2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Jabarai wrote...
I find Shepard's line rather well versed. The ultimate fear is the Reaper threat. Researching and deploying a base designed to foul and humiliate organic races would be compromising one's view on who is the enemy.

That's bullsh*t. Researching it does not compromise anything, and no one here suggests it shouid be used for its intended purpose. Besides, "foul and humiliate" are loaded and culture-dependent terms inappropriate to rational consideration of the situation. Likely the Reapers woudn't even understand what you're talking about, so how can you say the base is "designed" to be that. Ah, I forgot, you don't want rational....

I also find it a bit disappointing that people see such emotional approach as weak. But I'll leave it at that.

We're biologically wired to make fast judgments where possible because they are more economical in familiar situations. You can afford them because the consequences if you fail are usually limited. The Reaper threat is not such a situation. Here, to make a judgment based on emotions against strategic considerations is stupid. I'll consider any pragmatic reasoning for destroying the base, even though those I know of haven't convinced me so far. But yes, decisions made on an impulse, fueled by nothing more that a moral intuition that the base is "somehow evil", I dismiss those out of hand. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 octobre 2010 - 09:59 .

[Jabarai]

Inverness Moon and Ieldra2, you're both arguing we should reduce our thinking to rationale. Let me ask you a question to practice it further. Why should we survive over the Reaper?



What is so wrong about the Reaper cycle? They seem to know their purpose and we merely toddle along, trying to beat them at their own game. What do we have that should be preserved at all cost?

[Ieldra]

Phaedon has asked me to present my view on how the base could be useful. Here is it:

The base contains the knowledge to build a new Reaper.
Perhaps those here who destroy the base haven't tried to envision what that really means: Reapers are constructs, so any facility made to build one must have something like a set of blueprints or instruction manuals on the process of building one. That's practically everything there is to know physically about them, excepting only such things like emergent abilities, intelligence and motives. We can reasonably expect to gain knowledge of
(1) Materials and methods used for the shielding we've seen at work at the battle of the Citadel
(2) How the Reapers can make long-distance runs though space without benefit of mass relays. Strategic value: if the Reapers shut down the relays (they're theirs after all), we'll still be able to operate.
(3) Materials and methods used for indoctration we have no defense against so far. Get Rana Thanoptis on this and hopefully we'll soon have a defense.
(4) The weapons that could slice an Alliance ship in half in a second (possibly the Turians have made inroads here, but Shepard doesn't know how much, so this point still counts)
(5) If the Reapers have any hidden weakness, analysing the way they're built will also reveal them.
The base should also have samples of the materials used, which may be unknown so far to galactic civilization. So it's not just a matter of downloading all the data and blow it up, even if you assume you can download everything from one place.

Since Shepard doesn't know he's in a game where perfect solutions always work, he must assume that galactic civilization needs that knowledge, since it's pretty much a given that we won't win against the Reapers without a technological upgrade. True, we don't know if there will time to absorb all that knowledge, but again, dare we assume we'll win without any of it just because we don't trust TIM?

[Barquiel]

You don't need the base to get these blueprints...unless you think the base's database contains only four pics, and nothing more.

[Inverness Moon]

Jabarai wrote...

Inverness Moon and Ieldra2, you're both arguing we should reduce our thinking to rationale. Let me ask you a question to practice it further. Why should we survive over the Reaper?

What is so wrong about the Reaper cycle? They seem to know their purpose and we merely toddle along, trying to beat them at their own game. What do we have that should be preserved at all cost?

That is a silly question. Humans as a species have an interest in self-determination. That need not be justified to anyone.

What is "wrong" with the reaper cycle is that it conflicts with our own self interests, and if the reapers can't compromise we'll destroy them.

And by compromise I mean them activating their self-destruct protocols instead of us having to waste time doing it for them.

Edit: It sounds like you're gearing up towards a "we're only worth saving because we have special things like emotions, love, etc." argument, or something similar.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 11 octobre 2010 - 10:48 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Jabarai wrote...

Inverness Moon and Ieldra2, you're both arguing we should reduce our thinking to rationale. Let me ask you a question to practice it further. Why should we survive over the Reaper?

What is so wrong about the Reaper cycle? They seem to know their purpose and we merely toddle along, trying to beat them at their own game. What do we have that should be preserved at all cost?

That's a really weird question.

