2146 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

Shandepared wrote...

General User wrote...

 The Reapers cannot make the same claim. They decided long ago that they would be the sole masters of nature. In so doing they doomed themselves.

It has worked for them for millions of years, maybe even billions. You're assuming you know a lot more about them than you actually do. Even if we destroy them over the eons we may become them anyway.

That’s exactly my point!  Their pattern has worked for them for untold millions of years. It’s worked so well they have long since lost the ability to break out of it. When their pattern does breaks down (due largely to a few prothean scientists and a certain human whose last name starts with S) it leaves open the very real possibility of their defeat, with or without their own technology used as a weapon against them.
 
They’re stuck, a dead-end, useful only to themselves and, even then, only for perpetuating their own existence. Look how they spend their time between extinction/reproduction cycles. “Sleeping”!?! “Lying dormant”!?! “Waiting in dark space”!?! They are decadence personified! “Feet of clay” given form.  Ripe for the fall.
 
We know enough about them to know that much, unless they’re hanging out around the Milky Way for the sheer fun of it. If they have another purpose (a not completely discountable possibility) they certainly haven’t communicated it.
 
It’s true, we may become like them in ages future. If we do, then we too will be doomed.  And others will carry on.

[Arijharn]

That can't be true General, because Sovereign did try their 'tried and true' method. It sent a signal to the Citadel, citadel refused its commands due to the legacy of the Protheans, Nazara then said: "WTF" and thought up something new.



It found it in the geth and in its successive collaborators up to and including Saren Arterius. To which good ole Sov panicked: "ZOMG, I CAN'T FAIL THIS OR THEY'LL MAKE ME THE VANGUARD.... AGAIN! I'LL NEVER LIVE THIS DOWN AND WE'RE BLOODY IMMORTAL!" to which he attacked.



"They're stuck, a dead-end, useful only to themselves" is a statement that I feel can not be proved either way. Other than the somewhat vague references to 'ascension' (perhaps they view themselves as nigh gods?) we don't know anything really about their actual motives, only that it involves mass genocide.



Other than that, yeah I agree with you (I suppose )

[General User]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

General User wrote...

Yes and no. Humanity is not what it was a million years ago, humanity a million years from now may not even recognize us as such. Ours is a species characterized by the use of intellect to overcome the natural world while at the same time our spirit strives to find its place within the natural world. We are constantly growing, changing, developing, in wild and unpredictable ways, by both our own and nature’s volition.  
 
The Reapers cannot make the same claim. They decided long ago that they would be the sole masters of nature. In so doing they doomed themselves.

Unless they crush humanity, in which case they've proven their method successful for another cycle. You say, "[o]urs is a species characterized by the use of intellect to overcome the natural world . . .  We are constantly growing, changing, developing, in wild and unpredictable ways, by both our own and nature’s volition." We are constantly changing because we are a young species. Our growth is that of an infant's compared to the reapers. We will not defeat them because we're fresh thinkers. They've had a lot more time to figure out everything than we have. Maybe it's true that every empire falls, but an empire takes out many civilizations in it's wake. Humans need to strive to be successful in overthrowing the Reapers as opposed to being swept away by them.

Truly, we will not defeat the Reapers because we are fresh thinkers. But our ability to innovate and adapt is our greatest advantage against them no matter our technology disadvantage (which I, as I have posted, logic says is not so very great).
 
You’re argument that we are “infant(s) compared to the Reapers” is fundamentally flawed in two regards: first, it assumes that there is an end goal to evolution (there is not), and second, that humanity is not capable of realizing its place in the universe (it is, admittedly this is one is rather subjective, but that’s why we’re here, right ?).
 
I would also make the point that humanity needn’t overthrow the Reapers (though that would, of course, be my first choice), simply survive them…

[General User]

Arijharn wrote...

That can't be true General, because Sovereign did try their 'tried and true' method. It sent a signal to the Citadel, citadel refused its commands due to the legacy of the Protheans, Nazara then said: "WTF" and thought up something new.

