2146 réponses à ce sujet

[mosor]

Aramintai wrote...

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.

My issue with this point is this: Why does having the base negate cooperation? Do you seriously think, aliens won't cooperate with humanity, simply because Cerberus, a rogue faction of humanity, has the base? Do you really think that even if aliens dispised humanity, they wouldn't put that hatred aside for a while to deal with a common extinction threat?

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 Collectors. 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.

I'm not assuming Shepard is sitting idlly by. However, if he isn't taking opportunties as they present themselves, then he might as well be.

As for paragon choices never leading to bad consequences. That's unfortunate given how naive some of those choices are, but it's also metagamming.

As for Cerberus fumbling. To me finding possible intel, equipment, and weakness of the reapers outweighs any possible negatives from fumbling. The reapers are coming anyway. Whether they come in 3 months or 5 years. It doesn't matter if you squander opportunities, hoping for better ones to come along. You may have nothing to show for it by the time they do arive.

The fact by doing nothing, trillions are 100% in danger, because the reapers will come and harvest us. With an intact base our odds increase. We may find something, we may find nothing, but at least we have a chance. Destroying the base gives no opportunities for anything unless bioware wants to write that a critical piece of equipment somehow miraculously survived the explosion.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 05:14 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Shandepared wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

I wonder why there was no choice to give the base to the Alliance or the Council instead of Cerberus...

You are never given the choice to give the base to anybody, not even to Cerberus. Your choice is whether or not to destroy the base and if you don't destroy it then it's fate is out of your hands. Shepard never says "I'm giving the base to Cerberus." What happens is that you save the base Cerberus claims it because they were prepared and can reach it more easily than anyone else.

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's not exactly portable ©.

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

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

Hm, I thought of the events in Mass Effect: Retribution. I suppose they were not very helpful for the diplomatic relations between humans and turians.
If Cerberus gains even more power, or if the the council gets wind of the collector base (I think collectors are not dismissed?)...the turians are not very subtle in their methods^_^

Modifié par Barquiel, 06 octobre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Inverness Moon]

Barquiel wrote...

mosor wrote...

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

Hm, I thought of the events in Mass Effect: Retribution. I suppose they were not very helpful for the diplomatic relations between humans and turians.
If Cerberus gains even more power, or if the the council gets wind of the collector base (I think collectors are not dismissed?)...the turians are not very subtle in their methods^_^

Not very helpful for diplomatic relations? Let's not forget that it was Anderson that authorized their escapade into Alliance territory at the expense of his job.

And if the turians do anything to assist the reapers in their efforts to kill everyone, even if indirectly, they will be crushed if they cannot be convinced to stop.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 06 octobre 2010 - 05:29 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Ah. Now I understand where you were coming from then.

Personally, the route I hope they take is one that allows all players to have the ability to complete Mass Effect 3 and save the day, however the methods of doing so change depending on what side of the moral spectrum in the Mass Effect universe you stand on. For example, take a Renegade Shepard (I'm going to define Renegade Shepard, for the sake of the argument, as a Shepard that completed all options that produced 10 or more Renegade on their own in the Renegade manner. To further simplify my defintion, the Renegade Shepard didn't make a single decision that could offer 10 or more Paragon points). Renegade Shepard hasn't exactly done the best job at making friends on the playground so to speak and instead seems to be focusing on technological superiority with the following situations:

1. Rachni are now extinct
2. Wrex is killed, Clan Urdnot has become more powerful thanks to Shepard and under the direction of Wreav, will either lead the Krogan further into endangerment, possibly into extinction.
3. Set-up an all-human council.
4. Sold Legion off for parts. Unless Operation Overlord has some real consequences in Mass Effect 3, the Geth should all be heretics by now. The selling of Legion was done under the premise that Cerberus could use the technology for invaluable cybernetic weaponry research.
5. Handed the Collector Base off to TIM under the premise that vital technology could be in there to turn the tide of the battle.

