2146 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

Shandepared wrote...

Yeah it summarizes the oppositions continual failure to provide a rational argument for destroying the base.

Actually, rational arguments have been provided again and again.  None of the Pro Base-Keeping people acknowledge them because it involves an "emotional bias" based on a completely understandable distrust of TIM based on a track record and past experience, and it's not based on their "purely rational" risk management scenarios, disregarding the fact that people don't make decisions that way necessarily, especially not in the heat of the moment.  If this thread was supposed to be about Shepard's decision minus meta-gaming, why hasn't anyone recognized the fact that Shepard has to make a decision within minutes, if not seconds, due to the circumstances.  There's no time to ponder risk-reward strategies.

At this point, we might as well re-name the thread "Collector Base Argument: Why Paragons Are Idiots", because that's basically all that's been going on since this thread started.  And yeah, I am a bit bitter.  It annoys me that I can concede the validity of the opposing side and acknowledge the weaknesses in my stance, but apparently those who keep the base are completely without flaws.  I recognize that you're annoyed that Paragons get their piece of the pie, but really, we're not all a bunch of stereotypical idealistic bleeding hearts.

I mean, I don't even know why I continue posting, since apparently every rational point I can bring up is dismissed as irrelevant without even being taken into consideration.  I'm all for a rational debate, but this is a one-sided argument.  You've (speaking generally about Pro Base-Keepers) already decided I'm inherently wrong before even hearing me out.

Nightwriter wrote...

We are bemused by your bemusement. Though we are happy videogames serve you as an effective means of feeling superior. 

What I can't get my head around? How you can preach consequentialism when you know perfectly well the consequences will not be what you say they will be. Which makes consequentialism a meaningless argument.

Because Renegades don't like fact that Paragons won't be "punished."  Because apparently making sure game players have an equal experience and don't feel gyped for choosing one side or the other doesn't sit well with them.  I'm 90% certain that ME3 will allow either alignment to succeed equally, whether they kept the base or not.  Which will upset the Renegade players because it means Paragons can blow the base /and/ still have a reasonable shot at victory, which according to a few of the posters, renders the decision meaningless.  I disagree, but I can't claim to understand them.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 10 octobre 2010 - 09:24 .

[Jabarai]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I guess I don't see the point of arguing the merits of keeping the base or not.
Because it'll just be marginalized to a ridiculous degree.
Kind of like the whole "kill the Council or not kill the Council"

I can see what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that there is more to your actions than direct consequences. If you really want to get into the game, I think the mere knowledge that the Council survived and that humanity in general is being better accepted due to that fact should make you feel better. The same goes with other big decisions. If the universe around you doesn't seem to react sufficiently to our heroics, maybe our assumptions on our significance were unrealistic...

Now, the Council had a minimal role in ME2, but we've yet to see how it all plays out in ME3. Moreover, perhaps the decision on whether to keep the collector base will have no real impact in the grand scheme of things (i.e. will all die or not). To me the scenario seems perfectly plausible.

Having said all that, if Bioware really wish to make Mass Effect a cornerstone of light-role-playing-gaming, they should be concentrating on the RPG aspects, as they've already got the action sorted. Shepard's decisions must have appropriate weight in the finale.

[NYG1991]

I destroyed the base my first run thru and while all the arguments for keeping it are valid in terms of a risk/reward assessment. I still blow it up when replaying what I consider my "canon" playthrough. At the time you're asked to choose, your team is getting shot up defending the door you've just had your hands full with a giant terminator and witnessed people turned into smoothies.



I always feel a sense of regret afterwards when I talk with Tim and see the reaper fleet come online but I chose what seemed like the best option after about a 10-15 seconds of thought just for the sake of story authenticity. I try to do that for all the plot choices as it looks weird when shep just stares blnkly into space while I think what to say.



If it comes back to bite me in the third act I'll deal with it. While I don't think that should be the one choice that determines win/lose it would be cool to see if there is a set of choices that when meshed together can result in total defeat. ie if you kill the council and destroy the base you deny two potential assets that could aid in the war so you get the biggest payoff by mixing what would be considered paragon and renegade decisions.

[Jabarai]

NYG1991 wrote...
.... At the time you're asked to choose, your team is getting shot up defending the door you've just had your hands full with a giant terminator and witnessed people turned into smoothies. 

I always feel a sense of regret afterwards when I talk with Tim and see the reaper fleet come online but I chose what seemed like the best option after about a 10-15 seconds of thought just for the sake of story authenticity.

