2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

I don't think so, I can't remember

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Yeah TIM's not one to give up easy... but he is known to hold a grudge toward people that desert him (Grayson)... but if he sticks to his style, he won't come collecting until after the Reapers are finished.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Yeah, I always thought that even the conversation with Tim (Paragon ending) doesn't explicitly indicate you're completely done with Cerberus. It just means you've proven to Tim that you don't care about him or his "orders". You can even tell him something like "You're on my team now. From now on, we do things my way."

[scarface71795]

To the people who say give it to the council
who is to say the council won't tell you to f-off
They obviously don't trust you hell if i didn't know the truth i would think Shepard is one of those gub'ment coming to get me types
basically the conversation would go like this

Shepard:It's true we fount a collector base and killed the collectors in it and i want to give you the base for the fight against the reapers

Council:Ah yes the collector base,the alleged base of the alleged collectors sitting in the center of the galaxy
we have dismissed that claim

Modifié par scarface71795, 08 octobre 2010 - 11:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Of course, you can do that as a Base-keeper as well. There isn't a Shepard-TIM love fest if you keep the base, and there isn't a divorce if you destroy it. In one TIM's angry and Shepard's unapologetic, in another TIM's happy and Shepard aggressive, but neither have a total break or a happy union.



It's like Retribution describes: TIM and Shepard once worked together, had moments of mutual distrust, and may work again some day in the future.

[Barquiel]

scarface71795 wrote...

To the people who say give it to the council
who is to say the council won't tell you to f-off
They obviously don't trust you hell if i didn't know the truth i would think Shepard is one of those gub'ment coming to get me types
basically the conversation would go like this

Shepard:It's true we fount a collector base and killed the collectors in it and i want to give you the base for the fight against the reapers

Council:Ah yes the collector base,the alleged base of the alleged collectors sitting in the center of the galaxy
we have dismissed that claim

I think the council only dismissed the Reaper threat, not the collectors.

[scarface71795]

Barquiel wrote...

scarface71795 wrote...

To the people who say give it to the council
who is to say the council won't tell you to f-off
They obviously don't trust you hell if i didn't know the truth i would think Shepard is one of those gub'ment coming to get me types
basically the conversation would go like this

Shepard:It's true we fount a collector base and killed the collectors in it and i want to give you the base for the fight against the reapers

Council:Ah yes the collector base,the alleged base of the alleged collectors sitting in the center of the galaxy
we have dismissed that claim

I think the council only dismissed the Reaper threat, not the collectors.

the end was a joke i still don't think they fully believe anything shepard says anymore or about the collectors

[Arijharn]

I think they would know about the Collector's, but werent going to waste resources verifying what their errant Spectre says about their supposed connection to a mythological race of sentient reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

The don't know until Kaiden/Ashley's report after Horizon, but they don't care either. Before or after Horizon, it's written off as a 'strictly human concern.'

[Flamewielder]

scarface71795 wrote...
lets look at it this way
Both the alliance and cerberus are both going to get to the same place
But cerberus is using a car and the alliance is just walking
The end justifies the means when the end would be destroying the reapers and saving the galaxy

And if you hit a tree in your car, chances are your injuries will be more serious than if you're walking...
...and if you don't bother putting safety belts and air bags into your car because it's faster and cheaper to build, you'll be DEAD.

As smudboy points out, Reapers work on their own calendar. They may be here tomorrow (unlikely), they may be there in the next century. Rushed science is bad science. Period.

[Flamewielder]

scarface71795 wrote...

To the people who say give it to the council
who is to say the council won't tell you to f-off
They obviously don't trust you hell if i didn't know the truth i would think Shepard is one of those gub'ment coming to get me types
basically the conversation would go like this

Shepard:It's true we fount a collector base and killed the collectors in it and i want to give you the base for the fight against the reapers

Council:Ah yes the collector base,the alleged base of the alleged collectors sitting in the center of the galaxy
we have dismissed that claim

They actually dismissed your claim AFTER checking out Ilos and finding Vigil no longer worked... If you were given the option of handing the base over to the Council, they'd take it. They might still argue that the Reapers aren't a real threat, but at least they'd have the tech from the base... and they were quick to create the Thanix cannon from bits and pieces from Sovereign.

Sadly, you're not offered that option. It's give it to TIM or blow it up. As much as I distrust TIM and his underlings, logic dictates I keep the base, because the paragon/renegade options are skewed in this case.

