2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Aramintai]

I wonder why there was no choice to give the base to the Alliance or the Council instead of Cerberus... It would have made this argument obsolete. I think that the CB is somehow similar to the Anvil of the Void in DA:O. You can give it to the desperate dwarves with already dwindling population and they will happily lay themselves or put others into droves to make more golems, just to threaten their entire race into eventual extinction in the end. Or you can simply choose an effective, competent leader for them who will with a cookie and a whip drag those same dwarves to realization that they are capable of killing darkspawn and reclaiming lost land without some fancy magical devices. Practically the same result - darkspawn can be pushed back either way, but of course, not without some setback from either choice. So I'm thinking it's just a matter of each player's choice or morality or whatever that drives them into making one decision or the other in the game. And making different choices doesn't always mean that there is a bad and good one, they can just lead to different consequences. So there will likely be some difference in how you will be able to defeat the Reapers in ME3, based on the choices each player have made in the course of three games, to satisfy renegades and paragons both. Also, as ME still being part roleplaying game, the factor of how you see and play the character is important. So if you are playing a paragon Shepard and make choices based on what your conscience and high morality say then you're in role when you destroy the CB and you are in the right, but the same can be said for a renegade Shepard who is practical and not picky in choosing allies when he decides to keep the CB. So there's no sense in bashing each other trying to prove the other party wrong, as roleplaying in game is based on personal preferences. And besides, I've yet to see a quest in ME which cannot be resolved using either of these paths, it's just not that kind of game. 

Modifié par Aramintai, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:02 .

[Ieldra]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Really, I don't know why people can't see that it doesn't matter what TIM will do with the base, as long as we get the intelligence we need from it. There are two worst-case scenarios:

(1) If the base does not contain vital intelligence about the Reapers and we keep it, then whatever price in Cerberus atrocities we'll pay for it will have been for nothing. But even if that causes millions of deaths, that doesn't matter because

(2) If the base does contain vital intelligence about the Reapers and we destroy it, then we will all die.

So basically, every single argument that has been brought against keeping the base rests on the assumption that the base, with 100% certainty, does not contain vital intelligence about the Reapers. Metagaming, we do know that's true, but if we stay in-world, we cannot afford that assumption because the alternative could be galaxy-wide extinction. It doesn't matter what TIM will do with the base because we cannot afford the risk of destroying it. We can, however, afford the risk of giving it to TIM.

Wait, how did we find out from metagaming that there was nothing on the base of value with respect to the Reapers? It's a serious question, I don't recall missing anything in the game since I have played it so many times but I'd like to make sure I didn't miss anything.

I said we know there won't be anything *vital*, anything indispensable to find on the base, because that would make the Paragon decision result in "game over". We can be sure as players that whatever decision we make, we will be able to solve the Reaper problem. Theoretically, Bioware might surprise us and go against convention in that, but ME has "conventional" written all over it, and I very much doubt they want  to ****** off the 70% or so Paragon players.

As Shepard, however, we do not know that, so we can't afford the risk of destroying the base.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:32 .

[Flamewielder]

As I said before, rushed science is bad science. You may increase the chances of a breakthrough at the risk of catastrophic failure.
When people point out that Overlord could have generated possible benefits in the research on advanced autism in addition to turning Geth into humanity-controlled soldiers, people also forget that rushed research and inadequate safety protocols almost caused a "technological apocalypse" (sic) that would have essentially left the galaxy ripe for Reaping. Good thing Shepard got there in time, huh?
The Reapers have set an appointement with us... They can be here next week (in which case were screwed) or they can be here in a couple of years. There is no justification for rushed higher risk research, which is what Cerberus is known for. Checksum analysis shows Paragon/Renegade approach have equal chances of success, without considering if your Shepard is pro-human or anti-cerberus..

Modifié par Flamewielder, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:38 .

[Ieldra]

@Flamewielder:
Again, it doesn't matter. All these arguments come to nothing because they assume that there is nothing *vital* on the Collector base that we can't get any other way. TIM's motives doesn't matter. Cerberus' style of research doesn't matter. All that doesn't change the basic fact: we can't afford the assumption that there is nothing vital there, because if we're wrong we're all dead. Thus, we can't afford to destroy the base.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:11 .

[smudboy]

I find it funny that if we assume there's nothing vital there, then there's no reason to destroy it anyway.