It found it in the geth and in its successive collaborators up to and including Saren Arterius. To which good ole Sov panicked: "ZOMG, I CAN'T FAIL THIS OR THEY'LL MAKE ME THE VANGUARD.... AGAIN! I'LL NEVER LIVE THIS DOWN AND WE'RE BLOODY IMMORTAL!" to which he attacked.

"They're stuck, a dead-end, useful only to themselves" is a statement that I feel can not be proved either way. Other than the somewhat vague references to 'ascension' (perhaps they view themselves as nigh gods?) we don't know anything really about their actual motives, only that it involves mass genocide.

Other than that, yeah I agree with you (I suppose )

@Arijharn
 
I applaud you and the moral courage it took to (grudgingly) admit (partial) agreement with a paragon, on this forum of all places. I’ll make a “base-boomer” out of you yet! 
 
In any instance, I think everyone can agree that the Reapers certainly don’t lack for ego.
 
I freely admit, I base a lot of my ideas off my own internal thought processes (to what extent logic and reason enter in is something of an open question). The main reason I come on these forums is to bounce my ideas off people who love ME as much as I do. In that spirit, I am nothing but grateful (if occasionally exasperated) for any demonstration of a flaw in my reasoning. 
 
I’m not saying the Reapers are completely incapable of independent thought or innovation, they are still sentient life-forms. Perhaps I should say “the Reapers aren’t in our league” when compared to humans, or even aliens. In much the same way a chimpanzee will strip the leaves off a branch to catch termites while a human launches a rocket into orbit. Both make have the capacity for “tool-making” (read innovation) but one is light-years beyond the other.
 

(Hey, from “pond scum” to “chimpanzees” in only a few posts, maybe they will catch us!)

And yeah, the Reapers could have another motive beyond their own survival. If so they better hurry up and tell ol’ Shep about it or it will cost them their existence.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

General User wrote...

Truly, we will not defeat the Reapers because we are fresh thinkers. But our ability to innovate and adapt is our greatest advantage against them no matter our technology disadvantage (which I, as I have posted, logic says is not so very great).
 
You’re argument that we are “infant(s) compared to the Reapers” is fundamentally flawed in two regards: first, it assumes that there is an end goal to evolution (there is not), and second, that humanity is not capable of realizing its place in the universe (it is, admittedly this is one is rather subjective, but that’s why we’re here, right ?).
 
I would also make the point that humanity needn’t overthrow the Reapers (though that would, of course, be my first choice), simply survive them…

You're assuming because the Reapers are old and set in their ways, human innovation can beat them. Well that is true, it is unlikely bordering on impossibility. The reapers have had at least 37 million years to protect, and innovation is obviously an integral part of their evolution. Humanity cannot rely on their 50k years of innovation and hope to beat them. Humanity needs some edge, and the Collector Base is all neatly wrapped and ready for the taking. We would be absolute fools to reject it.

[mopotter]

I keep blowing it up. I was really going to try and keep it, because I won't know what happens if I keep destroying it, but when it comes down to the decision I have not been able to trust anyone with the knowledge that would be available, and I mean anyone. If I had the option to turn it over to the Alliance, I would still destroy it.



I don't trust TIM at all so I destroy it rather than give it to him.



He is slippery and the people who work for him seem to feel as long as they get results, he won't care how they got them. He can claim he didn't know they were doing terrible things to kids, or soldiers and he's telling the truth. I think Miranda was the one who said something about TIM says what he wants done and lets his employees just do the job without interference, and I cannot in good conscience risk that with the base.

[Arijharn]

General User wrote...

I applaud you and the moral courage it took to (grudgingly) admit (partial) agreement with a paragon, on this forum of all places. I’ll make a “base-boomer” out of you yet! 

I have destroyed the base before, but I don't any more because I did it purely out of what I felt to be stupid reasons. In game using the knowledge (or lack thereof as the case may be) that Shephard has could not infer any militarily effective decision other than a great deal of wishful thinking and meta-gaming (which I try to avoid where possible). 