The answer: why should we play a give-away? There is no reason to succumb to the Reapers, unless you really believe in the "salvation" bullsh*t.

If anything, think that we are a test for the Reapers, and a test ain't a test if you can't fail it, so there they go. They must earn their "right" to do what they do every 50K years.

Granted, there is strong probability that this current cycle is unique in that something has gone horribly wrong for the Reapers (and it wasn't the Protheans messing up the Keepers - that's too easy - and Chorban should have confirmed it if it was true). But still it's their weakness (which Sovereign claimed they don't have) and they have to pay for it. And give way to a stronger breed. US.


EDIT:
@Inverness Moon

HIGH FIVE!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 11 octobre 2010 - 10:52 .

[Ieldra]

Jabarai wrote...
Inverness Moon and Ieldra2, you're both arguing we should reduce our thinking to rationale. Let me ask you a question to practice it further. Why should we survive over the Reaper?

What is so wrong about the Reaper cycle? They seem to know their purpose and we merely toddle along, trying to beat them at their own game. What do we have that should be preserved at all cost?

Nothing, actually. Humans-as-they-are are not in any way inherently better than the-human-species-transformed-into-a-Reaper. The conflict is a war between two life-forms that have something in common all life has: it wants to survive. There's nothing value-based at work here: if we manage to survive, we have proven that we're better at the only game life really plays, for the time being. Our success is our justification, our failure the Reapers' vindication until the next cycle, when the organic species would have another chance to prove themselves.

I take a side in this conflict because, like all life, I want to survive and want my biological legacy to survive. Questioning that makes no sense because you would have to measure the value of survival against some other value. But there isn't any other except in the minds of humans. You can extend this to ask "what's the value of having life over not having life" - it's equally nonsensical, a universe having life is not inherently better than one not having life, because is there is no absolute measure of what is desirable. Of course I could say: "we're not worth it". Then we would succumb the Reapers and prove our unsuitability. We could also say "our morality is more important than our survival" - that would be a victory for the Reapers I could almost consider ironically "spiritual", proving by our thinking we are a failure in the game of life, followed by action.

Note that the same thinking does not apply between humans because our biological legacy may survive even where we don't as individuals. That your biological legacy is more important than you as an individual is the only reason why solidarity-based morality works in the first place (edit: add the economical advantage of co-operation). But if morality is taken outside of that domain to apply to the universal, you'll be wiped off the game board as a species. 

I should add that this reasoning makes speciesism rational (edit: to a point where economical advantages overmatch the needs for surival in importance) , a fact I don't feel comfortable with. But as the existence of other species doesn't pose a threat to my survival so far, I can live with a little irrationality here without being wiped off the game board.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 octobre 2010 - 11:24 .

[General User]

mosor wrote...

General User wrote...

Which is it? Intelligence or special ops? Special ops are military operations, even if they often, though far from always and not even in this case, have intelligence objectives (individual missions may have intelligence objectives, but the objective of the campaign as a whole, “stop the Collectors” is a military one).

Special ops and intelliegence isn't mutually exclusive. The American  Department of Defense has the Defense Inteligence Agency, and the CIA have their paramilitaries that do combat field operations.

As for the rest. The goal is to stop the collectors. How you ultimately stop them is with good intelligence that you've collected. Otherwise you wouldn't know where to go. You can't separate the two. As for the campaign being military? You serious? You're a bunch of mercs and vegabonds, not an army unit.

“Mutually exclusive!?!” I daresay my point (that special ops often have intel objectives) was rather the exact opposite!
 
Do you feel that stopping the Collectors is an intelligence goal? I could see that if goal was to capture the CB from the beginning. But the option to capture the base is something that comes up literally at the last minute.
 
As for the motley nature of team Shepard… If I could recruit a team of N7 operators, STG officers, and asari commandos I would! But those doors are closed (for the most part). Given what Shepard has to work with from the beginning, I think she does a rather excellent job of forging a disciplined, effective unit by the time they pass through the Ω4 relay.

[Inverness Moon]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

EDIT:
@Inverness Moon

HIGH FIVE!

*high fives*

Your avatar constantly reminds me of that guy that hosts Cash Cab.

[Ieldra]

General User wrote...
Do you feel that stopping the Collectors is an intelligence goal? I could see that if goal was to capture the CB from the beginning. But the option to capture the base is something that comes up literally at the last minute.

