2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Flamewielder]

mosor wrote...
Would you still maintain that moral path if defeating the reapers wasn't a certainty? You crow on how renegades sacrifice other people's lives to achieve victory, yet paragons willingly risk and possibly even sacrifice lives for the sake of thier own morality. In that sense, paragons are more selfish since victory is shared by everyone, while morality is yours alone. The paragon decison is only more noble, if the only life you're putting at risk is your own. If you're risking trillions (such as with the collector base decision) it's simply not.

The base may or may not be key to the defeat of the Reapers. Shepard has no way of knowing. Shepard DOES know that, should the Reapers be defeated, he'll have put a bunch of advanced tech in the hands of Cerberus, a pro-human organization with xenophobic backing who has demonstrated utter disregard for individual lives in favor of what they perceive as their goals. Timmy may sound like an OK guy to a renegade, but he's definitely not someone a paragon would trust to, say share technology with aliens when he could keep it just for humans. THAT's not a risk paragon Shepard will take under the circumstances of my game.

[Siegdrifa]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 They rather say "No good will come from it because there must not come any good from it." Well, that's the way it works in stories. But if you're taking your fictional world seriously, then you must act as if it was all real. And in reality, that's an obvious fallacy.

You are just showing how much you can't understand why some people can rationaly think differently.

It's not about "boooo it's baaaad !!! why? because i want it to be baaaad".
It's because from their way they persue the ME univers, tehcnologie, ennemy, allies, some get to the conclusion that this base could bit your ass more than helping.

It is not like gaining the controle of a ennemy base in a RTS where you actualy produce ennemy model under your controle.
This is precisely why i comparated it with a sword, if it was a sword, you can clearly identify every part, how to handle it and how to use it, from that point you can easly exepriment to test how sharp it can be.
This base is nothing like a sword, we don't know it works, how it can be handeled and not sure there is no security trap buryed inside the technologie itself, plus putting in unfully trusted (if it's your point of view) hands, some people think rationnaly there is more "danger" to keep it than destroying it.

You think this base is a granted solution for the reapers to come.
I think the base COULD be a solution for the reapers to come as it COULD be a problem.
If there was more info about this base before we make our choice it could change my point of view, but from the way i persu ME univers, characters and technologie, i prefered at that time to destroy it knowing it was potantialy a mistake, not because "it's bad". I saved the rachnies in my playthrough of ME1 because i think i had enough info to take this decision knowing it could be a mistake too, if i didn't i would have killed the queen like i destroyed the base.

[smudboy]

Flamewielder wrote...
The base may or may not be key to the defeat of the Reapers. Shepard has no way of knowing. Shepard DOES know that, should the Reapers be defeated, he'll have put a bunch of advanced tech in the hands of Cerberus, a pro-human organization with xenophobic backing who has demonstrated utter disregard for individual lives in favor of what they perceive as their goals. Timmy may sound like an OK guy to a renegade, but he's definitely not someone a paragon would trust to, say share technology with aliens when he could keep it just for humans. THAT's not a risk paragon Shepard will take under the circumstances of my game.

Okay, so we don't know the base will be the key to defeating the Reapers.

But we do know that IF the Reapers are defeated, we will have a lot of advanced tech?

So which premise is correct?  1) The base will defeat the Reapers and have advanced tech for TIM, or 2) It won't?

If 2), then there's no argument.  If 1), well, that's still better than the alternative (galaxy go byebye.)  And how do we know it will have advanced tech?  It might just have information on how to stop the Reapers, and provide evidence to get other groups to rally to the cause.

A pro-human organization with or without advanced tech is still better than the Reapers. Hell, a pro-human organization that want to be Reapers are a better alternative than the Reapers.

[smudboy]

Siegdrifa wrote...
This base is nothing like a sword, we don't know it works, how it can be handeled and not sure there is no security trap buryed inside the technologie itself, plus putting in unfully trusted (if it's your point of view) hands, some people think rationnaly there is more "danger" to keep it than destroying it.

We don't know what one will find, which is why one studies it.

Should the worst come to pass, there's always the blow up option.

You think this base is a granted solution for the reapers to come.

No.  But it's better than nothing.

I think the base COULD be a solution for the reapers to come as it COULD be a problem.

