2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'd serve the council and still keep the base, working with Cerberus. If not as a shaky ally then as a covert agent for the Council... they've been trying to destroy Cerberus for a while now.



Still think Cerberus itself has been overexaggerated regarding its villainy though. That missle mission and the Telton facility was a dead giveaway to me.

[General User]

DPSSOC wrote...

No I can't because Cerberus is a human centric organization.  That'd be a lot like hiring a pastry chef to run a steakhouse.  I don't deny that Cerberus does have racial bias and I can certainly see where that might cause problems; I was simply pointing out that Cerberus seems to be more of an equal opportunity employer than the Council.

You'll find no love of the Council with me.  An alien running Cerberus would be a bit silly wouldn't it?  But if everything made sense there'd be no racism to begin with. 

DPSSOC wrote...

Imagine a box of doughnuts (mmm doughnuts) now in that box there are a finite amount of doughnuts.  This means that every doughnut that you have is one that someone else can't, agreed?  Well the same is true with power, there is only so much power at any given time though it does fluctuate over time (finite but not static).  If the lot of one group is improved they gain power, influence in the case of politics.  Now the more people who have a particular level of influence the less ability each individual at that level has to effect events (1 voice in a group of 4 carries more weight than 1 voice in a group of 10).  So whenever someone gains power or influence someone else, perhaps multiple someone elses, suffers a loss.  This is not only a reality of politics but a law of physics.  Just as matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, power cannot be created or destroyed simply redistributed.

Politics aren’t governed by the laws of physics, they aren’t even governed by the laws of politics (bud, ump, bump, thank you I’ll be here all week)! I don’t get the analogy of the donut box. If there aren’t enough donuts, or even enough of a specific type of donut, why not just get another box? Who says we all have to eat from the same box of donuts anyway? What if somebody wants a full-on breakfast, or just a coffee? You can’t put people in boxes, no matter how delicious those boxes contents might be (remember to tip your waitress, thank you).
 
Your breakdown of influence and how it is disseminated in groups is flawed in that it assumes all voices in any size group will carry equal weight, they do not. For better or worse, the brave, the wise, the intelligent, or simply the charismatic (or loud as the case may be) will always have more (or disproportionate if you prefer) influence. I really can’t follow that (political) power and influence are synonymous. Of course political power can be created or destroyed! The Americans have their Bill of Rights, the French have The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and so forth.  Political power is destroyed and created all the time.

And I agree, however we must accept the fact that the races are in competition and we can't change the nature of the game by simply refusing to play.

Well, on a practical level you’re right we have to play the game Bioware sells us. On a philosophical level you’re wrong, new modes of thought and ways of living are constantly being thought-up/tried/modified/abandoned/renewed. The nature of the game is always changing because the nature of it's players are always changing.

[Inverness Moon]

General User wrote...


Well the Reapers’ ability to stand up to fleet level punishment is based entirely on the incredible strength of their kinetic barriers. A technology that, by its very nature, is unable to shield against heat or radiation, so nukes spring immediately to mind, and that’s one weapon that's already known, mass producable, and absolutely could not be used in the literal heart of a friendly city.
 
Now I know what you’re going to say, “what makes you so sure the Reapers don’t have a superior shielding technology? One that can protect against heat and radiation. They are more advanced after all.”
 
My answer is simply: my faith in humanity (in this case the writers at Bioware). Reaper shields are repeatedly identified as kinetic barriers, if they were/are something else a retcon will be needed. If such is forthcoming I’ll have to revise a great many of my positions on this matter.

Actually I was going to say that nukes aren't as effective in space as you think. Point defense lasers will destroy any missiles before they get close enough to do minimal damage. Missiles are not used in space combat in Mass Effect because point defense lasers never miss. The use of missile in the ending ME1 cinematic was a mistake by the animation team and is not canon.

I actually read about this on the Mass Effect wiki just an hour ago: http://masseffect.wi...27t_use_missles

I don't mean anything too exotic by “physical advantages.”  Stronger shields, more powerful weapons, better engines, greater numbers. That sort of thing.