I agree with you on principle that the Thanix weaponry does not necessarily mean huge technological advantages for the Reapers, but so much about the Reapers are currently unknown then I think using the Thanix as the be all and end all argument in the debate to be a tad premature.

My philosophy is (in case you're in doubt ), if our back is against the wall and not just humanity is at stake but so too is everyone else, then it's negligent not to do what you can to survive (because it's not just you who's head is on the block). It's all very good to quote Nietsche (which you didn't) but you know, he didn't have to deal with a race of sentient warships that harvest all life forms in the galaxy every 50k years either. I feel like, to use an analogy, that you were given a ruler that measures a metre to an end goal, but instead of going for the full metre, you've confined yourself to using only 90cm.

The thing I like about debating with you is that you at least have tried to give pragmatic responses to this eternal question that isn't mixed up (nor confused with) rhetoric of almost a religious zealotry.

[Spectre_907]

smudboy wrote...
If you know how to make something, you know how to destroy something.

The base builds Reapers.

We want to destroy Reapers.

The base is giving you a guided tour of how to do that.

True, it might not be useful.  But you know what?  My guess?  I have this really, really good guess that the base builds Reapers.  Which will teach us how to build Reapers.  In doing so, how to destroy Reapers.  Cause, you know, that's what the base actually does.

Agreed.

How did EDI know it was a base that makes Reapers, and that the Human Reaper was a Reaper?  Scans from Sovereign in comparison, and the Derelict Reaper, I'd imagine.  Sovereign data is evidence the Council already has.

The Council has no data suggesting that Sovereign was not a geth creation. So, unless the Alliance or Cerberus deliberately hid Sovereign data from the Council, the only source would be the Derelict Reaper. But even if there is a comparison with the derelict Reaper and the Reaper-human and the derelict Reaper had something to compare it with Sovereign that we somehow picked up, the Council is not going to accept proof from Cerberus. We also do not have anything suggesting that the derelict Reaper is organic-based, like the Reaper-human.

I've just shown you how it is not useless.  The other way is mind-raping embracing eternity with that Asari.

No it isn't. Chorban's research establishes that there is another race millions of years old that made Sovereign and the Keepers and a modification of the genetic sequencing in the Keepers every 50000 years and that the last modification occured during the Prothean extinction. The base is not needed to convince the Council that Sovereign is not a geth creation.

The number of colonists is quite relevant.  More human supporters to your cause, urging government control and opinion.  Will of the people and all that.  A dead war hero being yet another war hero, this time, bringing closure to their loved ones.

I will likely get support from the Terminus colonists anyway since I did what the Alliance and the Council failed to do.

Good Lord.  There will be data on the Reapers.  You're thinking in terms of computer data, not actual equipment or technology.

Let's say our goal was to build Reapers.  Well, here's a Reaper baby maker.  Would you still blow up the base?

Now let's say our goal is to destroy Reapers.  Well, here's a Reaper baby maker.  Would you still blow up the base?

The reality is still the same: we need data on these things, whether we want to kill or make them.  I am not referring to Harbinger emails or the chemical blueprint for a Reaper eyeball.  I'm talking about a goddamned piece of hardware that's right there that does something that produces something Reaperish.

STUDY IT.

Like I said, "Harbinger could have easily erased data on anything useful or one of a hundred other explanations."

Data that's stored in the computers of the base, sure.  Also, data learned from studying the base hardware itself.  Doesn't matter if it's given to a pro-quarian/pro-geth/anti-asari/pro-batarian faction.

Even though the base should be studied and it may be the key to defeating the Reapers, it's still wrong.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 01 octobre 2010 - 03:39 .

[mopotter]

General User wrote...

