nightwriter]

lovgreno wrote...

Because it is kind of stupid to think you can controll a reaper I think. And it's much too dangerous to grow one just for science. I am trying very hard to see TIMmy as smart despite some of Failberus past adventures so I admit I may be a bit biased. A indoctrinated Cerberus however could have their limited agenda and isolated leadership twisted into thinking a new reaper would be the only way to "survive" and thus become quislings when the reapers come.

Well, you seem to be saying that it's a long shot that it would ever work, but I thought you meant that it was a long shot that Cerberus would actually try.

[nikki191]

ive got a real worry that reaper tech can be subverted by the reapers to turn against its users.. a failsafe as such in case a species does start to get ahead in technology.. im not just talking about the relays and the citadel, im talking about smaller reaper tech.. thanix cannon for example.. charged up to fire and oops overridden and now doesnt work..



yeah i might be paranoid but i dont trust reaper tech and especially a group like cerberus with it

[GGRush]

I kept the base because Shepard's reason to destroy the base is very, very unsatisfying: because it was liquifying people! Thus it is tainted! Thus we cannot keep it! Yeah. I don't really trust Cerberus but if I was in front of the control panel, somebody tells me to destroy it because "It's tainted!" I will not be convinced.



Actually, Legion's words kind of convinced me into destroying the base: we should not simply take the reaper's technology, instead we should develop on our own--protheans gave other races a chance to break the cycle by developing the conduit, and altering the citadel.



However, geth communicate at the speed of light, we don't. When we do 1000 trial and errors, they are probably doing a million. Human science is about improvements on improvements, take in other country's technology and improve it. That's how US got missiles. We all stand on giant's shoulders.

[lovgreno]

Shandepared wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

So make your own good reason for it then.

I can't because there isn't one, not unless I want to make up lore. In which case it is just fanfiction. I'd rather approach these questions with the facts that the lore gives us.

There are more risks in destroying the base than their are in keeping it and no possible advantages.

Then perhaps Mass Effect isn't the game for you. There are no right or wrong decisions and as there are very little and vague information to support anything we can come up with arguments and counter arguments for everything. All it takes is to think out of your box. But perhaps you know how Mass Effect 3 ends and in that case you are of course right.

Modifié par lovgreno, 30 septembre 2010 - 01:42 .

[lovgreno]

Nightwriter wrote..
Well, you seem to be saying that it's a long shot that it would ever work, but I thought you meant that it was a long shot that Cerberus would actually try.

Exuse me if I was unclear. As the base was producing a reaper it can probably do so again. I do think that Cerberus isn't as inept as they sometimes seem to be and therefore will keep their hands off. Indoctrinated Cerberus on the other hand...

[smudboy]

lovgreno wrote...

Then perhaps Mass Effect isn't the game for you. There are no right or wrong decisions and as there are very little and vague information to support anything we can come up with arguments and counter arguments for everything. All it takes is to think out of your box. But perhaps you know how Mass Effect ends and in that case you are of course right.

The facts are quite clear.  Having something is better than not.  The issue is not whether ME3 will treat the Rachni and the base as fluff.  The arguments all stem from the facts.

Destroying the base not only makes Shepard sound like an idealistic retard, it's the thoughts and pure speculation involved which doesn't add up.  "Sacrificing the soul of my species" is nonsensical.  If the outcome is completely nonsensical, too, then so be it: but then ME2 was completely nonsensical, because aside from keeping/selling Legion, this is the only forced choice in the game.  The rational argument stems from a variety of issues, namely: information, technology, evidence, and closure.  In destroying the base, one is claiming its speculative negatives (and some thoughts that have nothing to do with the base itself), whereas saving it provides the opportunity for those 4 positives.

Modifié par smudboy, 30 septembre 2010 - 01:45 .

[Giggles_Manically]

smudboy wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Then perhaps Mass Effect isn't the game for you. There are no right or wrong decisions and as there are very little and vague information to support anything we can come up with arguments and counter arguments for everything. All it takes is to think out of your box. But perhaps you know how Mass Effect ends and in that case you are of course right.