Yes, it is an intelligence goal. At the start we're talking about finding the "Collector homeworld". You can't expect the SR2 to fight a whole world of aliens, and we don't even know at the start if one world is the only one they have, so the primary objective was to find a way to stop them from abducting more human colonies, with implementation of that goal depending on feasibility. You couldn't reasonably have expected to be able to kill them all, or to kill most of them. Theoretically, it could have even had a diplomatic solution. 

[Zulu_DFA]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Cash Cab.

Initiating data search protocols...

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

You don't need the base to get these blueprints...unless you think the base's database contains only four pics, and nothing more.

Not that we have any reason to believe we or TIM have the blueprints if we destroy the base, unless you subscribe to the fan theory that the picture of the Reaper means EDI got everything from the base.

It's irrelevant, really, because blueprints alone arent' sufficient, and base destroyers should be the first people to admit to that. If the base data truly was everything that was needed, Cerberus would already have everything they need to build another Reaper/assume direct control of Reaper technology/enslave the univer/whatever your fear is that actually pushes you to destroy the base.

Cerberus has the data you do. You can't stop that. If you blow up the base to keep it's knowledge and technology out of TIM's hands, you should be the last person wanting to claim that EDI gets the knowledge regardless, because it makes your fears inevitable as the base becomes not a means to an end that can be averted (Human/Cerberus actions via Reaper technology), but a facilitator to something already going to happen (Human/Cerberus actions via the Reaper technology in those blue prints).

In truth, though, reverse engineering requires far more hands-on analysis and study than theoretical formulas (if we even got that) that can't be replicated. Look up 'blue print' for just about any sophisticated system in the world today, and you'll see immediately how much is missing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Aramintai wrote...

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.

I know it's a bit late, but I really wish people would stop citing these three as examples of utter failure.

They were feasibility projects. Yes, their hope was to produce shock troops. But their project goal was also to figure out if it was even possible or not. It may seem paradoxical to some people, but finding out the answer to that question is 'no' is not a failure. While the fallout is bad, and worthy of criticism, the fact that the project end result was 'is not possible' is, in fact, the result of most highly experimental projects.

Zulu has a good point he often brings to the table about the Husks on the colony, in that the game actually has an implication that they happened independent of Cerberus, and that Cerberus just seized samples.

And you certainly don't want to cite the Thorian creepers, because the ExoGeni mission proved that they could be controlled as docile servents... until someone (Shepard) destroyed the Thorian.

5. Project Overlord - failure. Outcome - no useful tech to control geth, test subject proved too unstable, situation dealt with by Shepard.

Did you listen to the same mission? Did you even watch it? Cerberus definitely found a way to hack pretty much anything, including Geth. If they had found nothing, there wouldn't have been an emergency in the first place.

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.

Shepard was able to find the part because the Derilect Reaper team found the IFF in the first place, aramintai.

7. Subject Zero project - failure. Test subject escaped, facility closed, no new data on biotics for similar projects.

Except they did get biotic data. They did find means to boost biotic powers: Jack. They did find data that could be used by others: the biotic damage upgrade we get when looking at their research. And if you read the Shadow Broker entries, you learn that Teltin was also where they mastered their anti-biotic treatment with a means to make humans immune to the effects of a biotic-inhibitor drug they developed with another project.

They also did get use out of Subject Zero again: not only in getting her back and working with them, but allied in a mission to save the galaxy.

Yes, it suffered a catastrophic end, as it deserved, but it did not fail in producing results or meeting its goals (biotic research advances, check, and Subject Zero, check).




And all of this completely ignores all the things we don't see, but have reason to believe is there, such as the numerous successes of Project Trapdoor outlined in the Shadow Broker's dossiers. It's like if someone judged the CIA because the only three actions by the Agency they knew of were the Bay of Pigs, trying to kill Castro, and Aldrich Hazen Ames (the CIA's most infamous traitor), and then judging the entire CIA by those alone.

[Dean_the_Young]

Aramintai wrote...

mosor wrote...

1.They provided you with a ship, funds and crew.  An dossiers on a bad ass squad you can recruit and rely on.
2. They provided you an opportunity to punch the collectors on the nose on Horizon, which effectively stopped the colonist abductions until you had an opportunity to put them down for good.
3. They discovered both the derelict reaper and the Klendeggon supergun. Their team located the IFF at the sacrifice of their own lives.
4. They developed EDI out of reaper tech. Her cyberwarfare programs is absolutely pivital in the sucess of stopping the collectors. Since the intel she datamined helps you on every turn, and her overrides of their internal security helps you navigate their ship and base without being stuck at a dead end,  She clearly doesn't get enough credit, but frankly after Shepard, is the most important reason the collectors were stopped.