Our form of life is inherently superior to the Reaper form of life. We’re smart, tough, independent, diverse, and numerous. They’re stagnant, like pond scum, locked into a pattern of dependence there is no way of breaking free from.  Whether humanity (or any other race) is around to see it or not, the Reapers’ extinction/irrelevance is inevitable. 
 
Given a level playing field, we would crush ‘em like an egg, but the playing field isn’t level.
 
So, imo, it boils down to an assessment: Do you believe our innate superiority is sufficient to see us through the current crisis?  If so, blow the base to hell, and use the rubble to rally all who will listen to your flag. If not, keep the base, and use every physical advantage you can muster to beat down the Reaper menace.
 
Paragon that I be, I have faith in the human (also asari, turian, salarian, geth, elcor, batarian, volus, quarian, rachni, etc, etc. ad nausem) race(s). While my faith is not entirely unfounded (p. 9), I acknowledge that faith is, by nature, intangible. If anyone questions it on specific grounds, I will do my best to justify it.
 
As far as ME3 goes, I would like to see some sort of compromise on the matter of the CB. Keeping the CB gives one access to better weapons, blowing the CB allows one to recruit more allies, that sort of thing.

I agree with this.  I admit I'm not sure ME3 will totally destroy the reapers but I am sure we can send them back to dark space for another 50,000 years or so.   I also like your idea for what happens in ME3.  

[Arijharn]

I think, in a broad outline (in probable terms of absolutes) that keeping the CB reduces human casualties (and therefore indirectly, other species) whereas destroying the CB slightly increases human casualties (and therefore indirectly, other species).



True the games are supposed to be stand alone, but they're also a trilogy with lasting consequences imo.

[General User]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

General User wrote...

Truly, we will not defeat the Reapers because we are fresh thinkers. But our ability to innovate and adapt is our greatest advantage against them no matter our technology disadvantage (which I, as I have posted, logic says is not so very great).
 
You’re argument that we are “infant(s) compared to the Reapers” is fundamentally flawed in two regards: first, it assumes that there is an end goal to evolution (there is not), and second, that humanity is not capable of realizing its place in the universe (it is, admittedly this is one is rather subjective, but that’s why we’re here, right ?).
 
I would also make the point that humanity needn’t overthrow the Reapers (though that would, of course, be my first choice), simply survive them…

You're assuming because the Reapers are old and set in their ways, human innovation can beat them. Well that is true, it is unlikely bordering on impossibility. The reapers have had at least 37 million years to protect, and innovation is obviously an integral part of their evolution. Humanity cannot rely on their 50k years of innovation and hope to beat them. Humanity needs some edge, and the Collector Base is all neatly wrapped and ready for the taking. We would be absolute fools to reject it.

Or would we…
 
The CB is a means to an end. Well, a means to several ends actually. Intact it can (in all probability) be used to bring at least Cerberus technology to, at least, close to parity with the Reapers. In burnt and broken pieces it can (probably) be used to provide insight into Reaper technology (by nowhere near the same measure as it would intact) AND rally the galaxy against the Reaper threat. I judge the later to be preferable.
 
Unless someone can convince me that the “tech gap” with the Reapers is a great deal wider than I believe it is, I see no reason to change my preference.
 
Now it’s my understanding that the Reapers as a “race” spend the majority of their time in a “dormant stage” in dark space. While a single vanguard, which itself is mainly dormant, waits in the Milky Way and periodically awakens to assess the state of the galaxy and determine if galactic civilization has developed to point where a harvest/extinction event can/should take place. During a “harvest” the Reapers exterminate all space-faring races, take everything of value, including new technologies which, (and this is critical to my thesis) they themselves never (or almost never) develop, and then they reproduce. After which they promptly return to hibernation.
 
Have I missed anything? Where is the Reaper who breaks from its kind? That seeks to negotiate instead of dominate? That does not force all those around it to worship it as a god?  Where is the Reaper that creates? That invents? Where is the Reaper that sees the universe, and the other people in it, as existing for anything other than the Reapers’ own utility?
 