The facts are quite clear.  Having something is better than not.  The issue is not whether ME3 will treat the Rachni and the base as fluff.  The arguments all stem from the facts.

Destroying the base not only makes Shepard sound like an idealistic retard, it's the thoughts and pure speculation involved which doesn't add up.  "Sacrificing the soul of my species" is nonsensical.  If the outcome is completely nonsensical, too, then so be it: but then ME2 was completely nonsensical, because aside from keeping/selling Legion, this is the only forced choice in the game.  The rational argument stems from a variety of issues, namely: information, technology, evidence, and closure.  In destroying the base, one is claiming its speculative negatives (and some thoughts that have nothing to do with the base itself), whereas saving it provides the opportunity for those 4 positives.

So Bioware has a trend of using Cerberus as a plot device, namely when there stuff goes kaboom.
They also have a fixation on making big renegade descions bite people far more than paragon ones.

While that is unfair with ME2 in mind, keeping the base looks to be more likely to cause some type of snafu, then destroying it will. Honestly its a little boring in that Bioware makes all the paragon choices happiness and sunshine, and the renegade ones are really made out to look bad.

[Nightwriter]

You are hardly unique in believing your opinion is the superior one. BioWare themselves would likely tell us there is no right or wrong way to finish ME2. Insisting your way is right is a most amusing way of blowing hot air around.

I'm honestly curious, now. Is it possible for you renegades to say anything about this without calling someone stupid? I gather you fancy yourselves intelligent, but when you do this you sound exactly the opposite - you sound like young boys guffawing at each other like monkeys. Your egos need to be popped like a zit.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 30 septembre 2010 - 01:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Back off onthe personal attacks, people. Take it to another thread.



Attack ideas, not people.

[wizardryforever]

Honestly, there is just as much speculation and wishful thinking involved in either decision.  Paragons may not know that the base is a Reaper trap, or that the Illusive Man will use it poorly.  But Renegades also don't know that there will be anything useful on the base, or that the Illusive Man can actually be trusted.  It basically all comes down to how optimistic you are about our chances, and how much you think Cerberus can actually do.  Like pretty much any decision in the game, it's about taking risks, and you do that whether you keep the base or destroy it.

[lovgreno]

wizardryforever wrote...

Honestly, there is just as much speculation and wishful thinking involved in either decision.  Paragons may not know that the base is a Reaper trap, or that the Illusive Man will use it poorly.  But Renegades also don't know that there will be anything useful on the base, or that the Illusive Man can actually be trusted.  It basically all comes down to how optimistic you are about our chances, and how much you think Cerberus can actually do.  Like pretty much any decision in the game, it's about taking risks, and you do that whether you keep the base or destroy it.

Exactly. And there is no way of knowing what was the right choice untill ME 3 ends.

Smudboy, think outside your box.

[Arijharn]

I don't think I argue from the position of some intellectual superiority, it's just that I argue from a sense of realism (as I see it). I can't assume like what the Paragon Shephard implies that everything will be okay and will work out all right in the end because despite knowing that as a player, I think it incredibly reckless from the viewpoint of Shephard (being the professional (s)he is) if I'm *serious* about role-playing.

[Nightwriter]

Such reasonableness must surely be scorned!

[Arijharn]

wizardryforever wrote...

Honestly, there is just as much speculation and wishful thinking involved in either decision.  Paragons may not know that the base is a Reaper trap, or that the Illusive Man will use it poorly.  But Renegades also don't know that there will be anything useful on the base, or that the Illusive Man can actually be trusted.  It basically all comes down to how optimistic you are about our chances, and how much you think Cerberus can actually do.  Like pretty much any decision in the game, it's about taking risks, and you do that whether you keep the base or destroy it.

True, but keeping the CB aligns more things in your favour than destroying it, because you could always potentially do dastardly deeds to Cerberus, like 'leaking' weapon design schematics to the Turians that perhaps Cerberus wouldn't like you too.