Hear hear!

Doing anything else is, to me at least, what you guys call metagaming.

[Aramintai]

Fixers0 wrote...

 If we know Bioware, both keeping and destroying the base are equal to each other in the same way as saving the Council or letting them die, None of the choices is strictly superior to the other choice and therefore the progress of Mass effect 3 might be different, but regardless of our choice in Mass effect 2 our chances to complete mission in Mass effect 3 in a good way (defeat the Reapers) is equal.

I agree completely. It would just be one of the differences in ME3 plot, nothing more, nothing less. It is a game after all and such choices add to its replayability.  I can see the logic of those people who are in defense of saving the base and I even have one playthrough to import just to see what consequence will there be with that choice. As I did with the Council in ME1. However for my canon walkthrough I chose to destroy the base as it would likely spare me the distraction of cleaning the mess after Cerberus again, as it was in numerous missions before - like that project Overlord, derelict Reaper project or Rachni/husks/creepers or whatever on the loose back in ME1. Saving billions is all good and fine if there's a guarantee that they can deliver the goods and in time, not jeopardize the mission by unleashing some other monstrosity upon the galaxy (which they did in the book btw). By ingame observation all evidence suggests that Cerberus projects' overall success rate is far lower than failure and that their failures usually lead to disastrous consequences. Also, considering that CB tech came from the Reapers themselves the scope of disastrous consequence is even greater. Not to mention that Shepard and Co may not come in time to clean the mess next time around. So the paragon choice of not giving the base to Cerberus is logical too, it means expecting the worst and that it's not worth the risk.

Modifié par Aramintai, 10 octobre 2010 - 10:21 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

We are bemused by your bemusement. Though we are happy videogames serve you as an effective means of feeling superior.

Ah, yes, videogames. Software that is supposed to entertain people, but for some reason tries to achieve that by screaming at them "I'm a game! I'm a game! I'm a game! It's not real! Just relax! I'm a game! Brace for a plot hole around next corner! I'm a game! I'm a game!"

So much for effective means of anything.

Nightwriter wrote...

What I can't get my head around? How you can preach consequentialism when you know perfectly well the consequences will not be what you say they will be. Which makes consequentialism a meaningless argument.

Not sure what you're talking about in the "not what I say they'll be" part. If you mean that it's a game, and it's just about tweaking the Galaxy to one's liking, than this whole debate should be "Your liking of the Galaxy is wrong!" - "No, yours!" Which is totally pointless. Metagaming of any sorts (including "I just wanted to see what the repercussions will be in ME3 / ****** off TIM / earn moar blue points") is invalid in this discussion. This dispute is about role-playing and not content-experiencing.

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...

Of course I haven’t finished sorting it out! The only reason I come on these forums is to discuss Mass Effect with people who are every bit the fan that I am!

OK.

3 points.

1. You have an idealized image of the military.

2. TIM does take steps to encourage Shepard's trust in him, like putting Joker on the crew, denying Miranda's request to chip Shepard, etc.

3. The whole argument boils down to 2 things: "Shepard can't trust TIM", and "The Collector Base may be the only chance against the Reapers". Both are true. Everything else is conclusions about the morality of those who think that the former outweighs the latter.

[NYG1991]

TBH I've never noticed how much paragon or renegade points the CB decision actually gives the player.



I know Tali's quest can get you around 30 for either side. Same for mordin or Legion and Samara. But I don't remember getting any notification after making the choice to save or destroy it.

[RiouHotaru]

Jabarai wrote...

NYG1991 wrote...
.... At the time you're asked to choose, your team is getting shot up defending the door you've just had your hands full with a giant terminator and witnessed people turned into smoothies. 

I always feel a sense of regret afterwards when I talk with Tim and see the reaper fleet come online but I chose what seemed like the best option after about a 10-15 seconds of thought just for the sake of story authenticity.

Hear hear!

Doing anything else is, to me at least, what you guys call metagaming.

^This.  All the risk management and stuff that gets toted around is fine...if we're arguing the decision from a player's perspective  From Shepard's point of you, you have to decide immediately, no time to carefully consider strategies.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

3. The whole argument boils down to 2 things: "Shepard can't trust TIM", and "The Collector Base may be the only chance against the Reapers". Both are true.

Holy crap! Did you just say that both sides have valid arguments? BOTH sides?

