2146 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

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]
This is not about what ME3 will do.  This is about the reasoning behind saving or not saving the base, and all reasoning I've seen toward destroying it is illogic and personal, subjective bias toward TIM.  Whereas saving it provides positive possibilities.

[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]
That's a good question.  I could guess a few possibilities, but it's really not for me to say.

[quote]
Any evidence to back this claim ?
[/quote]
The first audio log seems very clear about that.

[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]
No, the narrative puts it differently.
1) "That's not how I'd have explained it exactly.  It was nothing personal."
2) We don't know what the hell happened.  Prazza gives one account, and Miranda dismisses it.  The narrative simply didn't give us enough information to form an objective understanding.

Plus, attacking anything doesn't make anyone evil.

[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]
Ok.  I'm done with this line of reasoning.  Not getting through to you on a simple definition with examples.

[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]
No you misunderstand.
1) Information on the Reapers.
2) Technology from the Reapers.
3) Evidence on the Reapers
4) Closure about who died.
The SB can't do that, the technology is most definitely worht it, and how does evidence progress a plot, what plot?  What are you talking about?

[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]
I don't know what an IC Shepard is.

I can only take into account ME and ME2.  In both of these cases, there is no evidence showing TIM is evil, bad, or morally gray.  There's a time where he lies to us, but that's to make the mission successful.  I may not agree with it, but that's merely his method of solving a problem, and it is well explained.  Thus the narrative is clear on this.

[quote]
Being a moralist (aka paragon) is an idiocy to you ? Not all means are acceptable.
[/quote]
Again, you have to be specific.  What moral/paragaon action are you referring to?  You can't just say in general.  In general it's good to be nice to people.  In general it's also good to doubt people.  But in what respect, what situation?  You have to give examples in situational ethics, or use a maxim.

[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]
We don't know what the base will do.  That's kind of the point.  It doesn't matter what ME3 will do: this is about the reasoning behind keeping something, versus the subjective, purely emotional bullcr*p dislike of TIM's glowing blue eyes.

[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]
1) Information -- give us info on the Reapers.  Where they're coming from, what their plans are, communications between them, their goals, their strengths, their weaknesses, how to stop them, etc.
2) Technology -- weapons, defenses, energies, etc.
3) Evidence -- prove to others Reapers are real.
4) Closure -- give victims of the dead closure.

[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]
If there's no evidence for, there's no evidence against, so it's really pointless to speculate.

[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]
Murder of billions?  What are you talking about?  The Reapers?  Cause they're going to kill everyone.  Somewhere in the trllions.

However if you're asking about whether TIM will murder billions, I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

Either way I'd take an insane man who can potentially kill billions, then tje machine gods that kill everyone, forever, always.

[quote]
Me and a lot of other people, apparently.

[/quote]
About?

[Dean_the_Young]

No, Smudboy, he has a point. Knowing that an alien reactor will create a neutron purge is taking a gamble.



So is relying on it to blow up. I mean, think: who would be stupid enough to make their own base reactor blow up like a bomb? Shepard was taking a big risk there: for all he knew, he and his team were getting off the station, flying away, and then... nothing. Collectors still control the station, and he has to get back on the damn thing and kill them all personally.



Ahuh.



Of course, then there wouldn't really be a choice to blow up the base in the first place. Hm, it's like the choices are actually reliable indicators of what will happen...

[smudboy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, Smudboy, he has a point. Knowing that an alien reactor will create a neutron purge is taking a gamble.

So is relying on it to blow up. I mean, think: who would be stupid enough to make their own base reactor blow up like a bomb? Shepard was taking a big risk there: for all he knew, he and his team were getting off the station, flying away, and then... nothing. Collectors still control the station, and he has to get back on the damn thing and kill them all personally.

Ahuh.

Of course, then there wouldn't really be a choice to blow up the base in the first place. Hm, it's like the choices are actually reliable indicators of what will happen...

I keep reminding myself these are the same people who dislike a personality and will risk the entire galaxy on an emotion.  Or their "soul of their species."  Or something.

So illogic, emotion and inferior fears garner some over others.

[Zulu_DFA]

Siegdrifa wrote...

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

There are certain things, that are called "sins"...

Siegdrifa wrote...

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.

That's not about rewriting the history. It's about writing it. All the stuff Cerbeurs does is doing "bad" stuff, thinking that it will bring about what they perceive as "greater good". And it so happens that at times you don't have anything in you power but a renegae interrupt...

