2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

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. Everything else is conclusions about the morality of those who think that the former outweighs the latter.

^This

In the split second you have to make the choice, your mind's either thinking about the Reapers as a galactic super threat or you're thinking of TIM as an untrustable power-hungry person.

Justifications boil down to:

A:  "I just can't trust TIM, forget the Reapers they can always be stopped!"
and
B:  "We won't win unless we know more about the Reapers, forget TIM he can always be stopped!"

[NYG1991]

Why is it so easy to blow up the base later? If something goes wrong there while the reapers are attacking, it won't be so easy for shep to just drop what he's doing and go back through the relay to fix it. Any tech gained could be offset if shep back to the galactic core and two or three reapers follow his ship through and isolate him there. Purely hypothetical I know but not completely out of the question.



I think the 0 or 1 reasoning is sound but that 1 isn't just positive variables. You have to account for potential negatives.



No base = no problems later from the base but no research

base intact= potential research but potential for something big going wrong.

[Markinator_123]

Mr. Gogeta34 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. Everything else is conclusions about the morality of those who think that the former outweighs the latter.

^This

In the split second you have to make the choice, your mind's either thinking about the Reapers as a galactic super threat or you're thinking of TIM as an untrustable power-hungry person.

Justifications boil down to:

A:  "I just can't trust TIM, forget the Reapers they can always be stopped!"
and
B:  "We won't win unless we know more about the Reapers, forget TIM he can always be stopped!"

Apparently, that may be how the decisions look to the player, however, if you notice, Shepard is blowing up the base because he is taking some great moral high stand.
"I won't let fear compromise who I am."
-Words cannot express how much I hate this line.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The base is empty of all life. The base itself is part organic, it shouldn't function properly or be used to any organic capacity because of the radiation pulse.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 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. Everything else is conclusions about the morality of those who think that the former outweighs the latter.

^This

In the split second you have to make the choice, your mind's either thinking about the Reapers as a galactic super threat or you're thinking of TIM as an untrustable power-hungry person.

Justifications boil down to:

A:  "I just can't trust TIM, forget the Reapers they can always be stopped!"
and
B:  "We won't win unless we know more about the Reapers, forget TIM he can always be stopped!"

Apparently, that may be how the decisions look to the player, however, if you notice, Shepard is blowing up the base because he is taking some great moral high stand.
"I won't let fear compromise who I am."
-Words cannot express how much I hate this line.

lol yeah (caps for emphasis)

IT'S THE ULTIMATE CONTRADICTION

"I won't let fear compromise who I am.... but I'm AFRAID of What TIM may do with it."

Meanwhile he had no problem using a prothean cypher, mass relays, Legion, EDI, the IFF, or any other tech that can grant an edge... including tech from Cerberus.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:49 .

[Markinator_123]

What also bothers me about the decision is why did Bioware have to make all of your squadmates agree with the paragon choice and disagree with the renegade one? It is like all of them got so shortsighted, not to mention several of them are out of character when disagreeing with keeping the collector base.

[Nightwriter]

That breaks my immersion so completely that I find it almost impossible to truly roleplay the decision.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Miranda didn't technically disagree with destroying the base. She just hopes that ~"whatever Cerberus finds there is worth it." She was sickened like everyone was at the death that occured there at that base.



In a way it's the opposite of the Council decision. Your squad encouraged you to not save the council and concentrate on Sovereign. You could go against them and come out on top. Perhaps it's the Renegade's turn this time... who knows. If they did that, then Bioware is brilliant.

[NYG1991]

It's weird how grunt recommends keeping it at the moment then disagrees.



I don't mind the disagreement just the inconsistancy.

[Markinator_123]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Miranda didn't technically disagree with destroying the base. She just hopes that ~"whatever Cerberus finds there is worth it." She was sickened like everyone was at the death that occured there at that base.

In a way it's the opposite of the Council decision. Your squad encouraged you to not save the council and concentrate on Sovereign. You could go against them and come out on top. Perhaps it's the Renegade's turn this time... who knows. If they did that, then Bioware is brilliant.

It would be interesting if the best results come from both saving the council and saving the collector base (lowest possible casualities). I would love it.

A unified galaxy without selling humanity short

Modifié par Markinator_123, 11 octobre 2010 - 01:10 .

[chris025657]

Markinator_123 wrote...

What also bothers me about the decision is why did Bioware have to make all of your squadmates agree with the paragon choice and disagree with the renegade one? It is like all of them got so shortsighted, not to mention several of them are out of character when disagreeing with keeping the collector base.

Actually, about half the squad advocates keeping the base during the mission. It's just a writer oversight that all of them change their positions five minutes later. Some of them had some good responses to Shepard's idiotic stated reason for destroying the base on it being an abomination, such as Legion pointing out that destroying the base won't bring anyone back, but keeping it could save lives.

[predator83]

Paragon: blow up all bad guys, avenge the fallen, kick TIM to the curb, and take down the reapers.



Renegade: use collector tech and reaper resarch, become more ruthless than TIM and team up with him to take down the reapers.