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Because Renegades don't like fact that Paragons won't be "punished."  Because apparently making sure game players have an equal experience and don't feel gyped for choosing one side or the other doesn't sit well with them.  I'm 90% certain that ME3 will allow either alignment to succeed equally, whether they kept the base or not.  Which will upset the Renegade players because it means Paragons can blow the base /and/ still have a reasonable shot at victory, which according to a few of the posters, renders the decision meaningless.  I disagree, but I can't claim to understand them.

But wise ancestor Riou, surely they know being anti-paragon in this manner means being anti-choice?

The game is choice, choice, choice. Punishing either gameplay style too severely destroys the whole concept of choice, forcing us down the only path that works, making one "right" and one "wrong", which isn't what anyone wants.

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Jabarai wrote...

NYG1991 wrote...
.... At the time you're asked to choose, your team is getting shot up defending the door you've just had your hands full with a giant terminator and witnessed people turned into smoothies. 

I always feel a sense of regret afterwards when I talk with Tim and see the reaper fleet come online but I chose what seemed like the best option after about a 10-15 seconds of thought just for the sake of story authenticity.

Hear hear!

Doing anything else is, to me at least, what you guys call metagaming.

^This.  All the risk management and stuff that gets toted around is fine...if we're arguing the decision from a player's perspective  From Shepard's point of you, you have to decide immediately, no time to carefully consider strategies.

So?

Shepard in-game has weeks and months to mull over all possible situations he may find himself in.

So I can't see any harm in taking your time and thinking through what would you do, as long as you don't factor in the information that can't be available to Shepard in-game, mainly, that it's a game and God won't punish the righteous.

That said, it didn't take me long to concur that logic is undeniable in TIM's request to preserve the Base.

It's indeed as simple as Ieldra2 puts it: Save Base = +1; Blow Base = 0.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

3. The whole argument boils down to 2 things: "Shepard can't trust TIM", and "The Collector Base may be the only chance against the Reapers". Both are true.

Holy crap! Did you just say that both sides have valid arguments? BOTH sides?

I don't know. How about "valid explanations"?

Nightwriter wrote...

But wise ancestor Riou, surely they know being anti-paragon in this manner means being anti-choice?

The game is choice, choice, choice. Punishing either gameplay style too severely destroys the whole concept of choice, forcing us down the only path that works, making one "right" and one "wrong", which isn't what anyone wants.

I am not anti-choice. I am pro-biting-in-the-arse.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 11:03 .

[General User]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

General User wrote...

Of course I haven’t finished sorting it out! The only reason I come on these forums is to discuss Mass Effect with people who are every bit the fan that I am!

OK.

3 points.

1. You have an idealized image of the military.

2. TIM does take steps to encourage Shepard's trust in him, like putting Joker on the crew, denying Miranda's request to chip Shepard, etc.

3. The whole argument boils down to 2 things: "Shepard can't trust TIM", and "The Collector Base may be the only chance against the Reapers". Both are true. Everything else is conclusions about the morality of those who think that the former outweighs the latter.

Point by point if I may
 
1.  What can I say… the military's been good to me. 
 
2.  Which only further begs the question: why not go all in and bring Shepard in on operational planning? No good reason that I can see. Unless TIM doesn’t trust Shepard.  And if so why not?  A paragon Shepard certainly, I can see that, but a renegade, a human-centric renegade no less?
 
3.  The issue of the CB being the best way to beat the Reapers is very much open, as is the nature of the Reaper threat in general, particularly in regards to issues involving technology (a popular reaon for keeping the base). 

Why do you feel the CB may represent the only means of winning this war?  Is it technology, or intelligence, or some other form of insight?  How big an issue do you feel the [insert reason for keeping the base here] is/is likely to become?  And why?


"Shepard can't trust TIM" - It feels good to achieve consensus. 

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...

"Shepard can't trust TIM" - It feels good to achieve consensus. 

I forgot to insert "fully" to make it clear to you that the statemant is relative. While the consequences of blowing up the Base are absolute: no Base.

[NYG1991]

I've never found any moral value in the decision personally. I think Legion said something to that effect actually. So I don't consider destoying it righteous or keeping it evil. From an RP perspective it feels more authentic to make decisions quickly than to have the guy staring off into space while there's gunfire all over (Timed decisions would be a good addition in ME3 IMO but that's for another thread).