The base could be a solution for the Reapers to come?  Ok.

If the base becomes a problem, simply blow it.

If there was more info about this base before we make our choice it could change my point of view, but from the way i persu ME univers, characters and technologie, i prefered at that time to destroy it knowing it was potantialy a mistake, not because "it's bad". I saved the rachnies in my playthrough of ME1 because i think i had enough info to take this decision knowing it could be a mistake too, if i didn't i would have killed the queen like i destroyed the base.

Ah?  The whole reason to keep the base is to learn about it.  You want to blow it up because of unknown dangers and risks?  I am not following this line of logic at all.

[Zulu_DFA]

Flamewielder wrote...

mosor wrote...
Would you still maintain that moral path if defeating the reapers wasn't a certainty? You crow on how renegades sacrifice other people's lives to achieve victory, yet paragons willingly risk and possibly even sacrifice lives for the sake of thier own morality. In that sense, paragons are more selfish since victory is shared by everyone, while morality is yours alone. The paragon decison is only more noble, if the only life you're putting at risk is your own. If you're risking trillions (such as with the collector base decision) it's simply not.

The base may or may not be key to the defeat of the Reapers. Shepard has no way of knowing. Shepard DOES know that, should the Reapers be defeated, he'll have put a bunch of advanced tech in the hands of Cerberus, a pro-human organization with xenophobic backing who has demonstrated utter disregard for individual lives in favor of what they perceive as their goals. Timmy may sound like an OK guy to a renegade, but he's definitely not someone a paragon would trust to, say share technology with aliens when he could keep it just for humans. THAT's not a risk paragon Shepard will take under the circumstances of my game.

So the risk you take instead is destroying what may be the key to (or the only chance of - metagaming aside) fending off the Reaper threat.

I'm with Mosor 100% here - deep inside paragons are actually a lot more selfish than they let on. In Christian terms, the Paragon cares only about his own soul (by doing only good stuff), while the Renegade can forfeit his soul (by doing evil stuff) for various reasons, which sometimes includes salvation of others' souls.

[Siegdrifa]

smudboy wrote...

Ah?  The whole reason to keep the base is to learn about it.  You want to blow it up because of unknown dangers and risks?  I am not following this line of logic at all.

No not my kind (i think so), that's extacly why i said i saved he rachni queen wich is one of the most fearsome scare in ME univers.
I'm just saying i didn't have enough info about the base to change my point of view at that time, again, knowing i could make a mistake. I can say it in another way too, from the time i had and info i had, i had enough to choose to destroy it knowing it could be a mistake.

smudboy wrote...
No.  But it's better than nothing.

I think the base COULD be a solution for the reapers to come as it COULD be a problem.

The base could be a solution for the Reapers to come?  Ok.

If the base becomes a problem, simply blow it.

Better than nothing yes, like i said above it's a fact, it's in front of you, it seems granted.
That's why talk about the shattered mirror of truth, it is a distinctiv peace right before your eyes, but may be it's not the only piece left.
Solution is something you have to look for, and i feel ME nivers is rich enough to allow space for other pieces.
And that's why in fact Bioware let us destroy the base, because they already planed something else.

And know, i'm not sure i could destroy it latter (may be a possibility in ME3 but since i don't know if bioware will let me do it ....).

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 04 octobre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Siegdrifa]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
 In Christian terms, the Paragon cares only about his own soul (by doing only good stuff)

Hu ?
what you say is not about Christian ( if he think only about his own soul then he should learn his own religion, some are but it doesn't mean they are good exemple of what christian his or should be).
Paragon in christian therm involve someone trying to imporve other people, he can sacrifice himself for others, not for his sould, but for the greater good.
And the selfishness of the paragon is not about his own soul, but about "bet" he do for a "bigger picture" and "moral".

When you are a renegade, choice in the game look "easy", it's usualy about removing the problem and it's involve Shep and the future "dead".
In paragon, it invole Shep, the menace, and some potential causuality.
So no, i don't believe "paragon" path in ME is about "i do it for my own soul", it's so more easy to kill the pain the ass then living with it until things get fine by improving the people around.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:09 .

[lovgreno]

smudboy wrote...
Should the worst come to pass, there's always the blow up option.