I’m not a huge fan of the “Klengadon Canon” myself, killing a Reaper is impressive, but it doesn’t look like it did that particular species much good in the end. Might be good to have a similar construct in the arsenal, but I wouldn’t base a strategy around it.

It was done as a last act of defiance from a dying species, or so TIM says.

I don’t think it at all baseless to assume that well resourced, dedicated, experienced counter-intelligence services would be able to adapt themselves to new or changing, or even radically changing situations. I mean, what the hell do we pay those guys for anyway?

I'm not really familiar with the end of season one of Battlestar Galactica, but don't tell me, I'll watch it tomorrow on DVD.

We don't know if the effects of indoctrination are beyond our ability to detect if it is subtle. We don't even know how subtle indoctrination can be or how the reapers will use it to infiltrate society as they did with the protheans. I think it is an immense risk to go in blind considering what is at stake.

The Reapers just hung out around a star about to turn supernova?  Good Lord!  If they're that stupid I don't know if we should fight them or take up a bloody collection. 

The supernova was artificially triggered. I don't remember how they were prevented from entering FTL.

[pf17456]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

pf17456 wrote...
The renegade call is; ok boss whatever you say.

When the boss is a better renegade you ought to take lessons, whilst you can.

At least you admit it. I can respect that you know your place in the world ( to quote Miranda)

[scarface71795]

You know what would be a epic ending

All the races join together to fight the reapers they charge at them

only to be all destroyed instantly with shepard aboard

sure some people will feel sad but nobody can say they saw that coming.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I'd love everybody dying with the Reapers winning to be one of the endings to ME3. Don't want it to be the only option though

[Ieldra]

Markinator_123 wrote...
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.

I would go further. I would say destroying the base is a betrayal. You might as well be working for the Reapers, denying their enemies understanding of their capabilities.

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).

Agree 100%. What I find most annoying about this is that Bioware chose to present destroying the base as the "correct" decision by making all team members support it, even worse, they make characters go ooc for it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:32 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...
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.

I would go further. I would say destroying the base is a betrayal. You might as well be working for the Reapers, denying their enemies understanding of their capabilities.

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).

Agree 100%. What I find most annoying about this is that Bioware chose to present destroying the base as the "correct" decision by making all team members support it, even worse, they make characters go ooc for it.

Not the case.  While admittedly "I won't let fear compromise who I am!" comes off as self-righteous, it has a context.  Remember, TIM just told Shepard about the possible disasterous outcome that might occur out of NOT using the base, of blowing it up.  Shepard responds with that line, meaning he or she won't allow the fear of the possible outcome compromise his or her character.  Shepard's plan all along was to destroy the Collectors, by all means necessary.  To suddenly change at the last minute would be a huge compromise on that ideal.

And nothing about the line precludes Shepard from not wanting to hand over the base because he/she doesn't trust Cerberus.  An earlier line pretty much confirms that stance, if you're a Paragon: "You're completely ruthless.  Next thing I know you'll be wanting build your own Reaper!"

It's all there.  But you have to look at the line in context to what's taking place.  And really, we know a great deal about their capabilities already, as well as a potential weakness.  I'm sure whatever EDI got that was on the datapad will help even more.

[GuardianAngel470]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I'd love everybody dying with the Reapers winning to be one of the endings to ME3. Don't want it to be the only option though

I agree, if the Reapers winning isn't an option then choices don't really matter. I don't really care if it is for the Paragons or the Renegades, it has to be an ending or else nothing mattered in the whole series.

[GuardianAngel470]

Shandepared wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No, I think that TIM is a nutbar who--oh, forget it. No, I won't let all life as we know it die; I probably won't let much of it die at all.

Who needs logic when you've got faith?

Who needs logic or faith when you trillions of allies to back up your threats? I want to ask a question. Of those that kept the base, who also saved the Rachni and kept Legion? Who didn't kill Wrex? Who tried to make sure the galaxy's largest evacuation fleet doesn't get trashed by the geth?