[mosor]

Schutzstaffel wrote...

“Krogan; sterilised race, potential wasted.”

Irrelevant. Sovereign and Saren already cured the genophage and what one reaper knows, they all know. If the Krogan were compatible for reaper needs, then they would have taken them. As I said before, controlling the Rachni was easy for the reapers. They only needed to indoctrinate one being, the queen.  The Krogan are individuals.

[Fixers0]

Well on most of my playthroughs including my 'canon' playthrough, i destroy the base, but a someone said before neither of the choices has to be superior to the other one.

[Aramintai]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Flamewielder:
Again, it doesn't matter. All these arguments come to nothing because they assume that there is nothing *vital* on the Collector base that we can't get any other way. TIM's motives doesn't matter. Cerberus' style of research doesn't matter.

That's just plain irresponsible and shortsighted. 

All that doesn't change the basic fact: we can't afford the assumption that there is nothing vital there, because if we're wrong we're all dead. 

That's just supposition not a fact. You cannot know that the galaxy will fall without the knowledge, even if there is something to be found there. I can also suppose that Cerberus will create their own Reaper and it will be hacked by the Reapers to fill their ranks. But there are no certain facts as to what will happen in either choice and wether one thing or the other is worse. Forcing the argument like that proves nothing. We shall all reap what we sow in ME3 and then decide who was right.

Modifié par Aramintai, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:35 .

[lovgreno]

smudboy wrote...

I find it funny that if we assume there's nothing vital there, then there's no reason to destroy it anyway.

There might be something vital there and there might not. There might also be something there that due to Failberus ineptness leads to a major fubar for the galaxy. Remember what they almost caused in project Overlord.

[mosor]

Aramintai wrote...

That's just plain irresponsible and shortsighted. 

No it's not in this case. In peaceful times it is. With extinction, you either play every card possible or go to the wastebin of history. Survival of the fittest at it's purest.

That's just supposition not a fact. You cannot know that the galaxy will fall without the knowledge, even if there is something to be found there. I can also suppose that Cerberus will create their own Reaper and it will be hacked by the Reapers to fill their ranks. But there are no certain facts as to what will happen in either choice and wether one thing or the other is worse. Forcing the argument like that proves nothing. We shall all reap what we sow in ME3 and then decide who was right.

1. We do know the galaxy will fall if we do nothing, What you're doing is gambling with the lives of trillions by throwing away opportunities now in the hope another opportunity will present itself. Those are pretty high stakes to gamble with simply to sooth your soul.

2. The writers can and will make up any fantasy they like,  to cater to people who destroyed the base.  Probably that fantasy will result in a galaxy you like better. However, all the good outcomes in the universe won't make the decision to destroy the base any more logical or rational.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:55 .

[Ieldra]

Aramintai wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
All that doesn't change the basic fact: we can't afford the assumption that there is nothing vital there, because if we're wrong we're all dead. 

That's just supposition not a fact. You cannot know that the galaxy will fall without the knowledge, even if there is something to be found there. I can also suppose that Cerberus will create their own Reaper and it will be hacked by the Reapers to fill their ranks. But there are no certain facts as to what will happen in either choice and wether one thing or the other is worse. Forcing the argument like that proves nothing. We shall all reap what we sow in ME3 and then decide who was right.

I don't say there *is* anything indispensible. I only say we can't afford to assume that there is *not*. If we assume the former and we're wrong, it's possible we're faced with some really bad Cerberus atrocities, and all for no significant gain aginst the Reapers. That's bad, yes. But if we assume the latter and we're wrong, then we're all dead. So really, Cerberus atrocities don't matter in comparison. Because they're the lower risk.

It's a simple risk calculation. Anyone should be able to understand that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:33 .

[Ieldra]

Here a more systematic approach. Basically, we have two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: On the base, there exists knowledge without which the Reaper conflict will be won by the Reapers.
Hypothesis 2: Such knowledge does not exist on the base. The conflict can be won without the base

And we have two decisions:

Decision A: Shepard destroys the base
Decision B: Shepard keeps the base

This results in four scenarios:

Scenario 1A: Galactic civilization will not survive.
Scenario 1B: Galactic civilization will survive, Cerberus will gain power.
Scenario 2A: Galactic civilization will survive, Cerberus will not gain power.
Scenario 2B: Galactic civilization will survive, Cerberus will gain power.