These are only a handful of the decisions, but they are the ones I would like to focus on the most. They all have a common theme in that they aren't doing a whole lot in creating an army to go against the Reapers and two of them, in fact, seem to have an idea that Shepard is sacrificing sheer numbers in exchange for technological superiority.

Personally, I'm hoping that BioWare makes the endings for Renegades and Paragons radically different in that we can defeat the Reapers in however we wish. Either we can fight them on a united front, which to me sounds rather silly anyways given the fact that I'm not a Paragon anyways, or we can sacrifice that united front to fight the Reapers with a much smaller but technologically improved army. This keeps true to the idea for Paragons that the Collector Base wasn't necessary within the bounds of how they played the game, they beat it in their own way regardless. It also keeps true to the idea for Renegades within the bounds of how they played the game that the Collector Base was necessary for their victory.

[RiouHotaru]

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.

That's...not an accurate set of data.

Remember, in Retribution, TIM find enough spare Reaper tech to implant Grayson, which means that EVEN if the base is destroyed, TIM gets the tech he wants anyway.  In reality, you have MORE scenarios.  You have to include the fact that keeping the base might STILL result in the death of galactic civilization, if either the tech in the base proves inadequate, or...if Cerberus fubars any project within the base and we wind up with a second Overlord/Retribution scenario.

Finnish Dragon wrote...


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.  

There's a sixth scenario as well, 1C: Galactic civilization survives, Cerberus will gain power.

It's entirely possible a Renegade Shepard blows up the base anyway, just because they don't want TIM to have it, or they view it to be too dangerous to us, Cerberus Supporter or not.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:17 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

Since when?

More bases for more Reaper production is useless because the limiting factor for building a Reaper is the supplies (humans), not production capability. Simaltaneously building two reapers only saves time when the limiting factor is putting the materials to use, not in gathering the materials. Completing the first Reaper gives a super-ship which can help complete the second, while building two at once merely delays when the first one will ever be completed.

More bases beyond the Omega 4 relay for organizational purposes are redundant wastes because in space (as in cities) concentration, not dispersion, is the greatest effective use of area.

More bases beyond the Omega 4 relay for military purposes are useless because the entire Omega 4 zone is a safe zone to stage from, and is its own staging area for attacks.

More bases on the passable side of the Omega 4 relay don't enable special staging grounds because that's already doable behind the Omega 4 in complete security, and a conventionally reachable location violates all established Collector behavior and operations with the sole exception of getting the IFF to pass through Omega 4. (They reach you, not the other way around.)

More Collector Cruisers of the same size and scale are effectively pointless because the cruiser they have is already over-capable of the task it needs to be doing, ie collecting subjects: it could collect the whole Terminus as is. If they built multiple ships, they would build them smaller to meet their needs more efficiently in an operative sense. (Two ships with half the capacity.)


And all this is besides the fact we have never seen, heard, or had implied the existence of other bases or ships, even though we've had multiple opportunities via EDI in the Collector systems to learn and discover their existence even without seeing them personally.

[RiouHotaru]

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.

...One problem with this.  We know EDI likely datamined the base, as we have a datapad given to us (Shepard) which offers third-party conclusive evidence of the existence of the Reapers for the Council to see.

So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

[Ieldra]

Aramintai wrote...
And what's wrong with morality?

Nothing, of course. It's just that the Paragons risk the higher evil this time by sticking to their ideals. The problem is that this fact is highly unintuitive, and our human morality tends to be based on emotions as this thread proves. 

Besides, doing what's necessary has its own kind of morality. The problem there is judging the goal, and judging when something is necessary to achieve it and when it is not. Usually it's better to err on the side of the conventional, but that changes when the survival of everything is threatened.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:29 .

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...
That's...not an accurate set of data.

Remember, in Retribution, TIM find enough spare Reaper tech to implant Grayson, which means that EVEN if the base is destroyed, TIM gets the tech he wants anyway.