[Dean_the_Young]

Flamewielder wrote...

scarface71795 wrote...
lets look at it this way
Both the alliance and cerberus are both going to get to the same place
But cerberus is using a car and the alliance is just walking
The end justifies the means when the end would be destroying the reapers and saving the galaxy

And if you hit a tree in your car, chances are your injuries will be more serious than if you're walking...
...and if you don't bother putting safety belts and air bags into your car because it's faster and cheaper to build, you'll be DEAD.

And if you're walking through a desert with no known water in walking distance, you'llbe just as dead. A car, even without seatbelts or air bags, still increases your chances of finding some.

As smudboy points out, Reapers work on their own calendar. They may be here tomorrow (unlikely), they may be there in the next century. Rushed science is bad science. Period.

That's more scientist's dogma than objective fact. Rushed science is more likely to have flaws, yes, but those flaws don't disqualify any and all gains and turn them into negatives. Often the benefits of an earlier product can easily outweigh the cost of it being imperfect: corrections can come later, but benefits only start when the product does.

If you still want to call that bad science, sure, I guess you can define anything the way you want to. But your bad science is in large part the basis of competitive advantage in real world applications, and can be far more valuable than 'good' science.

Military applications are a case in point. It's great to be able to go in with everything ready and preplanned. Preferable, even. But when the time to start reacting comes, speed outweighs perfection: a solution that works even 60% of the time now outweighs a 90% solution in a month and a 100% solution in a year, because while you can implement the current solution and still work to upgrade later, if you wait for the later upgrade you have 0% protection now.

[General User]

@Dean_the_Young
 
In lieu of post chain…
 
Re: Humanity, Cerberus and the Council
 
If the Council doesn’t consider Cerberus an enemy or a potential enemy, then what was up with their reaction to finding out Shepard was working with them?
 
If the Alliance doesn’t consider Cerberus an enemy or a potential enemy, why did they suspect Cerberus was behind the Terminus colony abductions?
 
I guess the real problem I have with the Council (and the Alliance for that matter) is that they’re supra-national entities. The principal of sovereignty seems to be subverted in ME. You make an excellent point about how everybody and their sister is jockeying for influence in the existing structure. And here I am asking “should this structure even exist in the first place?”
 
 
Re: Other races and the role of humanity in the war.
 
What role do you see the other races playing in the coming war? As a paragon I’m in the “everybody has something to contribute” while multi-ethnic children sing songs of peace beneath a rainbow of understanding camp (exaggeration, only slight). Shouldn’t we use their existing defense establishments? Some of them are quite large; not using them seems a waste…
 
Unless galactic technology advances so much in the coming years that existing fleets are good for little more than targets (a distinct possibility). But if that were the case wouldn’t we want every available shipyard, including alien ones, turning out every possible ship? I mean, even if we can match the Reapers technology wise (and that’s a big if under any circumstances) they still enjoy a numbers advantage.
 
Re: R&D and utilizing an intact CB
 
I don’t think Cerberus’ established pattern disseminating their breakthroughs is going to work. We’re not talking about incremental or even revolutionary ideas/technologies/techniques coming out of an intact CB. If your analysis of the Reaper threat is accurate it would be far more than that.  For the sake of argument, use your own 200 year figure (by the by how’d you come by that number?) as the estimate of the tech gap. You can’t just make a jump that size without raising all sorts of questions from all sorts of people. You can’t go from wooden-hulled frigates to guided missile cruisers. It’s not even possible in the first place, much less doing so without a massive destabilizing effect.

And there isn’t time to parse it out gradually; the Reapers are already mobilized after all.

[RiouHotaru]

@Dean_The_Young: Good point. Even if you blow up the base, TIM probably just considers it a momentary setback on his way to victory. I mean, if you free David from Overlord, he agrees with your decision, but then laments that their research has been pushed back.

[pf17456]

RiouHotaru wrote...



@Dean_The_Young: Good point. Even if you blow up the base, TIM probably just considers it a momentary setback on his way to victory. I mean, if you free David from Overlord, he agrees with your decision, but then laments that their research has been pushed back.

TIM is overconfident because he either;

Has a definite plan with alternatives he can implement regardless and just isn't telling you since it's his show.