So, what's the most important consideration? I count anyone insane who says anything but "Avoid scenario 1A". The problem is, scenario 1A can only be reached by taking decision A - destroying the base....
Which means, all who destroy the base are saying "There are more important considerations than to make sure galactic civilization survives."

The ironic result: Paragon players risk the higher evil than Renegade players.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:02 .

[Aramintai]

mosor wrote...
p[[]No it's not in this case. In peaceful times it is. With extinction, you either play every card possible or go to the Survival of the fittest at it's purest.

This analogy fits best only the bunch of cornered animals who do not know the meaning of cooperation and benefits of advanced society. And these are the things that ultimately overcome all the big struggles in the end, not some rushed decisions based on impatience.

1. We do know the galaxy will fall if we do nothing, What you're doing is gambling with the lives of trillions by throwing away opportunities now in the hope another opportunity will present itself. Those are pretty high stakes to gamble with simply to sooth your soul.

So we will do something. In ME3. Give Shepard some slack - he was resurrected only some months ago and was thrown into the mission that required immediate attention, there was no time to explore other avenues. The time for opportunity finding will come in ME3 and based on his previous achievements he is quite capable of gathering the allies and tech necessary to defeat the Reapers. And is not any less dangerous to gamble with the lives of same trillions by giving such dangerous organization as Cerberus, known for its ruthless, half-assed experiments and belief that any means justify the ends any kind of supposed Reaper tech on CB. Considering what happened in the last book there is no doubt in that.

2. The writers can and will make up any fantasy they like,  to cater to people who destroyed the base.  Probably that fantasy will result in a galaxy you like better. However, all the good outcomes in the universe won't make the decision to destroy the base any more logical or rational.

I'm not sure wether the galaxy will all be filled with rainbows and bunnies in the aftermath, but if there will be a chance to destroy Cerberus and its plans somewhere along the final game it will be enough, so might as well start with not giving them more power now. Anyway,  logic exists and was debated on many pages here already, but it seems to be eluding those who are bent to keep CB, no matter what. There's no point arguing about that.
And if it's not good enough then consider what was said here already - there will be no favorites in ME3, be it paragon or renegade path, or it will ****** half the gamers off. So keeping the base or not is a simple matter of choice, which will allow us to play through different scenarios, because it is a game not some type of real life siuation. Some people just take it too seriously.

Modifié par Aramintai, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:18 .

[Ieldra]

"So we will do something" That's your "logic", Aramintai? The simple assertion that that "something" will be enough. That's naiveté of the highest order. I suggest you consider the scenarios I posted above. That is logic, and unfortunately for you, there's no way around it.

[Barquiel]

You assume that the negative effects of handing Cerberus that power will only matter in the long term (=after the reapers are defeated)...great logic<_<

[Ieldra]

Barquiel wrote...
You assume that the negative effects of handing Cerberus that power will only matter in the long term (=after the reapers are defeated)...great logic<_<

You actually think Cerberus will help the Reapers? That whatever they do will tip the balance in favor of the Reapers? How likely is that for an organisation with 150 operatives? Forgive me if I see the conclusion to want to draw to be the reason for that hypothesis: "Keeping Cerberus down is more important than anything else".

[Inverness Moon]

Aramintai wrote...

This analogy fits best only the bunch of cornered animals who do not know the meaning of cooperation and benefits of advanced society. And these are the things that ultimately overcome all the big struggles in the end, not some rushed decisions based on impatience.

You're being idealistic, not realistic.

Aramintai wrote...

So we will do something. In ME3. Give Shepard some slack - he was resurrected only some months ago and was thrown into the mission that required immediate attention, there was no time to explore other avenues. The time for opportunity finding will come in ME3 and based on his previous achievements he is quite capable of gathering the allies and tech necessary to defeat the Reapers. And is not any less dangerous to gamble with the lives of same trillions by giving such dangerous organization as Cerberus, known for its ruthless, half-assed experiments and belief that any means justify the ends any kind of supposed Reaper tech on CB. Considering what happened in the last book there is no doubt in that.

Exploring other avenues sounds nice in theory, but we don't have the luxury of being picky about what avenues we take to defeat the reapers.