Only if confuse a fragment for the whole. I'd be amazed if you applied that standard to any other situation. Take food: if you throw away a feast, but give someone a drumstick out of the trash, is that a full meal? If you drop a ten page homework assignment into a puddle, but salvage a page and turn it in, is that a full assignment? If your family gets into a car crash, but one person survives, do you have a full family?

Of course not. So why would you assume that, having blown up a base with the express intent to destroy the technology, that upon TIM recovering scraps he has all of what he wanted?

In reality, you have MORE scenarios.  You have to include the fact that keeping the base might STILL result in the death of galactic civilization, if either the tech in the base proves inadequate, or...if Cerberus fubars any project within the base and we wind up with a second Overlord/Retribution scenario.

If the tech in the base proves inadequate, then the galaxy isn't worse off than it was before. Which is with tech that is inadequate. The inadequate tech will just be more and better inadequacy than what we have now.

Retribution and Grayson were never going to overthrow the galaxy and leave it in ruins prior to the Reapers arrival. Perhaps Overlord, but the same can be said with the Quarians and Council in regards to the Geth, the Geth in regards to the Heretics, the Turians in regard to Humanity if Shaxni had escalated (a losing war but a devestating one even if Sovereign could have interfered), or more recently the Salarian STG nearly letting a genophage cure fall into the hands of the Blood Pack.

Near disasters have a galactic history of happening. But they are rar, and it comes to extremely outlandish scenarios in the case of a base who's means for carrying out attacks has been neutralized. No Collectors, no Collector ship, no more Omega 4 relay defense from determined opposition, and seeker swarm prevention all make it extremely hard to justify any such end-world scenario.

[smudboy]

lovgreno wrote...

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.

Well what do we know, then?

Do we know there is a means on how to build a Reaper?

[Inverness Moon]

RiouHotaru wrote...

So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

You're making completely unfounded assumptions about what information EDI gained in order to support your argument. We have no idea what information EDI gathered other than the picture of what is supposedly Harbinger that was shown in the final cutscene.

Not only that, but that cutscene happens after you deal with the base, so Shepard can't use that as evidence of anything when deciding what to do with the base.

I don't assume that paragons do anything. I have yet to encounter a logical argument for destroying the base. Yours isn't logical.

[Ieldra]

RiouHotaru wrote...
So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

Assumptions, assumptions. It comes down to what I said at the start. To make destroying the base a viable decision, you need to assume that there's nothing indispensible (left) in it. But you can't afford that assumption because we're grasping at straws for survival. We can't afford to miss *anything* because we have absolutely no idea what we might need. My argument stands.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:34 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

Assumptions, assumptions. It comes down to what I said at the start. To make destroying the base a viable decision, you need to assume that there's nothing indispensible (left) in it. But you can't afford that assumption because we're grasping at straws for survival. We can't afford to miss *anything* because we have absolutely no idea what we might need. My argument stands.

And my argument stands as well.  Your argument rides on the assumption that there is any meaningful technology that can be utilizied/reverse-engineered/etc, in time before the Reapers arrive.  I love how you claim your argument is somehow any more meaningful than mine, when yours is based on a similar assumption.  Also, destroying the base being viable is also dependent on whether or not you think you can trust Cerberus with it as well.

[Elite Midget]

Both sides are full of assumptions. You assume the base will be useful while others assume that it just isn't worth the risk or that it wont be useful.



You don't have the right to call them out on their assumptions when everything that's being said on the other side is full of assumptions as well. There's no clear right awnser yet, just assumptions on boh sides.

[RiouHotaru]

Inverness Moon wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

You're making completely unfounded assumptions about what information EDI gained in order to support your argument. We have no idea what information EDI gathered other than the picture of what is supposedly Harbinger that was shown in the final cutscene.

Not only that, but that cutscene happens after you deal with the base, so Shepard can't use that as evidence of anything when deciding what to do with the base.

I don't assume that paragons do anything. I have yet to encounter a logical argument for destroying the base. Yours isn't logical.