If you realise there is a danger. Sneaky thing that indoctrination you can't detect or know how to shield yourself from and the reapers often uses it very effectively as a trap. Also we all see what we want to see, including TIM and his ever decreasing band of redshirts. He is probably very likely to see pros that don't exists while ignoring threats that do. That's the way I read him at least.TIM and Shepard does get things wrong sometimes, they are not gods.
If you can blow it up. You know basicaly nothing about it. Blowing up that big alien reactor or using it for a radiation wave was a chancetaking for Shepard. As he/she didn't know much about it they could not guarantee it would work as intended.
If collector backup troops have not blown up your ships already. You don't know if the collectors did not wisely spread their forces to make them less vunerable.

No matter what you hope that base contains, wich could be nothing usefull, it has already proven itself to be a very real threat. A threat has been removed if it blows up.

Modifié par lovgreno, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:10 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
 In Christian terms, the Paragon cares only about his own soul (by doing only good stuff)

Hu ?
what you say is not about Christian ( if he think only about his own soul then he should learn his own religion, some are but it doesn't mean they are good exemple of what christian his or should be).
Paragon in christian therm involve someone sacrificeing himself to imporve other people, he can sacrifice himself for others, not for his sould, but for the greater good.

When Christians speak of sacrifice they mean their body, not soul. Does Christianity command to sacrifice your soul (doom it to the eternety in Inferno) if that can possibly save others' souls for Heaven? It does not.

Imagine (if you're a Christian, good. If not, imagine that too): an angel comes by and offers you a deal. You take his sword and travel through time to the year of 1889 to kill baby Hitler. By doing so, you'd save his soul and millions of other souls corrupted by nаzism, but forfeit your own. You'd be a baby killer. What would you do?

Siegdrifa wrote...
And the selfishness of the paragon is not about his own soul, but about "bet" he do for a "bigger picture" and
"moral".

And why are paragons betting "the bigger picture" on their "morals"? Self-righteous much?

Siegdrifa wrote...
When you are a renegade, choice in the game look "easy", it's usualy about removing the problem and it's involve Shep and the future "dead".
In paragon, it invole Shep, the menace, and some potential causuality.
So no, i don't believe "paragon" path in ME is about "i do it for my own soul", it's so more easy to kill the pain the ass then living with it until things get fine by improving the people around.

It's so easy to shift the responsibility bestowed on you by the Council/fate/game to the people around and sit on your butt waiting for them to improve.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:21 .

[lovgreno]

Siegdrifa wrote...
That's why talk about the shattered mirror of truth, it is a distinctiv peace right before your eyes, but may be it's not the only piece left.

In fact the game encourages to see many different versions of the "truth", wich includes the base decision. By only seeing the "Keeping the base is/isn't worth the risk" option we make it too easy for ourselves in my opinion.

[Purge the heathens]

If you realise there is a danger. Sneaky thing that indoctrination you can't detect or know how to shield yourself from and the reapers often uses it very effectively as a trap.

But you can comfortably find out whether there's an indoctrination trap or not! Just imprison someone on the station and observe if they go crazy. If there's indeed an indoctrination trap, you just need to plow through a few husks and slap a grenade on that... thing that Shepard pulls out of the platform. We've never heard of someone being indoctrinated in less than a day, so no danger for the bomb squad.

[Siegdrifa]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
When Christians speak of sacrifice they mean their body, not soul. Does Christianity command to sacrifice your soul (doom it to the eternety in Inferno) if that can possibly save others' souls for Heaven? It does not.

If you are Christian, it's not up to you to judge if your sacrifice require to forfate your soul.
What could actualy forfeit it from human point of view doesn't it could from a divine point of view

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Imagine (if you're a Christian, good. If not, imagine that too): an angel comes by and offers you a deal. You take his sword and travel through time to the year of 1889 to kill baby Hitler. By doing so, you'd save his soul and millions of other souls corrupted by nаzism, but forfeit your own. You'd be a baby killer. What would you do?

Sorry i don't deal with "rewriting" history.
But i don't see killing like the only solution in this case, if you know someone is going to be bad, you should understand why and try to change his reason.
Usualy people are like they are depend of the environement they grow up (culture, economice, tradition, parents etc. If you take two kid from one same country and let them grown in other country with different culture trandition, "parents" etc, you will get 2 differents people.