Has no real plan but has a really big ego



Is not playing with a full deck





In any case it's not Shepard's responsibility if Shepard opts to continue to work for TIM/ Cerebrus. That's the advantage of working for TIM, no matter what happens it's not Shepard's fault, it's TIM's because he's in charge.

In the end win or loose, if galactic life survives the Reapers the credit goes to TIM, not TIM's tool or trophy.



On the other hand if Shepard opts to assert leadership and take control by blowing the base and quiting Cerebrus then the responsibility and consequence of the Reaper threat falls to Shepard.

With Shepard in charge there is at least the opportunity to explore all options without the possible misdirection of another party or being the 'hero of the Citadel who defeated the Reaper' only to become the Cerebrus henchman who enabled TIM in his quest for galactic dominance.

[Ieldra]

All these considerations don't matter, pf17456. We're grasping at straws for how to defeat the Reapers. There is a chance something vital to that purpose is on the base, a higher chance than anywhere else, in fact, since the only other place to get it - the Derelict Reaper - doesn't exist any more. Thus, the base must not be destroyed, whatever the cost in political ramifications later. Political considerations that simply *assume* we can defeat the Reapers without the information from the base are absolutely meaningless (unless you use metagaming information).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:30 .

[Icinix]

All the polls, threads etc, lean towards the majority destroying the base. For so many reasons, that have already been over and over and over. So not even going to try to dredge them up.



I destroy the base as my 'main' playthrough. Don't lose sleep over it, to me it's the right thing to do. It would take some amazing argument to change my mind, haven't seen one yet. Just like the people who believe it's the 'wrong' thing to do aren't going to change their mind.



So what I would love to see instead, is a break down of all decisions people made in the games in regards to the base decision.

Do people who destroy the base, also hold the fleet back instead of helping the ascension? Do they leave Nirali Bhatia's body with the Alliance? Do they destroy or release the Rachni? I think this would show where people's moral compass swings a bit more. Because I have a feeling those who destroy the base would generally:-

Save the Ascension, bring back Nirali's body, Release the Rachni.



The people who keep the base would generally:-

Hold forces back for Sovereign, leave Nirali's body for study, and destroy the Rachni.



I can understand the logic behind all choices and decisions. But I think that the debate showcases how different the morals between the base keepers and the base destroyers is, and how they perceive the consequences of those actions unfolding.



Really there isn't a point there, just something I would be fascinated to see what decisions people made on either side of the fence.

[TRISTAN WERBE]

just pull that stick out of your ass

[mosor]

Icinix wrote...

So what I would love to see instead, is a break down of all decisions people made in the games in regards to the base decision.
Do people who destroy the base, also hold the fleet back instead of helping the ascension? Do they leave Nirali Bhatia's body with the Alliance? Do they destroy or release the Rachni? I think this would show where people's moral compass swings a bit more. Because I have a feeling those who destroy the base would generally:-
Save the Ascension, bring back Nirali's body, Release the Rachni.

The people who keep the base would generally:-
Hold forces back for Sovereign, leave Nirali's body for study, and destroy the Rachni.

I can understand the logic behind all choices and decisions. But I think that the debate showcases how different the morals between the base keepers and the base destroyers is, and how they perceive the consequences of those actions unfolding..

It has nothing to do with morality. Renegades can make all the choices you charge them with and be just as moral as your paragon. It's about priorities. For renegades, its about ensuring the security of the galaxy. For paragons, security comes second to them to wanting to feel good about themselves. It's as simple as that.

[Markinator_123]

This is a big topic. I might as well add my opinion on this. I personally support keeping the base 100%. In war you can not afford to be a overly heartbleeding idealist. My biggest problem with the paragon decision at the end of ME2 is the fact is that apparantly, Shepard is not destroying the base because he/she doesn't want Cerberus to have it or because he believes reaper tech is dangerous, he/she is destroying it because he/she is taking some great moral high stand.

"I won't let fear compromise who I am."
-This is the dumbest most self-righteous thing to ever come out of Shepard's mouth. Do you want to know why? Because keeping the base is not immoral. The base is not evil (you don't say your gun is evil because it could have been responsible for innocent blood do you?). Likewise, the base is a weapon, a very powerful and dangerous weapon. It is shame that some of the more pragmatic members of the team become heartbleeding when it comes to saving the base when there is nothing immoral about it to begin with (cough*Miranda*cough).

[Icinix]

mosor wrote...

Icinix wrote...