Neither is yours.  Base-keepers argue that they keep the base under an assumption there's anything of note on it, or anything they can use.  Also, how is it unfounded to claim EDI did get information?  The datapad shows a picture yes, but there's obviously words on that picture, and I doubt that picture was the only piece of information.  Also, that same cutscene occurs whether you keep the base or blow it up.  Technically metagaming, yes.  But it is a valid point that you get the information whether you blow up the base or not

[Nozybidaj]

Elite Midget wrote...

There's no clear right awnser yet, just assumptions on boh sides.

Sure there is.  Both answers are right.  I seriously doubt whether keeping or blowing up the base will be the determining factor in ability to stop/defeat the Reaper threat.  In fact I would wager it will have very little, if anything, to do with it.

[Phaedon]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Eh, respect our choice and we will respect yours. I think that more arguments have been posted (overall) about destroying the base than saving it. All of  them are unreasonable ? Okay. Destroying the base was never about providing positive possibilities, it's just for making sure that there are no negative possibilities. Which there will be, if you save the base. 
[/quote]
Positive Possibility: Enough Info/Tech/Evidence to possibly beat the Reapers.
Negative Possibility: The Reapers win.  Again.  Forever.[/quote]
Positive Possibility: Enough Info/Tech/Evidence to give a small advantage against the Reapers.
Negative Possibility:  No. Destroying the base won't make Shepard lose. 


[quote][quote]
As it has already been suggested, it's out of context. He did instigate the missions. The audio log is just potential evidence that he didn't know a small detail from the whole operation. It doesn't suggest that he didn't order the abduction of children or that he didn't know about the inhumane experiments going on on Pragia. (or Overlord)
[/quote]
This recording implies he didn't know what was going on.  A Security Officer and a Scientist are describing hiding something from TIM, we can make some educated guesses on what they're discussing.  We can also make some educated guesses on what they're not discussing.

It's not clear, but I have this really, really good feeling they're describing something bad.[/quote]
No, the recording doesn't imply that he didn't know what was going on. They were hiding something from TIM, and guess what, it was not the very nature of the operation. Don't question the fact that TIM knew that horrible experiments were going on there or that he ordered the abduction of children. I'd say Ascension pretty much proves that.

[quote][quote]
I am a bit confused, is your first point what Miranda said ? If it was... then it supports another point that I'll make in this post.
[/quote]
The point is it's unclear.  We have two opposing opinions.[/quote]
So, they did attack the flotilla and the excuse is 'it was nothing personal' ? Great.

[quote][quote]
Evil ? No, not necessarily, but it does make them morally flawed.
[/quote]
Attacking does not make anyone morally flawed.[/quote]
And what does attacking a flotilla of ships carrying thousands of unarmed civilians only to catch 3 people make them ? The saviours of the galaxy ?

[quote][quote]
Just because Cerberus does stuff for the advancement of humanity (by bypassing any ethical blocks), doesn't really make them look too good either. They have proved that they would go to great lengths to support their cause. The cause isn't what I'd like to support in any way either, since it's basically the 'Ascension of humanity, by the descent of other races.'.
[/quote]
Good for Cerberus.[/quote]
Bad for everyone else. And I am going to give a base to an organization that supports this ? 

[quote][quote]
For TIM, aliens are expendable. For some Shepards, (not necessarily the ones who gave him the base), they are too, for some others, they are not. Imho, I'd rather not make humanity more powerful than other races. We have proved to be even worse than animals at  times.
[/quote]
How, for TIM, are aliens expendable?
By your opinion of TIM, humans are also expendable.
Regardless, there's no evidence of either.[/quote]
He attacked a flotilla, he has experimented on aliens and humans, only to support his 'cause'. All aliens are expendable. Some humans are too, it will help for the 'greater good'.

[quote][quote]
Those are legitimate arguments for defending the base, I won't question them. All 4 of them however, are in my opinion not worth the risk.
[/quote]
The alternative is the Reapers win.  Anything is worth that risk.[/quote]
No, the alternative isn't the Reapers winning.