Zulu_DFA wrote...
And why are paragons betting "the bigger picture" on their "morals"? Self-righteous much?

I'm not sure i understand the meaning of your question, can you clearify?

Zulu_DFA wrote...
It's so easy to shift the responsibility bestowed on you by the Council/fate/game to the people around and sit on your butt waiting for them to improve.

It's not shifting responsability, it's taking time to understand their process of thinking and then trying to make them understand the impact they do on other. It's not something that is done casualy and be achived "quicly", i hope you know that idea grow, devloppe and impact in people more slowly than bullet, it can takes years or decade.
That's why i said it could be more painfull and longer to leave with until people improve themself by agreeing on idea that work for everybody than pulling the trigger and letter only one way of thinking by killing the second we don't agree / understand.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:47 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Here you go. The reason that I don't give it to him is because he might murder the whole asari race in a weekend.
[/quote]
As opposed to the Reapers destroying all life in the galaxy?  Nice.[/quote]
Do you really think that people who destroyed the base will get an instant 'CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE' screen ? Hell no. It took Cerberus years to build the Normandy SR2. They won't do anything too useful with the base. That's like the Allies giving the **** the nuclear bomb to stop an alien invasion. Both impractical and risky. 

[quote][quote]
That's what TIM told us. The narrative leaves it for personal interpretation.
[/quote]
Then it's not objective.[/quote]
So ? You are saying that you were not objective when you said that you believed TIM. OK, I was subjective when I didn't believe him either, but how would it tip the Collectors off ?

[quote][quote]
He did. Even if we accept that he wasn't updated, he did order both operations. The first one was about abducting kids and testing element zero on them and the second one was about 'melding a human with a VI'.
[/quote]
He may have instigated the project, but he wasn't told of what kind of inhuman experiments were going on in Pragia and Overlord.[/quote]
Any evidence to back this claim ?

[quote][quote]
Which confirms that Cerberus did something violent to the Migrant Fleet ? I don't get it, can you please explain what you mean ?
[/quote]
That the narrative tells us there are two sides to the story.[/quote]
This is the one side:
1) Cerberus attacked our flotilla. They are very evil.
2) The purpose justifies the means. (Wait what ? Chasing some guys around the galaxy ?) We are not that evil. We just like abducting people and implanting them with all kinds of stuff.
Am I wrong ?

[quote][quote]
a) Good point, but I thought that you supported that Kahoku was morally corrupt.
Why ? Did this operation go rogue too ?
[/quote]
a) Kahoku was a traitor.  It may not be totally obvious, but that's what happened.
I don't see what this has to do with TIM.[/quote]
a) So ? Cerberus and TIM are far worse traitors... You are blaming a dead guy for trying to find out who killed his men...
He is the leader of Cerberus. Do you have any proof that he didn't order the operation ? Or that it went rogue ?

[quote][quote]
How ? Giving him the base is based on that.
[/quote]
No, giving him the base is based on 1) Information, 2) Technology, 3) Evidence, 4) Closure.[/quote]
1) I already have the Shadow Broker for that.
2) Not worth it. You know what I mean.
3),4) They could only progress the plot, irrelevant. 

[quote][quote]
Check the text in bold.
[/quote]
And you still won't change my mind because you're arguing some OTHER STORY![/quote]
If you were going to use that argument, you should at least say that we are talking about what an IC Shepard would/should do. Whereas, you support that TIM is not a bad guy in general. And you don't want to take any extra material into account, as they hold all the evidence needed to support that. 

[quote][quote]
In general.
[/quote]
What specifically "being morale in general" then?[/quote]
Being a moralist (aka paragon) is an idiocy to you ? Not all means are acceptable.

[quote][quote]
...and beyond. If you think that the priiize that the Base holds is greater than another genocide, then you are just overestimating the base.
[/quote]
And if you think some joke is more important than saving all life, then you're still anti-life.[/quote]
The base won't take down any Reapers. Why would there even be an ME3, if that was possible ? In fact, even the Collectors needed 2 years to build the 50% of something that could only slow down the Reapers for a bit.