As it relates to the C-Base choice: do you do a "bad" thing by giving it to TIM in hopes it will help against a far worse thing - the Reapers, or do you do a "good" thing by blowing it up, in hopes it will prove to haven't been critical to stop the Reapers?

Siegdrifa wrote...

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?

I mean the paragons often potentially put other people's lives on the line by refraining from making choices that don't fall well with their moral doctrine.

True, the renegades usually take a lot more lives themselves or condemn them directly by, for example, not taking hostages into equation, but in the aftermath of their actions the Galaxy is often a safer and more predictable place. In other cases the paragons seem to make living on sheer luck (or the fact that they have to be able to play ME3 too).

Siegdrifa wrote...

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.

With the Reapers coming Shepard may not have the luxury of time. And it's never guaranteed the bad guys will smarten up at all if you keep giving them the opportunity to get away with what they do.

As it applies to the C-Base choice, again, how can Shepard be sure that any faction but Cerberus will finally wake up and help against the Reapers? When so far, to Shepard's knowledge, Cerberus has been the most successul, if not the only one of them to do anything.

[Fixers0]

Guys, please stop discussing about Cerberus/TIM, if it goes about things like Kahoku or the Migrant fleet, just keep it to the collector base discussion,
If course you can still use these arguments but please don't make a discussion of it.

Modifié par Fixers0, 04 octobre 2010 - 08:05 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Here's a way to think about this.



Would you give technology to Hitler if it would help you stop Stalin?

[Zulu_DFA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, Smudboy, he has a point. Knowing that an alien reactor will create a neutron purge is taking a gamble.

So is relying on it to blow up. I mean, think: who would be stupid enough to make their own base reactor blow up like a bomb? Shepard was taking a big risk there: for all he knew, he and his team were getting off the station, flying away, and then... nothing. Collectors still control the station, and he has to get back on the damn thing and kill them all personally.

Ahuh.

Of course, then there wouldn't really be a choice to blow up the base in the first place. Hm, it's like the choices are actually reliable indicators of what will happen...

That's more of an issue of bad writing. Surely, the Normandy can carry a dozen of powerful H-bombs, and N-bombs. But the plot had to take us to that super-baby-terminator thing, after we were done with the crew, adbucted to create "emotional engagement".

So at that point, if the game says blow up by reactor or neutron purge by reactor, instead of "by bomb", then so be it.

And pray for less plot holes in ME3.

[Zulu_DFA]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

Here's a way to think about this.

Would you give technology to Hitler if it would help you stop Stalin?

Here is a way to think:

Technologies were given to Stalin to help stop Hitler.

[Elite Midget]

Fixers0 wrote...

Guys, please stop discussing about Cerberus/TIM, if it goes about things like Kahoku or the Migrant fleet, just keep it to the collector base discussion,
If course you can still use these arguments but please don't make a discussion of it.

Why? TIM and Cerberus have everything to do with the Collector Base since they're the ones receiving it. With TIM's track record, as well as the habit of his cells going rogue, you have to weigh in if the ends justify the means aswell as trusting TIM not to have this cell go rogue as well, Than there's the fact that Harbringer knows everything about the Collector Base since it was built by the Collectors with Reaper guidiance which might pose a problem...

Basically you're either getting a big pay off or you're setting yourself up for failure by doing either of the choices. Since new technology could be used against the Reapers from the current organic life/Illos or the Collector Base. Than there's the chance of finding nothing on Illos or TIM betraying Shepard later on(With his new sweet technology) or Harbringer re-establishing dominance in the Collector Base since it is technology that the Reapers created. Even if Harbringer does take over the Collecter Base again, or forces it to self-destruct later, there's the chance that TIM might have gained new adapted technology from it. Of course there's a chance he wont get even that either. So it's a gamble either way.

From my experiences Cerberus can never be trusted with power ever again. Either TIM is incompetent or he had a hand in all of the experiments he demanded be carried out. Others believe other wise... That and TIM has lied to and used Shepard more than once in the past to further his agenda.


Anyways, as for Stalin...

If I recall, Stalinhelped defeat Hitler but by helping Stalin it lead to the Cold War and the collapse of Russia economically. That and it spread fear throughout the world and lead to the struggles between the different forms of government. Even today some people are still bitter and hate the mere mention of communism.

[Ieldra]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...
Here's a way to think about this.

Would you give technology to Hitler if it would help you stop Stalin?

No, but I would give it to him to help stop Cthulhu eating every human on Earth.

[Inverness Moon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...
Here's a way to think about this.

Would you give technology to Hitler if it would help you stop Stalin?