I would argue that humanity already has an edge, our inherent (admittedly not absolutly proven) superiority as a form of life. The Reapers have an edge too, in the form of massively superior military technology. Now we’ve played our strengths against theirs since Eden Prime and, so far (Shepard 1st death is a bit of a grey area), we’ve come out on top.

[General User]

Arijharn wrote...

General User wrote...

I applaud you and the moral courage it took to (grudgingly) admit (partial) agreement with a paragon, on this forum of all places. I’ll make a “base-boomer” out of you yet! 

I have destroyed the base before, but I don't any more because I did it purely out of what I felt to be stupid reasons. In game using the knowledge (or lack thereof as the case may be) that Shephard has could not infer any militarily effective decision other than a great deal of wishful thinking and meta-gaming (which I try to avoid where possible). 

I agree with you on principle that the Thanix weaponry does not necessarily mean huge technological advantages for the Reapers, but so much about the Reapers are currently unknown then I think using the Thanix as the be all and end all argument in the debate to be a tad premature.

My philosophy is (in case you're in doubt ), if our back is against the wall and not just humanity is at stake but so too is everyone else, then it's negligent not to do what you can to survive (because it's not just you who's head is on the block). It's all very good to quote Nietsche (which you didn't) but you know, he didn't have to deal with a race of sentient warships that harvest all life forms in the galaxy every 50k years either. I feel like, to use an analogy, that you were given a ruler that measures a metre to an end goal, but instead of going for the full metre, you've confined yourself to using only 90cm.

The thing I like about debating with you is that you at least have tried to give pragmatic responses to this eternal question that isn't mixed up (nor confused with) rhetoric of almost a religious zealotry.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so quick to close the door on religious zealotry. Let me explain.
 
You speak of wishful thinking as a poor basis for decision making (particularly in regards to the CB) but Mass Effect is a role playing game. Who’s to say your Shephard or my Shephard isn’t a man or woman of faith, for whom the Unprovable is the central facet of his or her life and worldview? 
 
Of course, this is a forum, having a debate on the unprovable is impossible. IMO those who wish to do so must be content with the fact that they have said their piece. I do not believe either side enjoys the high ground in this matter.
 
I think a lot of the vitriolic disagreement on this forum, and certainly its predecessor, stems from two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. Morality is not always reasonable, and reason is not always moral, neither is invalid and both are brought into focus with perspective. Legion says something similar during his loyalty mission.
 
In other words: One sardar says, “That is a triangle!” Another sardar says “That is a square!” But the wise man knows it is a pyramid.
 
I love your analogy of the metre stick, and would like to take it a bit farther. I think all our decisions in ME are inherently binding (or they should be at any rate). The paragon may only use the first 90cm, but the Renegade only uses the last 90cm. Both cut themselves off from something useful for the sake of something else.

[General User]

Shandepared wrote...

General User wrote...

Unless someone can convince me that the “tech gap” with the Reapers is a great deal wider than I believe it is, I see no reason to change my preference.

If the battle with Sovereign didn't convince you then nothing will.
 

Could you please elaborate? I spent a great deal of time on this forum “dismissing that claim.”
 
Or, put another way:  How big do you think the tech gap with the Reapers is, and why?

[Fixers0]

Just two words: Destroy It.

Reasons?
TIM  isn't a very trustworty type to give a highly advanced base with dangerous powers, he always speaks half truths, holds information back, and takes unnesecary risks  and he is head of an organisation that is responsible for:
1. The dead of an Aliance admiral (Kahoku)
2. Is responsible for Luring an Alliance Navy squad  to  A Threser Maw nest x2 (Akuze and Endolus)
3. Turning an Colony into husks, by placing dragons teeth into a research facility (Chasca, UNC mission)
That's not an organisation that i would give a higly advanced base.

The base could also be dangerous  and indoctrinate anyone who stayes to long there or contains other dark secrets, where all just better of with this place.
  
 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The Alliance stood no chance against Sovereign. "Sovereign is too strong!" is all they could say besides wanting to pull back.