From a logical point of view, superior numbers as well as superior strategic coherence should equal or exceed EQUIVALENT tech.

Unless of course both the Geth and the Rachni are actually traitors and the quarians ignore all warnings and go to war with the Geth.  I which case EQUIVALENT tech would win out.

EDIT: Bold

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 09 octobre 2010 - 09:02 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Arijharn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
All told, it's better for one species to be vassalized than for all but one to.

What? I admit... I feel stupid today (not enough caffeine) can you please elaborate?

Why is it better for any species to be vassalized? I don't even think it was good for the Volus because they constantly feel 'less than' because of their nature. Here they are; one of the oldest species in known space, the ones credited with the invention of the galactic currency and banking system and they still only exist in a 'shared space' with the Embassy of the Elcor.

Not only this, but the Turian's are supposed to give them protection, but according to I think the Cerberus Daily News; the Turian's couldn't even be depended upon to save one of the Volus colonies from an asteriod impact, instead sending all (or near all forces) to quell the rebellion in the wake of the Taetrus impact and the military response that resulted from it.

It's been made abundantly clear that despite the Council's claim to the contrary, the client states aren't as equal as any other, and I'm surprised that doesn't offend people's sensibilities more than it does, therefore I see nothing wrong with humanity wishing to express itself as being 'better' than that.

Actually, blowing up the base cuts off a lot of potential power to Cerberus; the best possible outcome is that the Reapers are defeated and Cerberus is either destroyed or reduced to a husk of its former self, while we find some other means of combating the Reapers (which we most certainly will).

This is our entire point. You know for sure that this will be certain because we are playing a game. Shephard doesn't. It makes less sense to just blindly hope for the best down the line when you can build yourself up now when you know something of import has occured, because there's nothing that prevents you from also getting what may or may not happen downstream.

I think the point this person is getting at is one of empathy.  He/she would rather subject one species to subservience than subject all but one, i.e the whole galaxy minus humans.

This is an extenuating circumstances discussion. He/she doesn't want any species to be subservient, but if "None" is not an option, then he/she proposes that it is better to have "one species" forced into subservience than it is to force "all species but one" into subservience.

[GuardianAngel470]

General User wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

No I can't because Cerberus is a human centric organization.  That'd be a lot like hiring a pastry chef to run a steakhouse.  I don't deny that Cerberus does have racial bias and I can certainly see where that might cause problems; I was simply pointing out that Cerberus seems to be more of an equal opportunity employer than the Council.

You'll find no love of the Council with me.  An alien running Cerberus would be a bit silly wouldn't it?  But if everything made sense there'd be no racism to begin with. 

DPSSOC wrote...

Imagine a box of doughnuts (mmm doughnuts) now in that box there are a finite amount of doughnuts.  This means that every doughnut that you have is one that someone else can't, agreed?  Well the same is true with power, there is only so much power at any given time though it does fluctuate over time (finite but not static).  If the lot of one group is improved they gain power, influence in the case of politics.  Now the more people who have a particular level of influence the less ability each individual at that level has to effect events (1 voice in a group of 4 carries more weight than 1 voice in a group of 10).  So whenever someone gains power or influence someone else, perhaps multiple someone elses, suffers a loss.  This is not only a reality of politics but a law of physics.  Just as matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, power cannot be created or destroyed simply redistributed.

Politics aren’t governed by the laws of physics, they aren’t even governed by the laws of politics (bud, ump, bump, thank you I’ll be here all week)! I don’t get the analogy of the donut box. If there aren’t enough donuts, or even enough of a specific type of donut, why not just get another box? Who says we all have to eat from the same box of donuts anyway? What if somebody wants a full-on breakfast, or just a coffee? You can’t put people in boxes, no matter how delicious those boxes contents might be (remember to tip your waitress, thank you).
 