No, but I would give it to him to help stop Cthulhu eating every human on Earth.

Something like that.

If you think comparing Stalin to Hitler is the same as comparing TIM to the reapers then you have no idea what you're talking about. Hell, the fact that you'd even compare even TIM to Stalin or Hitler is ridiculous.

[philiposophy]

Elite Midget wrote...

Anyways, as for Stalin...

If I recall, Stalinhelped defeat Hitler but by helping Stalin it lead to the Cold War and the collapse of Russia economically. That and it spread fear throughout the world and lead to the struggles between the different forms of government. Even today some people are still bitter and hate the mere mention of communism.

And if the Soviet Union had not held the line on the Eastern Front, most of Eurasia would have fallen under Axis control, a government even more nightmarish and evil than Stalinism ever achieved. Even greater numbers of Jews, homosexuals, disabled and others deemed "sub-human" would have been systematically exterminated.

Hitler/Stalin can be fitting analogy for the reapers and Cerberus. Even if Cerberus cause a cold war of sorts, it's still a better option than what losing to the reapers represents, which is the systematic extermination of every single space-faring sapient creature in the galaxy.

[Elite Midget]

The Soviet Union would still have held the line but at a greater cost. Last time I checked they still kept coming even though they lost the most people in the war. Not to mention than any German invasion in the East had failed horribly even before arming Stalin with many new technologies.



The fastest way to end the war and have less death was to aid Stalin but by doing so they created an even greater enemy. Had either side snapped and released their warheads it would have been more devestateing than anything that happened in the war. It was a big gamble with Stalin... Not to mention that the Cold War helped establish North Korea and China(They werent even a player in WWII since Japan easily made gains against them. Now today they're a force to be reackoned with) into power as well.

[Aramintai]

Always blew up the Collectors base. Knowing Cerberus and TIM they will likely exploit it to their benefit during or after the final struggle with the Reapers. Namely, they will likely use the intact Reaper and base's technology as a leverage to bully the way for humanity as the dominant force in the galaxy. It's their goal after all. And having quite a large network of agents and Cerberus sympathizers among human government and military there is little doubt that they will gain support for this, even if Cerberus itself may stay in the shadows, pulling the strings. And if they will learn how to use the indoctrination technology then it would be even easier. Despite the numerous misunderstandings and mutual suspiciousness I believe that the balance between the Conucil and non-Council species, as fragile as it may be, should be preserved and that humanity can prove themselves to the rest of the galaxy without resorting to force not earned and vile machinations.

At least that's what my canon paragon Shepard believes . Although, it would be interesting to see what evils will befell the galaxy after the Reapers are defeated if TIM and Cerberus had their way in this.

[philiposophy]

No, Stalin was not an even greater enemy than Hitler. Hitler and his administration were responsible for the mass extermination of anyone that didn't fit in their conception of humans. And do you honestly believe there would have been no cold war if the Nazis had conquered Eurasia? Of course there would have.



Anyway, the point is that whatever Cerberus does to the galaxy is a drop in the ocean compared to what the reapers will do it. They are the lesser of two evils, and that is why TIM gets his base.

[scotchtape622]

lol, Stalin killed way more people that Hitler did. They are still finding mass graveyards of Stalin's political enemies.

[Zulu_DFA]

scotchtape622 wrote...

lol, Stalin killed way more people that Hitler did. They are still finding mass graveyards of Stalin's political enemies.

Where?

[Dean_the_Young]

Stalin also had decades more to kill people than Hitler. For comparative times in power, the H-man killed a lot more people per year than Stalin did. The reason that Stalin's atrocity count is higher is because Hitler was stopped.



In extremely large part because of Stalin.

[Aramintai]

Anyway, the point is that whatever Cerberus does to the galaxy is a drop in the ocean compared to what the reapers will do it. They are the lesser of two evils, and that is why TIM gets his base.

Justify it however you wish, but do you seriously believe that without it the galaxy will surely fail? I doubt the ME3 devs will allow that , not unless you fail yourself. I suspect it would be something similar to team gathering in ME2, only in much bigger scale and more epic. I think that the Collectors' tech may give some upper hand in the final struggle with the Reapers, but not without some backlash, be it drawing away some potential allies who might be willing to help you otherwise, collecting other species to make "homemade" Reapers or some treacherous "backstab" in the aftermath. In any case, unless there is some epic fail from the player's side (like poor choices which lead to player's death in ME2)  the Reapers will fall one way or the other that's for sure, the only question remains is what tools are you willing to use to defeat them.