[NaclynE]

Yes. Ever heard of 'Fight fire with fire'? Also I believe in 'in order to defeat the devil you have to become a devil yourself'. Yes Cerberus is scum by I am sure there is a way in 3 to sway them to do the right thing. I have kind of role played with some of my characters with the game since I've made a few to be in the game and put them in 'what would he/she do' and people like Sheeda for instance believe that if they keep destroying things like the collector base, they won't get an edge against the reapers, they will mainly be weak compared to them. However (and which I hope to do in 3) would do whatever it takes to to ensure that the illusive Man would use the collecter base for good means and not bad. If he does, she'll give him a black eye or two until he does so.

Sure everyone disagrees but it's a for now thing I feel.

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...

I think, in a broad outline (in probable terms of absolutes) that keeping the CB reduces human casualties (and therefore indirectly, other species) whereas destroying the CB slightly increases human casualties (and therefore indirectly, other species).

True the games are supposed to be stand alone, but they're also a trilogy with lasting consequences imo.

To make a good story I think there should be both good and bad consequences to both options. This is also one of the strongest ideas behind the ME story. It would also make it feel more realistic (though I admit realism in a space opera is not that easy to base a good story on) as in real life there are always pros and cons with everything. Whatever BioWare decides I hope I can be suprised and even proven wrong in some cases.

Also I must admit that even if I tend to prefer blowing up the base you make some good arguments to keep it.

Modifié par lovgreno, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:17 .

[Arijharn]

General User wrote...
I love your analogy of the metre stick, and would like to take it a bit farther. I think all our decisions in ME are inherently binding (or they should be at any rate). The paragon may only use the first 90cm, but the Renegade only uses the last 90cm. Both cut themselves off from something useful for the sake of something else.

Ahh, but you see, you have knowingly limited yourself to 90cm whereas if I'm also only using 90cm then it would be as a repercussion (damn them for punishing me as a renegade!) of my actions. Do you follow? I mean; I've saved the Rachni, I seek an alliance with the Geth and the Quarians et al (and even have aces up my sleeve I guess in Overlord... yeah I know, trying to xanatos gambit everything seems to be an exhausting enterprise) if something backfires on me it'd be despite my machinations, not because of. I do not knowingly limit myself or my chances if you follow what I mean.

@Lovgreno; I absolutely agree, although I was limiting myself in matters more directly involved with impact with the CB, whereas I believe if that any repercussions exist due to using the CB they would be felt after the main narrative on the story (like; epilogue slides etc)

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...
Ahh, but you see, you have knowingly limited yourself to 90cm whereas if I'm also only using 90cm then it would be as a repercussion (damn them for punishing me as a renegade!) of my actions. Do you follow? I mean; I've saved the Rachni, I seek an alliance with the Geth and the Quarians et al (and even have aces up my sleeve I guess in Overlord... yeah I know, trying to xanatos gambit everything seems to be an exhausting enterprise) if something backfires on me it'd be despite my machinations, not because of. I do not knowingly limit myself or my chances if you follow what I mean.

I'm all for extending your possible options, especialy in a desperate situation like Shepards. The thing is that while there are definitely possible gains from all paragon and and renegade choices there are also possible dangers with them. I would like to emphasie the word "possible" here. If something backfires on Shepard (and something most certanly will, despite what choices she/he make, something I think Shepards is fully aware of) the damage is still done despite whatever your intentions was. As the situation is a foul up by Shepard may very well destroy his/her efforts to fight the reapers. This risk should be avoided as much as you can despite the undeniably high possible gains in some cases.
I agree this may seem like I am deliberately making all choices almost impossible but we don't want easy challenges in a game right?

[Arijharn]

Sorry General, I saw this too late:

General User wrote...
You speak of wishful thinking as a poor basis for decision making (particularly in regards to the CB) but Mass Effect is a role playing game. Who’s to say your Shephard or my Shephard isn’t a man or woman of faith, for whom the Unprovable is the central facet of his or her life and worldview? 