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that other avenues exist, which is not necessarily true. And if we find no other solutions, then that means destroying that base could have quite literally doomed the galaxy.

There is a saying that is relevant here, prepare for the worst but hope for the best. Destroying the base is not what somebody would do if they're preparing for the worst, it's what somebody would do if they're hoping there is an alternative without actually knowing.

And finally, there is also no way you'd be able to convince me that giving the base to Cerberus is as dangerous or more dangerous than blowing it up and being left with nothing.

Aramintai wrote...

I'm not sure wether the galaxy will all be filled with rainbows and bunnies in the aftermath, but if there will be a chance to destroy Cerberus and its plans somewhere along the final game it will be enough, so might as well start with not giving them more power now. Anyway,  logic exists and was debated on many pages here already, but it seems to be eluding those who are bent to keep CB, no matter what. There's no point arguing about that.

Defeating the reapers is far more important than destroying Cerberus. Only a fool would actively work against Cerberus now. They're the only group other than Shepard and his crew that have been actively doing something about the reaper threat. Their initiative is responsible for your success in ME1 (Normandy SR1), and both your existence and your success in ME2.

Again, you don't have the luxury of being picky about who your allies are and what methods you use to defeat the reapers.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:30 .

[Finnish Dragon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here a more systematic approach. Basically, we have two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: On the base, there exists knowledge without which the Reaper conflict will be won by the Reapers.
Hypothesis 2: Such knowledge does not exist on the base. The conflict can be won without the base

And we have two decisions:

Decision A: Shepard destroys the base
Decision B: Shepard keeps the base

This results in four scenarios:

Scenario 1A: Galactic civilization will not survive.
Scenario 1B: Galactic civilization will survive, Cerberus will gain power.
Scenario 2A: Galactic civilization will survive, Cerberus will not gain power.
Scenario 2B: Galactic civilization will survive, Cerberus will gain power.

So, what's the most important consideration? I count anyone insane who says anything but "Avoid scenario 1A". The problem is, scenario 1A can only be reached by taking decision A - destroying the base....
Which means, all who destroy the base are saying "There are more important considerations than to make sure galactic civilization survives."

The ironic result: Paragon players risk the higher evil than Renegade players.

The problem is that there is fifth scenario, 2C. Shepard saves the base but still the galactic civilization is destroyed by the Reapers. Maybe there is nothing tangible to be used against the Reapers at the Collector Base. Maybe the base will indoctrinate the Cerberus crew which is assigned to research the base and in that way the Reapers retake the base. The Reapers used indoctrinated Protheans to assist to exterminate Prothean civilization:

http://masseffect.wi...n#The_Cataclysm

It is a foolish thing to ignore the possibility that the Reapers could indoctrinate some captured humans and use them like Sovereign used Saren. By keeping the base it make this threat more possible. It would make easier for the Reapers to infiltrate both Cerberus and many human controlled worlds in a long run. In this way, keeping the base could do more harm than help defeating the Reapers especially if TIM wouldn´t realize that something was wrong. Well, he wasn´t really good that even if you believe him regarding Subject Zero project. The fact is that Cerberus cells are too independent for that kind of research.  

[mosor]

Aramintai wrote...

This analogy fits best only the bunch of cornered animals who do not know the meaning of cooperation and benefits of advanced society. And these are the things that ultimately overcome all the big struggles in the end, not some rushed decisions based on impatience.

Humans are animals. We're nothing special and saving the base doesn't negate cooperation. It's just a matter of on what terms cooperation will take place.

So we will do something. In ME3. Give Shepard some slack - he was resurrected only some months ago and was thrown into the mission that required immediate attention, there was no time to explore other avenues. The time for opportunity finding will come in ME3 and based on his previous achievements he is quite capable of gathering the allies and tech necessary to defeat the Reapers.

If you keep squandering opportunities like this one, you will get to the point where it's too late to do anything. You're only proving my point. You're gambling the actual lives of trillions based on personal morality.

And is not any less dangerous to gamble with the lives of same trillions by giving such dangerous organization as Cerberus, known for its ruthless, half-assed experiments and belief that any means justify the ends any kind of supposed Reaper tech on CB. Considering what happened in the last book there is no doubt in that.