[scotchtape622]

Aramintai wrote...

Anyway, the point is that whatever Cerberus does to the galaxy is a drop in the ocean compared to what the reapers will do it. They are the lesser of two evils, and that is why TIM gets his base.

Justify it however you wish, but do you seriously believe that without it the galaxy will surely fail? I doubt the ME3 devs will allow that , not unless you fail yourself. I suspect it would be something similar to team gathering in ME2, only in much bigger scale and more epic. I think that the Collectors' tech may give some upper hand in the final struggle with the Reapers, but not without some backlash, be it drawing away some potential allies who might be willing to help you otherwise, collecting other species to make "homemade" Reapers or some treacherous "backstab" in the aftermath. In any case, unless there is some epic fail from the player's side (like poor choices which lead to player's death in ME2)  the Reapers will fall one way or the other that's for sure, the only question remains is what tools are you willing to use to defeat them.

Despite my opinion, saying that Bioware won't let us fail isn't a valid argument, because Shepard doesn't know that.

[Thornquist]

I'd like to point out to people that the way you play Mass Effect is very vital to this question.

The sad thing is that many who destroy the base, does this because they are pretty sure that there will, eventually be a "paragon" way to defeat the reapers in ME3 - and they are making this a ethical question by pointing out all the bad things about Cerberus.

The arguments then becomes "Cerberus can do evil this, or that - with the tech".

This is SPECULATION, and will always be.

The things we do know for sure is this:

- There are sentient machines, closing in on our galactic civilization, with greater numbers and greater technology, who are hell-bent on the total annhiliation of all organic life.



If there is even a slightest thing that will improve these grim odds - I will take it. Ethics be damned!



Oh yes, when I roleplay my main Shephard, I also keep the base with the intention of informing the Citadel the moment I leave the Omega Relay. I could go out of character and say that Bioware will never give me that chance - but then I am not roleplaying right.

[Elite Midget]

Germany wasen't going to conquer Euroasia. Every attempt on heading east and trying to one up on the Russians ended up as failures. The unpredictable climate was a huge factor in it. The Russians were well prepared for the cold while the Germans weren't and they lost more people to the climate than actual fighting when they headed east. Not to mention that they would be spread even more thin than they already were. Fighting a two front war had basically gaurenteed that they weren't going to last much longer. Had they remained allies they would have ruled the world but the moment their alliance shattered was what doomed Germany.

Than there are the many people that Stalin had killed during his regime that many accounts say that they were just as bad as what the germans had done. Millions of Russians who even thought of defying Stalin were put to the sword after the war had ended. Nothing changed, they're both as ruthless as the other. The only difference being that Stalin was smarter at it.

The Reapers are machines that don't think, they just do. They don't add in probability or take actions that they feel would result in error. Already they miscalculated organic life more than once. It shows that they're just as vulnerable and can be defeated. They aren't invincible. Not to mention that the Reapers don't want to rule. Instead they simply wish to carry out what they were programmed to do. Create a new Reaper and wipe out organics for whatever reason.

TIM on the other hand is an organic and has already shown great ambitions, Not to mention that he's unpredictable and a wild card. After the Reapers are gone TIM could easily use the technology from the dead Reapers(If we get to kill them in ME3), the collector base, and the such to push his agenda for humanity to be the top of the universe.

Not to mention by obtaining the Collector Base could end up blinding organic life from other technologies and advances that they would never have thought of. Which is exactly what the Reapers have done time and time again. Leaving technology so organic life evolves as it sees fit.

So, why would they leave the Collector Base so close to organic life if they didn't have a back up plan incase it was ever lost. After all, they thought little of the Collectors as is since they're organics and to them organics are doomed to fail. That and many had attempted to cross the Omega-3 Relay and failed but the threat was always there so it wouldn't make sense that the Reapers wouldn't plan for it.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 04 octobre 2010 - 10:04 .

[Kavadas]

Hitler could only dream of extermination on the scale in which Stalin operated.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why should ethics be damned?



Healthy ethics, which place the lives of others above conventional personal morality, should demand the Base.





Don't damn ethics: have better ones.

[philiposophy]

I have no idea whether or not the war will hinge on the collector base. But what I do know is that it might help my war effort with tech to study, intel and all that jazz. I won't throw away a potentially useful resource if it presents itself to me.



I (as in Shepard, not the player) also can't know that there will be an ME3 to win regardless of choices made. That's metagaming and inadmissable in a debate on whether or not it should be preserved in game.