All points except Nr. 3 are part of the same project bent on sole purpose of stopping the Collectors.

Aramintai, you were more than happy to point to the Derilect Reaper as a specific instance of Cerberus failure, even though that too was within the context of fighting the Reapers and Collectors. You also picked out the husks, rachni, and thorian creepers as separate, even though they can be grouped under the shock trooper project as well.

If you want to selectively choose points within a single purpose, then others can do the same as well.

[Barquiel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's irrelevant, really, because blueprints alone arent' sufficient, and base destroyers should be the first people to admit to that. If the base data truly was everything that was needed, Cerberus would already have everything they need to build another Reaper/assume direct control of Reaper technology/enslave the univer/whatever your fear is that actually pushes you to destroy the base.

I destroyed the base because I didn't want TIM to have the smoothie machine. I think it could easily be misused in TIMs pursuit of human dominance. Of course, if EDI's data contains plans for a new smoothie machine (and TIM is able to rebuild it)...it would be pointless to destroy the base.




But I think it is more useful to study the blueprints if I want to find any hidden weakness. I can't see how the base could help...unless TIM will use it.

Modifié par Barquiel, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:30 .

[GGRush]

Cerberus indeed has the bad habit of trying until project failure. However, remeber that trial and error results in mostly error. If there are minor successes and useful information gained, then it's a partial success at least. Plus that Cerberus meddle with dangerous things others would not even dare to study (except ones such as the Shadow Broker), so if others were to study the CB, they would probably suffer failures that are even more horrible.



Major examples are EDI and the IFF, both vital for mission success in ME2.

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

But I think it is more useful to study the blueprints if I want to find any hidden weakness. I can't see how the base could help...unless TIM will use it.

Simply because blueprints really, really don't do that. They're outlines, not point-by-point data description of 'this system at (x,y,z) is made out of composite makeitu metal, produced by proecedure xyz with materials and processes produced in this way by these means, and so this system, if aplied with T newtons of force at locyation b, will produce major damage.'

That's not what blueprints are. They're an overview of where systems are in a larger system. They're more akin to putting legos together... but we don't want to put the legos together. We want to study the legos themselves. Hardware for study is always superior for that purpose, because you can perform actual physical tests with real things, rather hopeful similuations that usually ignore overlooked variables.that can't be exposed by purely theoretical predictions.

It's the difference between theoretical chemical reactions and actually putting chemicals together, except in the case of blue prints the blue prints aren't even the knowledge of chemistry, just some ratios.

And, again, 'the blueprints are enough' depends entirely on the assumption that we get blue prints if we destroy the base... which isn't even shown in much vaunted data pad.

[Ieldra]

Barquiel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's irrelevant, really, because blueprints alone arent' sufficient, and base destroyers should be the first people to admit to that. If the base data truly was everything that was needed, Cerberus would already have everything they need to build another Reaper/assume direct control of Reaper technology/enslave the univer/whatever your fear is that actually pushes you to destroy the base.

I destroyed the base because I didn't want TIM to have the smoothie machine. I think it could easily be misused in TIMs pursuit of human dominance. Of course, if EDI's data contains plans for a new smoothie machine (and TIM is able to rebuild it)...it would be pointless to destroy the base.

But I think it is more useful to study the blueprints if I want to find any hidden weakness. I can't see how the base could help...unless TIM will use it.

Here's why you'd still need the base: if, for instance, the blueprint tells you the structure of the Reaper armor, but the material they use is unknown to you, having a sample would be very helpful.

Edit:
Dean_the_Young has explained it better. See the post above this one.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 octobre 2010 - 12:41 .

[Jabarai]

First of all, thank you guys for your thoughts! I hope I'm not the only one willing to pursue this psychological (I dare not say philosophical) - and rather unsexy - viewpoint.

Inverness Moon wrote...

Jabarai wrote...
... What is so wrong about the Reaper cycle? They seem to know their purpose and we merely toddle along, trying to beat them at their own game. What do we have that should be preserved at all cost?