So what I would love to see instead, is a break down of all decisions people made in the games in regards to the base decision.
Do people who destroy the base, also hold the fleet back instead of helping the ascension? Do they leave Nirali Bhatia's body with the Alliance? Do they destroy or release the Rachni? I think this would show where people's moral compass swings a bit more. Because I have a feeling those who destroy the base would generally:-
Save the Ascension, bring back Nirali's body, Release the Rachni.

The people who keep the base would generally:-
Hold forces back for Sovereign, leave Nirali's body for study, and destroy the Rachni.

I can understand the logic behind all choices and decisions. But I think that the debate showcases how different the morals between the base keepers and the base destroyers is, and how they perceive the consequences of those actions unfolding..

It has nothing to do with morality. Renegades can make all the choices you charge them with and be just as moral as your paragon. It's about priorities. For renegades, its about ensuring the security of the galaxy. For paragons, security comes second to them to wanting to feel good about themselves. It's as simple as that.

I didn't mean someone who saved / destroyed the base was moral / immoral.  Just that I think it's interesting how people have different thought processes to get to their decisions.  Which are very different between the two groups (Keep / Destroy).
I don't believe a renegade choice is necessarily an immoral choice, and I don't believe a paragon choice is just to make someone feel good about themselves.
They're just two very different thought processes.

[pf17456]

Ieldra2 wrote...

All these considerations don't matter, pf17456. We're grasping at straws for how to defeat the Reapers. There is a chance something vital to that purpose is on the base, a higher chance than anywhere else, in fact, since the only other place to get it - the Derelict Reaper - doesn't exist any more. Thus, the base must not be destroyed, whatever the cost in political ramifications later. Political considerations that simply *assume* we can defeat the Reapers without the information from the base are absolutely meaningless (unless you use metagaming information).

Actually they do matter depending on whether or not Shepard decides to lead or follow. You have no idea what TIM's plans are. You only know that TIM has said his goal is to defeat the Reapers but he's never told you how or what his plan is. You're just supposed to get stuff for him so he can use it for whatever.You only know about the CB that it's being used to make a Reaper and may have new tech. Shepard's independence, autonomy and leadership hinges on the decision to either keep the base or destroy it. It's the only part of the game where this is possible but the cost is the potential knowledge gained from the CB. Question for Shepard is determining which option has more value. Shepard has experience, leadership ability and loyal followers. TIM has intel and resources that come with the price of freedom. 

[General User]

Most all of the arguments in favor of keeping the CB are based on the various boons it represents. Most (though not all) of the arguments for blowing it revolve around the morally ambiguous nature of handing it over to Cerberus. All of it takes place under the shadow of the Reaper threat.
 
I would really, really appreciate it if someone, especially a renegade or base keeper, could break down the Reaper threat from their perspective. Basically, how big, how credible, and why? What do you think will be the primary challenges in overcoming them? And how do you suggest going about that?
 
I would certainly find it most interesting. And I think it would provide valuable insight into our respective decision making processes.

[pf17456]

mosor wrote...

It has nothing to do with morality. Renegades can make all the choices you charge them with and be just as moral as your paragon. It's about priorities. For renegades, its about ensuring the security of the galaxy. For paragons, security comes second to them to wanting to feel good about themselves. It's as simple as that.

For renegades it's about trusting your boss and doing what you're told.
For paragons it's about trusting yourself and making up your own mind.

[mosor]

Icinix wrote...

I didn't mean someone who saved / destroyed the base was moral / immoral.  Just that I think it's interesting how people have different thought processes to get to their decisions.  Which are very different between the two groups (Keep / Destroy).
I don't believe a renegade choice is necessarily an immoral choice, and I don't believe a paragon choice is just to make someone feel good about themselves.
They're just two very different thought processes.

Well what is the thought process behind the paragon? I'm pretty damn renegade and my thought process as always been about making sure that the galaxy I'm defending is safe.  I'm not going to chance letting a criminal or terrorist go, only to have them kill another day. I'm not going to chance releasing Rachni, who almost destroyed the galaxy 2000 years ago, based on the queens word that she's different. I'm also not going to sacrifice my forces to save the acension, when every ship is gonna count in stopping a billion year old monster from opening the gate to our extinction.

Sure paragon decisions worked out. However, in my opinion, you still gambled with the lives of the rest of the people in the galaxy. That's unconscionable. The only reason why I can see a paragon doing these things, is they want to make themselves feel better about themselves.