[quote][quote]
IC means In Character, if you are not aware of what happens in the books (sorry for the massive spoilers), then I suggest that you don't support TIM that passionately. You are going to be very disappointed.
[/quote]
I still don't know what In Character means.

The books are irrelevant to the decision making process.

Oh noes.[/quote]
http://www.fanfictio.../1/Fanfic_Terms
You also read the books and find out that the so called 'not-morally gray' guy that you gave the base to is actually evil.

Oh yea.

[quote][quote]
k, all we have discussed so far is processed food eaten by a bull. How wonderful.
[/quote]
No, we are arguing the validity of keeping the base, and the stupidity of destroying it.[/quote]
You should really try to be more open minded. Just because you disagree with something, you can't just call it 'stupid' after dozens of arguments have been posted. 

[quote][quote]
As I have already said, they are legitimate points but:
2) Cerberus will also have access to the tech. Big No there.
[/quote]
That's the point.[/quote]
Exactly. I am pretty sure they wouldn't mind using their new weapons against turian authorities when they raid one of their bases again. Trident *cough*.

[quote][quote]
3) If the evidence that you are refering to appears in the final scene of ME2, then even the Shepards that destroyed the base get it. If you are not, then simply, we will either have no evidence to convince the Council, or TIM won't let you tell anyone. He wants the tech for his own.
[/quote]
TIM has no problems having Shepard get help from other sources.  This is one of the very first things he says to Shepard "By all means."[/quote]
Yeah, I am pretty sure that he'll be fine with Shepard going to the council and telling them: "Hey guys, wanna come with me to check this huge project Cerberus has been working on ? You can confiscate anything you want, you know, and you can arrest everybody, since they are space terrorists, I am pretty sure TIM won't mind you studying it and researching the tech over there either..'

[quote][quote]
4) That's debatable, really. I'm pretty sure that the dead would rather that you destroyed the base, rather than use it.
[/quote]
I have the exact opposite opinion, and I know very many people who would rather hold onto their dead loved ones in memory and understanding of what their final fate was.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that any relative would want to destroy this monstrous thing. I'd give you an example, but I don't like using the situations I am referring to too casually.

[quote][quote]
TIM is the lead of Cerberus and he likes to keep a very close eye to his operations. I'd say that the default would be that he knows about it, and any evidence needed would be to prove the opposite.
[/quote]
Evidence the narrative contradicts your double-talk.  We're done arguing this point.[/quote]
I thought that I had the evidence ? . Look, man, you are defending someone who is clearly evil, by dismissing any material that doesn't make him look good and speaking out of context. If we are going to have a healthy debate, then you would have to admit that he is evil, as I have accepted that there is no evidence that he is a racist.

[quote][quote]
The tech and the information that you speak of, aren't worth putting billions of lives in danger. Let's not kid ourselves, Shepard will just defeat the Reapers either way. The ME universe will be featured in other games as well, so Shepard losing won't be canon.
[/quote]
What happens in ME3 is irrelevant.  This is an argumenet behind the reasoning of saving the base to Stop the Reapers from destroying all life.  That is more important than IF the base could stop the Reapers and IF TIM decided to destroy the galaxy on his own...(in some bizarre retardo-Bizarro world...)
[/quote]
The base won't make too much of a difference. What it will do however, is leave a guy with serious issues with aliens (especially turians) and the Alliance who has proved to find anyone expendable for the (supposed) greater good with material that could kill a lot of civilians and soldiers. This is bigger than humanity.

[quote][quote]
Thus it is worthless in itself because the Reapers still have that tech fresh on their minds and the fact that Harbringer could have a backdoor for causing more insane researchers or simply spy on what technology Cerberus ever develops from the technology left there.[/quote]

The Reapers have tech fresh in their minds?  Oh?  Ohhhh. I get where you're going. See, since they're part-organic, they can forget!  Despite being you know, machine AI gods and stuff.  With like, harddrives and stuff.  Ah you! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie]  You see like, what, two steps ahead of those Big Bad AI Machine Gods who've been destroying all life, forever.
[/quote]
Look, just because you disagree with this guy, there is no reason to be ironic to him.