Your breakdown of influence and how it is disseminated in groups is flawed in that it assumes all voices in any size group will carry equal weight, they do not. For better or worse, the brave, the wise, the intelligent, or simply the charismatic (or loud as the case may be) will always have more (or disproportionate if you prefer) influence. I really can’t follow that (political) power and influence are synonymous. Of course political power can be created or destroyed! The Americans have their Bill of Rights, the French have The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and so forth.  Political power is destroyed and created all the time.

And I agree, however we must accept the fact that the races are in competition and we can't change the nature of the game by simply refusing to play.

Well, on a practical level you’re right we have to play the game Bioware sells us. On a philosophical level you’re wrong, new modes of thought and ways of living are constantly being thought-up/tried/modified/abandoned/renewed. The nature of the game is always changing because the nature of it's players are always changing.

He is actually right User. There is a finite number of people in the galaxy.  Likewise, there is a finite number of rulers. In order to gain power, you need to take it from someone else because you are all trying to influence the same people.  Consider for an example a Republic vs a true democracy like that of athens.

In a republic, a relatively small group of individuals vote on matters of importance. Lets say for the sake of argument that there are 100 people in the collective of rulers we'll call the Senate. Mathematically, this means that any one person has 1/100th power over the course of the nation.  Their influence is 1/100th of all possible influence.

Now consider an Athens style democracy but on a much larger scale. For the sake of continuity, I'll use the rough estimate of american citizens, 300 million.  If every person in the country had a vote, then they have a 1/300 million amount of power over the course of the nation.  So compare that to the 1/100th amount of power and you see why when more people have power, each individual has less power. That is why the physics analogy is accurate.

Also, I really wanted to make it an even four.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 09 octobre 2010 - 09:22 .

[lovgreno]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...
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.

I would go further. I would say destroying the base is a betrayal. You might as well be working for the Reapers, denying their enemies understanding of their capabilities.

Another way to see it would be that knowingly expose the galaxy for the the threat that is the base by keeping it would be a betrayal. You cannot afford to be a idealist who underestimates risks for something that might not even be there. Wishfull idealistic thinking.

So you see, there are many ways to see this based on what opinions you have. If you want to see the risk you see the risk. If you want to see the potential gain you see it. Personaly I find it boring to not try to see both sides of the argument.

[Ieldra]

lovgreno wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...
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.

I would go further. I would say destroying the base is a betrayal. You might as well be working for the Reapers, denying their enemies understanding of their capabilities.

Another way to see it would be that knowingly expose the galaxy for the the threat that is the base by keeping it would be a betrayal. You cannot afford to be a idealist who underestimates risks for something that might not even be there. Wishfull idealistic thinking.

So you see, there are many ways to see this based on what opinions you have. If you want to see the risk you see the risk. If you want to see the potential gain you see it. Personaly I find it boring to not try to see both sides of the argument.

I'm not overlooking the risk. As with the gain, it may materialize or not. The difference is that the decision to destroy the base is irreversible, while the decision to keep it is not. If we keep the base and we'll get nothing from it, we can still destroy it, if we destroy the base and it had something in it we really needed, then we're all dead. As I said before, keeping the base risks the lesser evil, unless you assume that keeping it will help the Reapers in some significant way that tips the balance in their favor. If you could make a believable scenario that makes the Reapers win because we kept the base, where they wouldn't if we destroyed it, then the decisions would be equal in risk. What Cerberus does with the base matters only insofar as it might result in such a scenario.

As for how plausible that is: consider the Reapers are significantly more advanced than galactic civilization. While it's certainly possible Cerberus blunders again and the result is more damage than benefit, how would you calculate the chance that this makes galactic civilization lose the war where they wouldn't have otherwise. Again, between conflict parties of equal power and technology the risks would be equal, but they aren't. The Reapers are already the superior power. They don't need an advantage beyond what they already have. Galactic civilization, however, does need one. Desperately.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 octobre 2010 - 10:56 .

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Shepard's plan all along was to destroy the Collectors, by all means necessary.  To suddenly change at the last minute would be a huge compromise on that ideal.