[NYG1991]

I'm thinking it's going to end up that saving the council and saving the base will end up as the two optimal choices. You have a unified galaxy and top tier intel going into Me3. There will probably be more choices that factor in ME 3 but those two will help the cause more than anything else in the first two games.

[Markinator_123]

NYG1991 wrote...

I'm thinking it's going to end up that saving the council and saving the base will end up as the two optimal choices. You have a unified galaxy and top tier intel going into Me3. There will probably be more choices that factor in ME 3 but those two will help the cause more than anything else in the first two games.

Exactly, just like I believe that letting the council die and destroying the base will lead to the worst results.

[NYG1991]

^ the worst imported results anyway. I think are action in ME3 will primarily dictate success or failure. It'd be cool if the best results could only be achieved by getting every variable correct as killing the council is canon if you don't import ME1.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hopefully the neutral choice in ME1 also allows for a better outcome than a renegade one.



Why the Council didn't eject is beyond me....

[NYG1991]

I don't think it registers neutral choice. I think it's just live or dead council.

[Markinator_123]

NYG1991 wrote...

^ the worst imported results anyway. I think are action in ME3 will primarily dictate success or failure. It'd be cool if the best results could only be achieved by getting every variable correct as killing the council is canon if you don't import ME1.

Overall, though, I believe victory will be achieved no matter what. It's the price of victory that will count. Saving the council and keeping the collector base will represent the lowest possible casualities for both humans and aliens.

My reaper war result predictions
-Saving the council and Saving the collector base = best chance against reapers
-Council dead and Saving the collector base= aliens take many casualities, humans take least amount of casualities, human tyranny possible afterwards
-Council Saved and destroyed collector base= humans take very heavy losses, aliens help humans rebuild
-Council dead and destroyed collector base= the price of victory is at its highest

Modifié par Markinator_123, 11 octobre 2010 - 01:36 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

NYG1991 wrote...

I don't think it registers neutral choice. I think it's just live or dead council.

If the "why" is truly understood, like if an asari mind-melded or something, it could change the opinion of some others about your choices and lead to trust compared to the intentional killing off of the Council.

[NYG1991]

@Markinator



those are reasonable predictions. It would be cool to see the aftermath of defeat though. The player would really have to screw the pooch to make it happen.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Okay it sounds like all 3 Council choices in ME1 yield different Councils chosen... depending on your choice.



Save them, you get the old one.



Concentrate on Sovereign, you get a new one (but with the same races)



Kill them and they're all human council people



(unless that information is wrong, but that's what I've heard on the interweb)

[Jagri]

chris025657 wrote...
Actually, about half the squad advocates keeping the base during the mission. It's just a writer oversight that all of them change their positions five minutes later. Some of them had some good responses to Shepard's idiotic stated reason for destroying the base on it being an abomination, such as Legion pointing out that destroying the base won't bring anyone back, but keeping it could save lives.

Wait didn't Legion say something to the effect of not using Reaper technology cause thats just playing into Reapers hands? Think we found another story writing contradiction!

[Ieldra]

Phaedon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Uh, why are we still discussing if Cerberus is evil or not ? We have been wasted 10 pages on this matter. They are evil. That's it. What we should debate about is if we can trust them with the base.

Of course we can't trust them not to misuse the base.

But: It doesn't matter!!! Because whatever it is they'll do with it, it is the lesser evil you risk. When you stand at the base and must decide, there are basically four scenarios you need to consider. In two of them we've made the correct decision. They are:
(1a) We don't need the base to win against the Reapers and we destroyed it.
(1b) We need the base to win against the Reapers and we kept it.

What's interesting is the ways we can make a wrong decision:
(2a) We need the base to win against the Reapers and we destroyed it.
(2b) We don't need the base to win against the Reapers and we kept it.

As anyone can infer, (2a) results in galactic extinction. The results of (2b) are unknown, but unless "Cerberus plus the base" results in a "Reapers win" scenario where "Cerberus without the base" wouldn't have, (2b) is the lesser evil by such a big margin that there really should be no question about what to do.

Thus, for the pragmatic reasoning for destroying the base, you have to argue that "Cerberus plus the base" will make the Reapers win, where "Cerberus without the base" wouldn't. To see how plausible that is, consider the logically equivalent statement "The Reapers need what Cerberus does with the base to win."

In the end, you have to weigh the probability of the scenario
(3a) We need the understanding gained by the base to win against the Reapers.
against
(3b) The Reapers need what Cerberus does with the base to win against galactic civilization.

Considering that the Reapers are already technologically superior, I think (3b) is far less plausible. And that's not even considering that keeping the base is a reversible choice - Shepard can keep a close eye on what happens on the base and reconsider the decision to keep it if Cerberus f***s up again. Destroying the base is irreversible.

Thus, if you trust TIM not to misuse the base or f*** things up completely or not is completely irrevelant unless you ascribe a significant probability to scenario (3b) *AND* assume the base can't destroyed fast enough at a later time. If you do - and I think especially in combination it's extremely unlikely - then the decision is a guessing game and arguing about it won't matter. In any other case, whatever TIM does with the base is the lesser evil, and keeping the base is the only strategically viable decision.

