2146 réponses à ce sujet

[nikki191]

ive got a really bad feeling that the collector base will end up helping defeat the collectors.. BUT in the epilogue we find out it helps cerberus to do all sorts of unsavory things, cerberus lead human emprie maybe?

[Nightwriter]

The only difference between the paragon and renegade decisions is metagaming perspective. In real life keeping it is the obvious choice. In the game, you know damn well it's going to bite you in the ass somehow. It's hard for me to ignore that. Plus, defying TIM feels so... right.

[Skyblade012]

Nightwriter wrote...

The only difference between the paragon and renegade decisions is metagaming perspective. In real life keeping it is the obvious choice. In the game, you know damn well it's going to bite you in the ass somehow. It's hard for me to ignore that. Plus, defying TIM feels so... right.

No, in real life, destroying it is the right choice.  For one thing, no one trusts TIM with it, as your crew will share with you if you give it to him.

And, for another, keeping Reaper tech has proved disastrous in the past and would likely do so again.  Indoctrination, automated defenses, ten story killer robots that would still be there if you had left twenty seconds earlier...

No, the place is a deathtrap, unlikely to give enough valuable information to make it worthwhile, especially since what little it does give goes into TIM's hands, the entity in the game I'd feel least comfortable giving it to.

[Arijharn]

But Night, if irl you had the option of saving the base, would you still do it despite the fact that the person you're saving it was a bad person? If you do, isn't that the exact same position in game?



I mean, isn't it a case of: "GOD DAMN IT, LYNCH ME AFTER I SAVE THE STUPID GALAXY K?"

[GodWood]

Skyblade012 wrote...
No, in real life, destroying it is the right choice.  For one thing, no one trusts TIM with it, as your crew will share with you if you give it to him.

And, for another, keeping Reaper tech has proved disastrous in the past and would likely do so again.  Indoctrination, automated defenses, ten story killer robots that would still be there if you had left twenty seconds earlier...

No, the place is a deathtrap, unlikely to give enough valuable information to make it worthwhile, especially since what little it does give goes into TIM's hands, the entity in the game I'd feel least comfortable giving it to.

The Normandy contains Reaper tech, the thanix guns are Reaper tech, the mass relays are Reaper tech, the Citadel is Reaper tech.

Modifié par GodWood, 30 septembre 2010 - 02:45 .

[GodWood]

Nightwriter wrote...
The only difference between the paragon and renegade decisions is metagaming perspective. In real life keeping it is the obvious choice. In the game, you know damn well it's going to bite you in the ass somehow. It's hard for me to ignore that. Plus, defying TIM feels so... right.

And thats probably how most of the people who save the base roleplay it: "As if its real life".
I think metagaming it takes out all the fun of any of the choices and also doesn't help in these kinds of debates.

[Nightwriter]

Arijharn wrote...

But Night, if irl you had the option of saving the base, would you still do it despite the fact that the person you're saving it was a bad person? If you do, isn't that the exact same position in game?

I mean, isn't it a case of: "GOD DAMN IT, LYNCH ME AFTER I SAVE THE STUPID GALAXY K?"

I would, because in real life my actions are not inhibited by what actions the game developer allows me to take.

In real life I might be able to prevent TIM from abusing the base before the worst happens. I might be able to take steps, precautions, even take the base away from him if I'm crafty enough. I can try anything that comes to mind.

In the game, my freedoms are limited. If the developers don't want me to be able to stop him in time, I won't be able to.

[smudboy]

lovgreno wrote...

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.

Which box?  Your reasoning is flawed.

1) There is no speculation.  The base builds Reapers.  It must have information AND technology to do so.  Nevermind other information which would be pertinent to our goal.
2) I don't give two sh*ts about TIMs motives, personality, hairstyle, smirks, or who he's banging on weekends.
3) It's evidence.
4) It brings closure to those who died there.

Those are facts.  Well, aside from 2).

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...
I mean, isn't it a case of: "GOD DAMN IT, LYNCH ME AFTER I SAVE THE STUPID GALAXY K?"

Good reason.

[lovgreno]

Smudboy, you are not even trying to consider opposing opinions. You are not even willing to consider that your point of view, based on your personal opinions, may NOT be the only true one. You are not debating, you are just telling everyone who disagrees that they are wrong.

[Nightwriter]

GodWood wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The only difference between the paragon and renegade decisions is metagaming perspective. In real life keeping it is the obvious choice. In the game, you know damn well it's going to bite you in the ass somehow. It's hard for me to ignore that. Plus, defying TIM feels so... right.

And thats probably how most of the people who save the base roleplay it: "As if its real life".
I think metagaming it takes out all the fun of any of the choices and also doesn't help in these kinds of debates.

Well, guess it just shows you how different people can be. It totally does not take the fun out of it for me. In fact, I can think of a lot of cases where I've seen people roleplay all the fun out of a game.

There are just certain things that are too big for me to ignore. It is just so obvious the decision’s going to bite you in the ass.

BioWare’s intentions are sitting there, glaring at me, right in my face. “Keep the base, something bad will happen! Keep the base, something bad will happen!”

BioWare just loves to have Cerberus going too far and doing disastrous things with their projects. I guess I just can't knowingly allow that to happen for the sake of realism in a videogame.

[chris025657]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, guess it just shows you how different people can be. It totally does not take the fun out of it for me. In fact, I can think of a lot of cases where I've seen people roleplay all the fun out of a game.

There are just certain things that are too big for me to ignore. It is just so obvious the decision’s going to bite you in the ass.

BioWare’s intentions are sitting there, glaring at me, right in my face. “Keep the base, something bad will happen! Keep the base, something bad will happen!”