I sense paragon hypocrisy here. The Collectors get destroyed either way. But "destroy the base" could not be the mission all along, just because you couldn't have told for sure if it was a base, or a planet or a "migrant fleet" there, until you paseed through the O-4 Relay. If anything, "mission was destroy base" came out of nowhere, and it's actually a plot hole (quite seemless though, compared to the other plot holes of which the ME2 ending consists).

RiouHotaru wrote...
I'm sure whatever EDI got that was on the datapad will help even more.

And I'm sure it's won't help squat. Or it will, but only because it goes to Cerberus. Retribution, mwa-ha-ha!

Even before Joker had a chance to say "Hey, Commander, look at these cool pictures EDI's downloaded! Ain't they sexy?"

[Zulu_DFA]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Now consider an Athens style democracy but on a much larger scale.

Athens' democracy was based on 70% of Athens' dwellers being slaves, 15% being aliens, and 10% being "parasites" - free Athenians with no civic rights (to participate in the public activities such as politics, justice and war) due to lack of property.

And that taking only male adults into account.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 octobre 2010 - 12:40 .

[RiouHotaru]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Shepard's plan all along was to destroy the Collectors, by all means necessary.  To suddenly change at the last minute would be a huge compromise on that ideal.

I sense paragon hypocrisy here. The Collectors get destroyed either way. But "destroy the base" could not be the mission all along, just because you couldn't have told for sure if it was a base, or a planet or a "migrant fleet" there, until you paseed through the O-4 Relay. If anything, "mission was destroy base" came out of nowhere, and it's actually a plot hole (quite seemless though, compared to the other plot holes of which the ME2 ending consists).

RiouHotaru wrote...
I'm sure whatever EDI got that was on the datapad will help even more.

And I'm sure it's won't help squat. Or it will, but only because it goes to Cerberus. Retribution, mwa-ha-ha!

Even before Joker had a chance to say "Hey, Commander, look at these cool pictures EDI's downloaded! Ain't they sexy?"

There's a few ways interpret it.  Mission started as: "Stop Collectors".  When it's discovered that they not only have a ship, but a homebase, "Stop Collectors" seamlessly becomes "Destroy base" because the two objectives pretty much go hand-in-hand.  Blowing away the base = stopping the Collectors.  So, not a plot-hole really.  The specific parameters of the mission were merely updated to reflect the new situation.

As for the information...Retribution could be interpreted a few ways as well.  It's possible whatever leftover slag/technology (depending on if you blew it up/kept it intact) from the Collector Base could've gone into the Retribution project.  But that's a possibility too.  It's just a theory that the information on the pad will serve as a substitute, since the gameplay results are supposed to be fairly equal.

[General User]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Actually I was going to say that nukes aren't as effective in space as you think. Point defense lasers will destroy any missiles before they get close enough to do minimal damage. Missiles are not used in space combat in Mass Effect because point defense lasers never miss. The use of missile in the ending ME1 cinematic was a mistake by the animation team and is not canon.

I actually read about this on the Mass Effect wiki just an hour ago: http://masseffect.wi...27t_use_missles

I might just be grasping at straws here, but how is any system, missile defense in this case, 100% effective? How is it possible to create a targeting system that cannot be fooled, spoofed, or circumvented?  
 
On a philosophical level, this sounds like stagnation to me. Everyone “knows” it can’t be done so everyone stops trying. Forget the dang Reapers and the double-dang CB, whoever invents a workable decoy (or stealth) missile will rule the galaxy!
 
Neat website.

 We don't know if the effects of indoctrination are beyond our ability to detect if it is subtle. We don't even know how subtle indoctrination can be or how the reapers will use it to infiltrate society as they did with the protheans. I think it is an immense risk to go in blind considering what is at stake.