[Elite Midget]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Sure there is.  Both answers are right.  I seriously doubt whether keeping or blowing up the base will be the determining factor in ability to stop/defeat the Reaper threat.  In fact I would wager it will have very little, if anything, to do with it.

You're a thrill killer.

[DarkSeraphym]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

Assumptions, assumptions. It comes down to what I said at the start. To make destroying the base a viable decision, you need to assume that there's nothing indispensible (left) in it. But you can't afford that assumption because we're grasping at straws for survival. We can't afford to miss *anything* because we have absolutely no idea what we might need. My argument stands.

And my argument stands as well.  Your argument rides on the assumption that there is any meaningful technology that can be utilizied/reverse-engineered/etc, in time before the Reapers arrive.  I love how you claim your argument is somehow any more meaningful than mine, when yours is based on a similar assumption.  Also, destroying the base being viable is also dependent on whether or not you think you can trust Cerberus with it as well.

Eh, this is a bit of a stretch. The assumption that there could be meaningful technology in that base comes from The Illusive Man himself and in the way it is presented by the Illusive Man and the characters after you make the decision, it seems like it is a use of foreshadowing.  Your assumption doesn't come as much from an in-game source as it does from your observation of an in-game prop. It's kind of hard to weigh an assumption of something that was just in the background in the game and never really mentioned against something that is explicitly presented by the game itself.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:06 .

[Nozybidaj]

Elite Midget wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Sure there is.  Both answers are right.  I seriously doubt whether keeping or blowing up the base will be the determining factor in ability to stop/defeat the Reaper threat.  In fact I would wager it will have very little, if anything, to do with it.

You're a thrill killer.

There is a pretty good chance TIM will send you an email about the base.  Either a "thanks for the new tree house" or a "shaking my fist angrily at you" email depending on your decision if that is any consolation.

[Aedan1992]

I think that in the end it doesn't matter if you destroy the base or keep it. Because i'm sure that in the end the reapers are still destroyed.

[smudboy]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Positive Possibility: Enough Info/Tech/Evidence to give a small advantage against the Reapers.
Negative Possibility:  No. Destroying the base won't make Shepard lose.
[/quote]
Positive Possibility: Any advantage is worth it.
Negative Possibility: Oh you wrote the script?

[quote]
No, the recording doesn't imply that he didn't know what was going on. They were hiding something from TIM, and guess what, it was not the very nature of the operation. Don't question the fact that TIM knew that horrible experiments were going on there or that he ordered the abduction of children. I'd say Ascension pretty much proves that.
[/quote]
The recording implies they were keeping something from TIM, this is true.  This is within the context of the audience learning about what was going on in here.  This is also under the suggestion that the facility went Rogue.  Which implies, something TIM did not want.  Which implies, based on what they were hiding, that it was something TIM wouldn't approve of.

Darned good guess: the things they were doing to the kids.

[quote]
So, they did attack the flotilla and the excuse is 'it was nothing personal' ? Great.
[/quote]
We have very little data to understand what happened.  One party says one thing, the other says another.  Who's to say who's in the right or wrong?

[quote]
And what does attacking a flotilla of ships carrying thousands of unarmed civilians only to catch 3 people make them ? The saviours of the galaxy ?
[/quote]
I do not know where you're getting this 3 people from.

Regardless, we do not know why they attacked, or what was going on.  Attacking anyone doesn't make them good or bad, it makes them attackers.  That's like arguing anyone who fires a gun is bad.  We need to know why they fired the gun and under what circumstances.

[quote]
Bad for everyone else. And I am going to give a base to an organization that supports this ? 
[/quote]
If everyone survives the Reapers, then yes, good for everyone.

[quote]
He attacked a flotilla, he has experimented on aliens and humans, only to support his 'cause'. All aliens are expendable. Some humans are too, it will help for the 'greater good'.
[/quote]
He attacked the Flotilla: no context to say whether good or bad.
He experimented on aliens and humans: proof?