So by your logic, Cderberus/Humanity dominating the galaxy is just as dangerous as the reapers who not only threaten galactic extinction but have carried it out for countless cycles? When faced with extinction, anything is justified. I'd rather have a black soul if it inceases a child's chances of living a full life. You'd decrease a child's chances in living a full life  just to keep your soul noble.

I'm not sure wether the galaxy will all be filled with rainbows and bunnies in the aftermath, but if there will be a chance to destroy Cerberus and its plans somewhere along the final game it will be enough, so might as well start with not giving them more power now. Anyway,  logic exists and was debated on many pages here already, but it seems to be eluding those who are bent to keep CB, no matter what. There's no point arguing about that.

Again, where is the logic of destroying an ally helping you defeat an all powerful enemy? Whatever monster Cerberus may or may not become, they're not going to commit galactic extinction. I also don't understand why you would risk trillions and have an optimistic hope of finding another way to destroy the reapers, but feel you must screw Cerberus now and not having an optimistic hope of crushing them in the future?  I'll tell the only logical reason for that mode of thinking. In many people's minds a reaper defeat is a given. Few, if any people worry about losing to the reapers. However, defeating Cerberus is not a given. That's why they think Cerberus is the bigger threat. However, that's nothing but metagamming. It doesn't make your arguments more logical.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:39 .

[Aramintai]

Shandepared wrote...

Really, what Shepard supposed to do? He can't tell Cerberus not to take the base and the Council, Alliance, or whomever can't immediately mount a mission to go and secure it. That's assuming they even believe you. The Omega-4 relay is right in the heart of the Terminus Systems, after all.

Shepard 'choosing' who to give the base to wouldn't make sense.

It wouldn't only because no apparent choice was given or thought of. If the base stays intact there's no rule against reporting its location to the Alliance or the Council, as it won't go anywhere anyway. And there's no rule against reclaiming the base once the allied forces gather up if it was already taken by Cerberus or whomever. But since the opportunity wasn't explored and I doubt it will in ME3 then it will just remain as a rhetorical question.

[Inverness Moon]

mosor wrote...

Againt, where is the logic of destroying an ally helping you defeat an all powerful enemy? Whatever monster may or may not become, they're not going to commit galactic extinction. I also don't understand why you would risk trillions and have an optimistic hope of finding another way to destroy the reapers, but feel you must screw Cerberus now and having an optimistic hope of crushing them in the future?  I'll tell the only logical reason for that mode of thinking. In many people's minds a reaper defeat is a given. Few, if any people worry about losing to the reapers. However, defeating Cerberus is not a given. That's why they think Cerberus is the bigger threat. However, that's nothing but metagamming. It doesn't make your arguments more logical.

I wish BioWare would come out and say that there is an ending where you loose to the reapers, just as you could die in ME2, and that the collector base and your decisions in ME1 would factor heavily into this. That would be great.

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

You assume that the negative effects of handing Cerberus that power will only matter in the long term (=after the reapers are defeated)...great logic<_<

Personally I assume there will be some negative consequences. Just nothing convincing that those possible  negatives outweigh the possible positives.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:35 .

[Aramintai]

mosor wrote...


Humans are animals. We're nothing special and saving the base doesn't negate cooperation. It's just a matter of on what terms cooperation will take place.

I didn't mean only humans but all other races as well. And cooperation on bigger scale - humans  cannot win against the Reapers alone, at least of that I've no doubt. So humans not relying on anyone else but themselves that's what the analogy was about.

If you keep squandering opportunities like this one, you will get to the point where it's too late to do anything. You're only proving my point. You're gambling the actual lives of trillions based on personal morality.

All I'm saying that there were no options given in ME2 to actually start anything as Shepard was occupied by the mission to stop the Collectors. You cannot assume that he\\\\she will sit idly by in ME3 now that the Collecotrs are stopped and he\\\\she is back on track on the initial mission to stop the Reapers. And what's wrong with morality? Is it not a fact that paragon choices never lead to any bad consequences in both games? I doubt ME3 will be reverse in that. Besides, trillions are not less in danger with the base intact because, as was stated before, Cerberus' fumbling  with the base may lead to all sorts of disasters, even faster return of the Reapers.

Modifié par Aramintai, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:55 .

[Moiaussi]

There is also the risk that the Collectors will retake the base. We have reason to believe they have other ships and may well have other bases.



"Keeping" a base that you cannot immediately secure is very risky.