Because how can you base military strategy off divine intervention? Sure that may have worked for the jews when they were escaping the pharaoh, but how often since then has the hand of god bent down from heaven and smote the infidel (without a guiding hand of human ingenuity at work in any case...)

It's honestly okay if you believe in God, but isn't it a tad unrealistic for a seasoned commander to expect heavenly intervention on his behalf?

Wait... I'm not sure how we got onto this topic. There's more minefields here than there are in the Collector Base issue itself, I suggest we about-turn and quick march the hell outta here pronto capt'n.

[Arijharn]

lovgreno wrote...
I'm all for extending your possible options, especialy in a desperate situation like Shepards. The thing is that while there are definitely possible gains from all paragon and and renegade choices there are also possible dangers with them. I would like to emphasie the word "possible" here. If something backfires on Shepard (and something most certanly will, despite what choices she/he make, something I think Shepards is fully aware of) the damage is still done despite whatever your intentions was. As the situation is a foul up by Shepard may very well destroy his/her efforts to fight the reapers. This risk should be avoided as much as you can despite the undeniably high possible gains in some cases.

Hmm, I agree with a caveat though. I don't believe in what I consider 'half measures.' Sure I personally don't like the idea of damning David back into Overlord (because I'm human) but I consider the potential risks much worse. I guess the basic tenant of my whole view of the Renegade/Paragon duopoly is whether I'm okay with ethical costs. I view piling 'sin' on myself more preferable than the great unknown that could affect multiple species and multiple cultures and possibly not just those of the Council races and associates.

Lets take the Raloi now, they've just joined interstellar affairs (in a way, they at least know that we exist) and even if my decision on the Collector Base damns me, I'm okay with that knowledge because as I see it, my actions haven't damned them. I guess that's a very self-martyring type outlook, but I think any other outlook (to know you could do something but not doing anything about it because it offends your sensibilities) to ultimately ringing hollow.

I absolutely agree that costs will be meted out eventually though, I just hope that after all is said and done, I'm still in the black...

lovgreno wrote...
I agree this may seem like I am deliberately making all choices almost impossible but we don't want easy challenges in a game right?

Absolutely. My position however is argued purely on the basis of stark pragmatism (as I see it at least). I would rather a situation where things are more in my favour than against it. Let people down the line damn or vindicate my actions because right now I have to make a stand.

[DPSSOC]

General User wrote...
The CB is a means to an end. Well, a means to several ends actually. Intact it can (in all probability) be used to bring at least Cerberus technology to, at least, close to parity with the Reapers. In burnt and broken pieces it can (probably) be used to provide insight into Reaper technology (by nowhere near the same measure as it would intact) AND rally the galaxy against the Reaper threat. I judge the later to be preferable.

 

Now I've heard this before and I have a simple question, how?  It's all well and good to say that destroying the base can be used to rally the galaxy but I just can't see how.  Those who are not actively working against the Reaper threat now generally fall into two categories; they either don't acknowledge the threat (Council, Alliance) or they're caught up in their own affairs (Quarians, Krogan).  I fail to see how destroying the base sways either one of these camps.  It may earn you goodwill but as the games have shown that's not worth much.  So if someone could explain how they feel destroying the base could sway either camp of inactives to take action I'd appreciate it.

[Commander Kurt]

Is General Users text all blue? I feel like there are things I shouldn't agree with there, and yet it all makes perfect sence when he puts it like that..



In real life, I would not give the base to Cerberus. If it does make whoever has it stronger than the reapers, I would probably have an even harder time defeating them than I would defeating the reapers without it. Cerberus is not like Hitlers Germany, or Al Qaida, it's more like North Korea (without the communism).



But it is of course true that there is no right choice. Sometimes it is best to keep cool, and wait for a better alternative to present itself. Sometimes it is best to act directly. In this case it is easy (and interesting) to argue for both.