Well, it's not like indoctrination is a complete mystery; we do have at least a somewhat comprehensive idea how it works, and what to look for. I don’t doubt the Reapers have more subtle shades of indoctrination they just haven’t had the opportunity to use yet. But to be honest, simply knowing indoctrination exists and needs to be looked out for is our most singular advantage short of an "anti-indoctrination" device, which is speculative at best under any circumstances.

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...
"Stop Collectors" seamlessly becomes "Destroy base" because the two objectives pretty much go hand-in-hand. 

They go hand in hand only starting with confirmation that there is only one space station there and ending with TIM's telling you there is "another option" [to stop the Collectors]. So no, at the moment of making the final choice, it's not "hand in hand" at all. It' more like "either... or..." [blow the Base and go extinct (but proud of yourself), or keep the Base and have a shot at the Reapers (but with the Magnificent Bastard calling it)].

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Blowing away the base = stopping the Collectors.

Neutron purging the Base = stopping the Collectors.

RiouHotaru wrote...
It's just a theory that the information on the pad will serve as a substitute, since the gameplay results are supposed to be fairly equal.

There is also a theory, that the datapad was only there to appease those that would not listen to TIM and keep the Base, thus rendereing the entire ME2 pointless in terms of the story progression.

But seriously, all the intel from the Base on a single datapad? Flash technologies must be real cool in the 22nd century... But for all we know, the databanks on the Base could be bigger than the whole Normandy and based on a much more advanced data storage tech (which alone would make it worth preserving the Base), so keep fooling yourself.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:12 .

[Xilizhra]

That's still a betrayal of that one species if you are a member of it. People
like Xilihzera should never be in positions of power. Personally the
people I want fighting for me are the "My people/nation right or wrong" types. I don't want them condemning me and my kin, the people I care about, to satisfy their own personal moral agendas.

I'm not surprised that you wouldn't want me, but I suspect that if we take the opinions of members of every species in the galaxy and run my way against yours, mine would win any number of votes. Your own desires will be taken into account, but they don't override the greater good.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:09 .

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Not the case.  While admittedly "I won't let fear compromise who I am!" comes off as self-righteous, it has a context.

Does it?  Does Shepard show fear?  Is the theme of fear, or is whatever TIM said, fearful?

How does one find the destruction of the universe fearful?  Or how about of any concern?

 Remember, TIM just told Shepard about the possible disasterous outcome that might occur out of NOT using the base, of blowing it up.  Shepard responds with that line, meaning he or she won't allow the fear of the possible outcome compromise his or her character.  Shepard's plan all along was to destroy the Collectors, by all means necessary.  To suddenly change at the last minute would be a huge compromise on that ideal.

No it wouldn't.  TIM also states his method would kill all the Collectors AND acquire the base to help fight the Reapers.

Blow up base = win (stop the Collectors)
Radiation pulse = win (stop the Collectors) and acquire the base.

Not seeing a problem here. Oh right, TIM's a dick.  

And nothing about the line precludes Shepard from not wanting to hand over the base because he/she doesn't trust Cerberus.  An earlier line pretty much confirms that stance, if you're a Paragon: "You're completely ruthless.  Next thing I know you'll be wanting build your own Reaper!"

Which was a glib comment.  EDI even states beforehand that it would take millions of people to build a Reaper.  TIM wants to stop the Collectors and Reapers, not start up whatever plan they were doing.  It make ME2 be a colossal waste of time (more than it already is.)  It's like stopping the Naz! force only to start up the death camps again.  It is not only logistically impossible, it would go against the plot providers' (TIM's) motives.

It's all there.  But you have to look at the line in context to what's taking place.  And really, we know a great deal about their capabilities already, as well as a potential weakness.  I'm sure whatever EDI got that was on the datapad will help even more.

As Dean stated before in an earlier post here, TIM wouldn't be asking to save the base if he knew the 4 jpgs were going to "help even more."  The base would help even more.

Modifié par smudboy, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:11 .

[Xilizhra]

I see the identity of my kin as being unimportant; rather, I consider everyone in the galaxy to be my kin. Species and nation are unimportant. Effectively, it's "Right, your nation or mine."