I don't think bioware is going to punish people who destroy the base nor or they going to punish people who save it. The most that'll transfer over is another location for people who saved it to visit. I'm sure in ME3 there will be harder and bigger decisions to make for shep as he's likely going to be in more direct contact with fleets of sentient starships.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes, videogames. Software that is supposed to entertain people, but for some reason tries to achieve that by screaming at them "I'm a game! I'm a game! I'm a game! It's not real! Just relax! I'm a game! Brace for a plot hole around next corner! I'm a game! I'm a game!"

So much for effective means of anything.

It doesn't say it enough. It needs to be a bit louder, remind those people who hate on me for "cheating" that this is, in fact, a videogame, and these are not real people.

There is such a thing as taking roleplaying so far it becomes silly.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Not sure what you're talking about in the "not what I say they'll be" part. If you mean that it's a game, and it's just about tweaking the Galaxy to one's liking, than this whole debate should be "Your liking of the Galaxy is wrong!" - "No, yours!" Which is totally pointless. Metagaming of any sorts (including "I just wanted to see what the repercussions will be in ME3 / ****** off TIM / earn moar blue points") is invalid in this discussion. This dispute is about role-playing and not content-experiencing.

You argue that the galaxy will be lost if you destroy the base. You know it will not. It makes the argument meaningless, unless you deliberately delude yourself, which I find so pointless and dull.

You must allow some metagaming, silly bean. You're metagaming right now actually, by having this discussion.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I am not anti-choice. I am pro-biting-in-the-arse.

Same thing, as long as you want the biting-in-the-arse to only apply to paragon.

[General User]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

General User wrote...

"Shepard can't trust TIM" - It feels good to achieve consensus. 

I forgot to insert "fully" to make it clear to you that the statemant is relative. While the consequences of blowing up the Base are absolute: no Base.

Just let me have my moment with Sweet Lady Consensus.

IYO, what would be the consquences of blowing up the CB and why? 

[NYG1991]

Both decisions can come back to haunt shep later. Either no base tech to fight reapers or experiment going rogue at the CB which causes shep to have to go back thru the O-4 relay and fix it when he should be fighting the reapers. You're making just as much of an assumption saying shep can always resolve any future problems at CB as people who destroy it saying they know the reapers will be defeated without the base tech.

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...

IYO, what would be the consquences of blowing up the CB and why? 

How can I have an opinion on that? I need the Base studied to form such opinions. For that I have to keep it first. I can blow it up later.

But if you blow it up now, you won't be able to un-blow it later, even if Harbinger goes

"MWA-HA-HA-HA!!!! YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE WITH THE BASE, BUT YOU LET YOUR FEAR COME BEFORE REASON...
ASSUMING CONTROL."

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Arijharn]

Nightwriter wrote...

Am I the only one who feels it's pointless to look at this as realistically as some participants in this topic do?

It's useless, because in the real world paragon options wouldn't even exist. There would be no "paragon". Most paragon outcomes achieve near-perfect endings that are simply impossible in real life. Takes all the enjoyment of choice out of it.

That's largely irrelevant imo, I think the issue we're arguing is 'what is realistic given the data we have. Even if it is incomplete.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Not sure what you're talking about in the "not what I say they'll be" part. If you mean that it's a game, and it's just about tweaking the Galaxy to one's liking, than this whole debate should be "Your liking of the Galaxy is wrong!" - "No, yours!" Which is totally pointless. Metagaming of any sorts (including "I just wanted to see what the repercussions will be in ME3 / ****** off TIM / earn moar blue points") is invalid in this discussion. This dispute is about role-playing and not content-experiencing.

You argue that the galaxy will be lost if you destroy the base. You know it will not.

My Shepard in-game doesn't.

Nightwriter wrote...

You must allow some metagaming, silly bean. You're metagaming right now actually, by having this discussion.

No, my canon has been set for months now. Regarding the C-Base it was set on the first playthrough.

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I am not anti-choice. I am pro-biting-in-the-arse.

Same thing, as long as you want the biting-in-the-arse to only apply to paragon.

Blame this one on BioWare. They could have made keeping the Base a paragon choice.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

My Shepard in-game doesn't.

So in other words, in order to be renegade here you must willfully deny the truth. This is good to know.

I shall remember this next time you condescend paragons for deluding themselves. Have at thee!

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

My Shepard in-game doesn't.

So in other words, in order to be renegade here you must willfully deny the truth. This is good to know.

I shall remember this next time you condescend paragons for deluding themselves. Have at thee!

I refuse to get you, Nightwriter.

[Nightwriter]

*is disappointed*



*makes pouting face*

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

*is disappointed*

*makes pouting face*

Go blow up some base. It'll make you feel better. I think.