[quote][quote]
You are overestimating it's value. The base won't start producing Reapers.
[/quote]
And you are underestimating it's value.[/quote]
Okay then, please enlighten me on what the base could do. I am not going to risk the life of billions for a new MA cannon and a nice looking armour of no practical use. 

[quote][quote]
If I remember correctly, Jack says that they shipped kids off-word, in containers. They would either attack colonies, or bought them from slavers. I'll go and check my source though.
[/quote]
No evidence TIM did or ordered this.[/quote]
Any evidence to point otherwise ? He didn't just say 'OK, you two guys will take over the operation. I won't have any involvement, like caring how we'll get lab rats or building the base'. 

[quote]
I wish it was that simple. If I knew that TIM wouldn't use it 'beyond the Reapers', I'd have no problem with keeping the base. Hell, I didn't dislike him that much. Sheen is godlike. [/quote]
It is that simple.

Even TIM knows his agenda is useless unless the Reapers are taken care of.  Who cares if he wants to also destroy all life after the Reapers are taken care of?  (That is one BIG if.)  It's easier to deal with a pro-human amateur galactic genocider than a fleet of galaxy destroying machine gods who have been doing this millions if not billions (if not ALWAYS) of years.
[/quote]
And you are going to give him that chance ? Okay... then I guess that the murder of billions is your fault. If you expect the base to be the factor that changes the ending of ME3, you are also wrong.

[quote]Who cares?[/quote]
Me and a lot of other people, apparently.

[Siegdrifa]

Purge the heathens wrote...

If you realise there is a danger. Sneaky thing that indoctrination you can't detect or know how to shield yourself from and the reapers often uses it very effectively as a trap.

But you can comfortably find out whether there's an indoctrination trap or not! Just imprison someone on the station and observe if they go crazy. If there's indeed an indoctrination trap, you just need to plow through a few husks and slap a grenade on that... thing that Shepard pulls out of the platform. We've never heard of someone being indoctrinated in less than a day, so no danger for the bomb squad.

Because you think the indoctrination occure in only one way doesn't mean it's the only way.

You can carry sickness that will take years to emerge.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Flamewielder wrote...

mosor wrote...
Would you still maintain that moral path if defeating the reapers wasn't a certainty? You crow on how renegades sacrifice other people's lives to achieve victory, yet paragons willingly risk and possibly even sacrifice lives for the sake of thier own morality. In that sense, paragons are more selfish since victory is shared by everyone, while morality is yours alone. The paragon decison is only more noble, if the only life you're putting at risk is your own. If you're risking trillions (such as with the collector base decision) it's simply not.

The base may or may not be key to the defeat of the Reapers. Shepard has no way of knowing. Shepard DOES know that, should the Reapers be defeated, he'll have put a bunch of advanced tech in the hands of Cerberus, a pro-human organization with xenophobic backing who has demonstrated utter disregard for individual lives in favor of what they perceive as their goals. Timmy may sound like an OK guy to a renegade, but he's definitely not someone a paragon would trust to, say share technology with aliens when he could keep it just for humans. THAT's not a risk paragon Shepard will take under the circumstances of my game.

Problem of the Reapers if you are underprepared: Everyone's dead, forever.

Problem of Cerberus if you are overprepared: Some people are not as powerful as they were, maybe oppressed, for until they throw off oppression and steal secrets and technology (if there even is any oppression in the first place). Trillions are killed out of hand for simply existing, and a cycle of galactic extinction is reset anew, leaving infinitely more innocents to be massacred time and time again.


So on weighing an eternal-scale extinction catastrophe that effects far more people, far more severely, and with no hope of any reversal  versus an indeterminate problem of far lesser scale and harm that can be reversed...

Well, your Shepard acts on morals, alright.

[Dean_the_Young]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Purge the heathens wrote...

If you realise there is a danger. Sneaky thing that indoctrination you can't detect or know how to shield yourself from and the reapers often uses it very effectively as a trap.

But you can comfortably find out whether there's an indoctrination trap or not! Just imprison someone on the station and observe if they go crazy. If there's indeed an indoctrination trap, you just need to plow through a few husks and slap a grenade on that... thing that Shepard pulls out of the platform. We've never heard of someone being indoctrinated in less than a day, so no danger for the bomb squad.