So, are you suggesting that destroying the base will by default make us lose in ME3 ? Even if we are talking about an IC approach, that is highly unlikely. I still haven't heard of any specific ways the CB can be vital for ME3. 

You don't understand the difference between a risk and a certainty, it seems. So let's put numbers in - completely arbitrary ones, it's just a test.

Let's assume there is a 90% chance we don't need the base to win, and a 10% chance that we do. If you destroy the base, you're betting on the 90%. That's a good bet, but can you really risk the 10% considering that the consequences are galaxy-wide extinction? Set the balance to 99:1. Keeping the base, you now have a 99% chance of some unspecified Cerberus atrocity - destroying the base, you have 1% chance of galaxy-wide extinction? Will you now risk the latter?

We can't deal in certainties here, only in chances. How much chance of galaxy-wide extinction are you willing to risk to avoid those unspecified Cerberus atrocities? I say none at all, unless the consequences on the other side are comparable in magnitude. As Commander Shepard, we don't know any of those numbers, but it really doesn't matter that we don't because the consequences are so weighted toward one side. Again, unless you ascribe a significant chance to scenario (3b) above.

As far how exactly the base might help, I'll get back to that in a few hours.

Edit:
I should add that realizing this risk calculation took me about half a second when I faced that decision first, so don't tell me Shepard doesn't have the time. It just takes a bit longer to decipher and present my own thought processes to others. I even considered - and dismissed - the possibility TIM might be working for the Reapers.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 octobre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Inverness Moon]

General User wrote...

There might very well not be sucpicious behavior to monitor, or said behavior could be so sublte as to avoid notice.  But that's true of conventional spies and saboteurs as well.  Besides a fellow would still have to be exposed to an indoctrination field to become indocrtinated (David Weber deals with a remarkably similar situation ie, indoctrinated assassins in his book "At All Costs" (Honor Harrington 11).  If the Reapers could indoctrinate over stellar distances they wouldn't need to invade at all.

Yes, but when the reapers get here I doubt they'll just attack in one giant wave. I imagine several will be off collecting indoctrinated servants to use again people, we just don't know really, but we do know that they were used against the protheans. The reapers conquered worlds, indoctrinated the inhabitants, and then when those people were taken in as refugees elsewhere and subsequently betrayed more to the reapers. How do you think anyone will screen millions for indoctrination assuming it is even detectable?

Again, it's too risky, we don't know what the situation will be like when the reapers get here, we can't ignore the knowledge the collector base might yield about indoctrination.

General User wrote...

Could be alot of things, upbringing, background, military experience (incl. Eden Prime).  What made you choose that one in particular?

The prothean beacon would have given Shepard a more personal experience about the previous reaper invasion. You might even say that Shepard is the only one who has experienced the previous invasion.

Beyond that, I just have a very high opinion of TIM's character. Shepard may be focused on saving the galaxy, and TIM may be more focused on saving humanity, but I have no doubt they're both highly committed to the defeat of the reapers. My Shepard would prefer it if they weren't enemies after the reapers have been dealt with.

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. Everything else is conclusions about the morality of those who think that the former outweighs the latter.

I completely agree with this.

It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would think TIM is a bigger threat than the reapers unless they're simply metagaming because they know the reapers will be defeated in ME3.

On that note I hope BioWare adds an ending to ME3 where you loose to the reapers.

Jagri wrote...

Wait didn't Legion say something to the effect of not using Reaper technology cause thats just playing into Reapers hands? Think we found another story writing contradiction!

No he didn't. Legion said not to let the technology from the collector base blind you to alternatives, which is good advice, but far from a suggestion not to use the technology.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 11 octobre 2010 - 06:47 .

[Aramintai]

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

Checking numbers...
Cerberus projects' success rate based on ingame observation:
1. Experiments on husks to make shock trooper army - failure. Outcome - husks on the loose, dealt with by Shepard.
2. Experiments on rachni to make shock trooper army - failure. Outcome - rachni on the loose, dealt with by Shepard.
3. Experiments on Thorian creepers to make shock trooper army - failure. Outcome - creepers on the loose, dealt with by Shepard.
4. Silencing admiral Kahoku - success. Outcome - admiral is killed , Shepard knows that it was Cerberus.
5. Project Lazarus - success. Outcome - Shepard is revived and working with Cerberus to stop the Collectors.
5. Project Overlord - failure. Outcome - no useful tech to control geth, test subject proved too unstable, situation dealt with by Shepard.
6. Derelict Reaper project - failure. Outcome - no useful tech to use against the Reapers, whole project crew turned into husks, test subject/base destroyed. Getting IFF from there by Shepard was not part of that project, but rather a part of Lazarus project.
7. Subject Zero project - failure. Test subject escaped, facility closed, no new data on biotics for similar projects.

So, let's see...6 failures, 2 successes...may add that Reaper avatar from the book to one more failure...and numbers show that Cerberus' rate of success is lower that failure. It also shows that usually there is quite a mess to clean after their failures.
So to project that on the above numbers:
Save Base: +/- 1 (with 2/3 chance of another disastrous failure)
Blow Base: 0 (no new tech but also no distractions to deal with later)

Modifié par Aramintai, 11 octobre 2010 - 06:55 .