BioWare just loves to have Cerberus going too far and doing disastrous things with their projects. I guess I just can't knowingly allow that to happen for the sake of realism in a videogame.

I hope that destroying or keeping the base will have both positive and negative repercussions in ME 3. Too often paragon decisions don't have any negative consequences attached to them. Perhaps more lives would be lost if the base was destroyed even though Cerberus is less powerful, for example. 

[smudboy]

lovgreno wrote...

Smudboy, you are not even trying to consider opposing opinions. You are not even willing to consider that your point of view, based on your personal opinions, may NOT be the only true one. You are not debating, you are just telling everyone who disagrees that they are wrong.

You think after all this time I haven't?

I am willing to consider my point of view is not the true one.  Luckily, I have this thing called the facts, which tell us a very clear, obvious story.

[Nightwriter]

chris025657 wrote...

I hope that destroying or keeping the base will have both positive and negative repercussions in ME 3. Too often paragon decisions don't have any negative consequences attached to them. Perhaps more lives would be lost if the base was destroyed even though Cerberus is less powerful, for example. 

I hope that too.

But as it stands, if you keep the base, they give you tons of dark foreshadowing to make you feel ominous about the decision, from the Illusive Man's calculating smile at the end to your squadmates' disapproval.

But on the flipside, if you destroy the base, they give you no dark foreshadowing about the consequences of that decision.

I don't like this. It seems to make the decision too easy. If you destroy the base, I think we should still get ominous foreshadowing, just foreshadowing that emphasizes our unpreparedness for the Reaper threat.

Basically for both decisions you should come out feeling worried.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 30 septembre 2010 - 03:36 .

[BellatrixLugosi]

Either option has its good points. But everyone forgets that its a game and that Deus Ex Machinia's always usually happen in them. So when people destroy the base its not like there isn't going to be a rabbit out of the hat in the next. I'd rather have evidence that is usefull besides tim's disapproval. (shrug)

[Nightwriter]

Well, like they said, a lot of gamers feel that's metagaming, and inadmissible in the debate.

[nikki191]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

The only difference between the paragon and renegade decisions is metagaming perspective. In real life keeping it is the obvious choice. In the game, you know damn well it's going to bite you in the ass somehow. It's hard for me to ignore that. Plus, defying TIM feels so... right.

No, in real life, destroying it is the right choice.  For one thing, no one trusts TIM with it, as your crew will share with you if you give it to him.

And, for another, keeping Reaper tech has proved disastrous in the past and would likely do so again.  Indoctrination, automated defenses, ten story killer robots that would still be there if you had left twenty seconds earlier...

No, the place is a deathtrap, unlikely to give enough valuable information to make it worthwhile, especially since what little it does give goes into TIM's hands, the entity in the game I'd feel least comfortable giving it to.

exactly my thoughts as well. i just dont want shepard remembered as a pigeon crap covered statue with a plaque that reads "to commander shepard who helped bring the cerberus alliance to dominance and elliminating and enslaving all lesser species"

cant really explan it but its got long term potential to bite us in the ass having the base.. do we end up just like the reapers?

Modifié par nikki191, 30 septembre 2010 - 04:30 .

[mosor]

Skyblade012 wrote...

No, in real life, destroying it is the right choice.  For one thing, no one trusts TIM with it, as your crew will share with you if you give it to him.

A few of them are hypocrites since they encourage you to keep it if you bring them to the final battle.

And, for another, keeping Reaper tech has proved disastrous in the past and would likely do so again.  Indoctrination, automated defenses, ten story killer robots that would still be there if you had left twenty seconds earlier...

How has EDI, the Mass Relays, Thannix cannon been disaterous in the past? If you want to destroy a reaper base, destroy the citadel, that's a proven trap!

No, the place is a deathtrap, unlikely to give enough valuable information to make it worthwhile, especially since what little it does give goes into TIM's hands, the entity in the game I'd feel least comfortable giving it to.

What are you psychic that you know whats inside without investigating it?

nikki191 wrote...
exactly my thoughts as well. i just dont want shepard remembered as a pigeon crap covered statue with a plaque that reads "to commander shepard who helped bring the cerberus alliance to dominance and elliminating and enslaving all lesser species"

So you'd rather risk having no one around  at all to rember you rather than having people around and risk them remembering you poorly?

Modifié par mosor, 30 septembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[Ieldra]

JUst as food for thought:



I think the only reason people destroy the base is because they can't accept that a choice that disagrees with their moral intuitions can be the right one.

[BellatrixLugosi]

Well then whats the point of the thread then.

[Ieldra]

Jynthor wrote...
Why does no one trust TIM?

I trust him to help against the Reapers. Where we're standing at the end of ME2, that's what matters.

[Barquiel]

Because he lied to Shepard more than once?
Becuase he wants to oppress all non-humans in the galaxy?
Because he tests biological weapons on captives, kidnaps/tortures children, assassinated the pope...

[smudboy]

Barquiel wrote...

Because he lied to Shepard more than once?
Becuase he wants to oppress all non-humans in the galaxy?
Because he tests biological weapons on captives, kidnaps/tortures children, assassinated the pope...

I recall TIM lying to Shepard about the Turians sending a distress call.
I do not recall him wanting to oppress all non-humans.
I do not recall him testing biological weapons on captives, kidnapping or torturing children, or assassinating the pope.

I do recall him turning Shepard into Cyber Jesus.
" giving Shepard a brand new ship
" an artifical intelligence
" intel and resources on how to combat a threat
" being of like mind to stop the Big Bad.