Because you think the indoctrination accure in only one way doesn't mean it's the only way.

You can carry sickness that will take years to emerge.

Now, what sort of Reaper technique, ability, or action have we ever been given in which taking the base and studying the knowledge in it (including, remember, the origin and tech behind the sickness itself) will destroy resistance to the Reapers at the critical moment on account of taking the base...

...that could not already be released even if you destroyed the base.

[Siegdrifa]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Now, what sort of Reaper technique, ability, or action have we ever been given in which taking the base and studying the knowledge in it (including, remember, the origin and tech behind the sickness itself) will destroy resistance to the Reapers at the critical moment on account of taking the base...

...that could not already be released even if you destroyed the base.

Sorry i meant sickness exemple in real life, meaning in fiction story, there is lot more door open.
I didn't mean sickness in the game.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

lovgreno wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
That's why talk about the shattered mirror of truth, it is a distinctiv peace right before your eyes, but may be it's not the only piece left.

In fact the game encourages to see many different versions of the "truth", wich includes the base decision. By only seeing the "Keeping the base is/isn't worth the risk" option we make it too easy for ourselves in my opinion.

Paragon choices are always the ones that are too easy.  The whole crew will agree with you and the whole 9 yards.

[Dean_the_Young]

The question still remains.



What sort of disastrous, base-negating evil exists on the base, a trap left by the Collectors in case of their capture, that could not have also been left outside the base to be unleashed on destruction of the base?

[Purge the heathens]

If I had to think of another risk besides indoctrination...



Automated Collector cloning facilities producing fresh and hostile drones. Blow up the base, doesn't matter. Keep it, Cerberus salvages as much as it can, then destroys the base. Unless the radiation pulse somehow destroyed the templates (who knows how their cloning tech works?)...

[Mr. Gogeta34]

One thing to consider in answering that question is what it took to even take the base.



It doesn't seem likely that the Reapers or the Collectors expected the attack. It just doesn't. Harbinger tells the Collector General that he "failed," it wasn't a congratulations for letting them go through a bunch of crazy hoops only to fall "right into their trap"

[Dean_the_Young]

Purge the heathens wrote...

If I had to think of another risk besides indoctrination...

Automated Collector cloning facilities producing fresh and hostile drones. Blow up the base, doesn't matter. Keep it, Cerberus salvages as much as it can, then destroys the base. Unless the radiation pulse somehow destroyed the templates (who knows how their cloning tech works?)...

Without the Collector General to Assume Direct Control, drones aren't anything special, and certainly not a force that couldn't be overrun and have their cloning vats disabled... if there were such in the first place.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

For the record: Collector Base = Collector Home World

[smudboy]

lovgreno wrote...

If you realise there is a danger. Sneaky thing that indoctrination you can't detect or know how to shield yourself from and the reapers often uses it very effectively as a trap.

There's no evidence showing a Collector Base causes indoctrination.

Also we all see what we want to see, including TIM and his ever decreasing band of redshirts. He is probably very likely to see pros that don't exists while ignoring threats that do. That's the way I read him at least.TIM and Shepard does get things wrong sometimes, they are not gods.

Yes, people are fallable.  It's possible they'll get things wrong.  So?

If you can blow it up. You know basicaly nothing about it. Blowing up that big alien reactor or using it for a radiation wave was a chancetaking for Shepard. As he/she didn't know much about it they could not guarantee it would work as intended.

The narrative not only says so before hand, it shows us the thing blowing up in blue.

If collector backup troops have not blown up your ships already. You don't know if the collectors did not wisely spread their forces to make them less vunerable.

There are no more Collectors.  They've been "stopped."

No matter what you hope that base contains, wich could be nothing usefull, it has already proven itself to be a very real threat. A threat has been removed if it blows up.

If all the Collectors are gone, the threat is gone.  The threat is gone regardless of if the base is blown up or not.

The point of the story was to stop the Collectors.  Are you trying to tell me because you save the base, the Collectors are not stopped?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

smudboy wrote...

The narrative not only says so before hand, it shows us the thing blowing up in blue.

Paragoned the base

Renegaded TIM