Where did he say all aliens are expendable, when he specifically desires Shepard to gather an alien team and "earn their trust"?

Regardless of this "greater good" concept, I see nothing improper about it.  Even Jacob and Garrus is aware there are casualties involved.

[quote]
No, the alternative isn't the Reapers winning.
[/quote]
What is then?

[quote]
http://www.fanfictio.../1/Fanfic_Terms
You also read the books and find out that the so called 'not-morally gray' guy that you gave the base to is actually evil.

Oh yea.
[/quote]
More supplemental material?  I can't take much more of your crap here dude.  Whenever you want to reply to me?  Don't even bother with the external sources, thanks.  I'm still laughing at these new attempts.  Does keep me smiling.

[quote]
You should really try to be more open minded. Just because you disagree with something, you can't just call it 'stupid' after dozens of arguments have been posted. 
[/quote]
If the arguments are  bull, then that's what they are.  No reason to think along those terms.

[quote]
Exactly. I am pretty sure they wouldn't mind using their new weapons against turian authorities when they raid one of their bases again. Trident *cough*.
[/quote]
Better that then letting the Reapers win.

[quote]
Yeah, I am pretty sure that he'll be fine with Shepard going to the council and telling them: "Hey guys, wanna come with me to check this huge project Cerberus has been working on ? You can confiscate anything you want, you know, and you can arrest everybody, since they are space terrorists, I am pretty sure TIM won't mind you studying it and researching the tech over there either..'
[/quote]
That's what TIM said.  How he delegates the base is anyone's guess, but TIM is not against external assistance.

[quote]The base won't make too much of a difference. What it will do however, is leave a guy with serious issues with aliens (especially turians) and the Alliance who has proved to find anyone expendable for the (supposed) greater good with material that could kill a lot of civilians and soldiers. This is bigger than humanity.[/quote]

This is not about what the base will or won't do.  It's the about making the best decision, and that that choice is the best option to help stop the Reapers.

Every other consideration is inferior.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...


I agree. But while TIM isn't that much of a threat, he is willing to inadvertantly give the real threat, the Reapers, a foot hold.

How?

Creating an Avatar like Grayson.  Grayson proved to be almost another Saren. If he hadn't tipped off Kahlee when he was captured, no one would have known about him. He could have built up his strength and escaped the station and possibly brought the reapers back.

A coincidence saved the galaxy from Cerberus this time, and not their planning skills.

That's not what happened.  If Grayson hadn't tipped off Kahlee, Anderson and co. wouldn't have attacked Cerberus facilities (including the Grayson testing site).

If Anderson and co. hadn't attacked, TIM would've killed Grayson before things got out of hand.  The whole reason Grayson escaped was because of Anderson's attack.

But as is the usual, this is blamed on Cerberus exclusively and said to be a failure.  Truth is though that a rogue Grayson wasn't the fault of Cerberus.

[Ieldra]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

Assumptions, assumptions. It comes down to what I said at the start. To make destroying the base a viable decision, you need to assume that there's nothing indispensible (left) in it. But you can't afford that assumption because we're grasping at straws for survival. We can't afford to miss *anything* because we have absolutely no idea what we might need. My argument stands.

And my argument stands as well.  Your argument rides on the assumption that there is any meaningful technology that can be utilizied/reverse-engineered/etc, in time before the Reapers arrive.  I love how you claim your argument is somehow any more meaningful than mine, when yours is based on a similar assumption.  Also, destroying the base being viable is also dependent on whether or not you think you can trust Cerberus with it as well.

Wrong on both counts:

(1) My argument does not depend on there actually being anything indispensible on the base. My argument depends on the chance of there being such a thing. If there is any chance that there is such a thing, we cannot afford to destroy the base.

(2) No,  trusting Cerberus or not has absolutely no impact on the decision. Because it doesn't matter what Cerberus does with it, it's always the lesser evil compared with letting the Reapers win. Since the chances of both are unknown, the quality of the worst possible outcome decides the matter.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:26 .