That is a silly question. Humans as a species have an interest in self-determination. That need not be justified to anyone.

I must say that I sort of disagree with you on the self-determination part. Individually humans are generally like that, yes, but as a species, not so much.

Edit: It sounds like you're gearing up towards a "we're only worth saving because we have special things like emotions, love, etc." argument, or something similar.

:happy: Thanks, I love laughing at myself, but sorry, I'm not preparing an argument of that sort. It is a fair point, though, that emotions are a valuable for creating harmony as well as disharmony, and indeed would be lost should Reapers turn us into milkshake...

But if we were to appreciate or even idolise the ruthless efficiency and unbreakable determination that portray the Reapers, why shouldn't there be a hint of a greater victory in joining them and being turned into something with a higher cause. Surely we would become ****** Superiors? Perhaps it wouldn't be "the salvation" as we know it, as Zulu_DFA noted, but something equally curious. It would satisfy the natural yearning for development and evolution, would it not?

Ieldra2 wrote...
... We could also say "our morality is more important than our survival" -
that would be a victory for the Reapers I could almost consider
ironically "spiritual", proving by our thinking we are a failure in the
game of life, followed by action.

A very good point. In fact, your whole post was quite rejuvenating, even though for the most part we disagree. Through your example I noticed that what I'm expecting or at least hoping for is a kind of (sorry for the poor wording, but here we go) "spiritual victory" over the Reapers. We must win and do it in a way that'll take us further as an alliance.

My take on the whole game trilogy would be that we - meaning all the species in the ME universe - would have to find a new way to form a strong cohesion that would prove to go above and beyond the Reapers' expectations and capabilities. We have a word in our language depicting a small, peaceful and most definitely mythical corner of the universe where people are safe. 'Lintukoto' means nothing to you, but it's what my Shepard is thinking in the back of his mind when fighting with the Reapers, TIM and, well, fear.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ieldra2 wrote...
for instance, the blueprint tells you the structure of the Reaper armor, but the material they use is unknown to you, having a sample would be very helpful.

They probably use some super-duper-advanced carbon alloy. Only for their religious considerations they need to obtain the carbon from the bodies of a chosen organic race.

What the "destroyers" really fear is that TIM somehow converts to this Reaper religion and thinks there ain't no better way to get the carbon. Which cannot be entirely ruled out, of course, because it's just a game, but still it would be completely OOC for TIM.

[smudboy]

Jabarai wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
... 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.

I find Shepard's line rather well versed. The ultimate fear is the Reaper threat. Researching and deploying a base designed to foul and humiliate organic races would be compromising one's view on who is the enemy.

I also find it a bit disappointing that people see such emotional approach as weak. But I'll leave it at that.

...?

I find that line to be the worst in the entire game.

The ultimate fear is the Reaper threat.  Which you have stated.  So how on earth, do you then, conclude that researching the base would blahblahblah compromise one's "view" on who the enemy is?  You just stated ultimate fear = Reapers.  How does ultimate fear then translate to changing a viewpoint on the enemy?  What?  You might want to look over your logic one more time, cause all I'm listening to is more  trying to explain .

[Ieldra]

Jabarai wrote...
But if we were to appreciate or even idolise the ruthless efficiency and unbreakable determination that portray the Reapers, why shouldn't there be a hint of a greater victory in joining them and being turned into something with a higher cause. Surely we would become ****** Superiors? Perhaps it wouldn't be "the salvation" as we know it, as Zulu_DFA noted, but something equally curious. It would satisfy the natural yearning for development and evolution, would it not?

That's an interesting question. Imagine that the Reaperizing process weren't so horrific, that they'd just absorb the minds of humans into a greater cohesive whole without the painful and disgusting side effects. Would there be a significant number of humans who'd want to follow that path? And would I, not being one of those volunteers, have an objection to that? I can say that it's not the Reapers' existence as such I object to. I find them fascinating and a very interesting SF concept to explore, if they're really what we think they are - the coalesced minds of whole species in a Reaper body. If their agenda was to promote the virtue of that existence, I would disagree - putting all your eggs into one basket is not a good idea - but it would not me want to destroy them. Unfortunately, that's not what they do - they don't ask and they dont leave competitors with differring agendas alive. That fact forces every organic species into survival mode, and naturally so.

Jabaral wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
... We could also say "our morality is more important than our survival" - that would be a victory for the Reapers I could almost consider ironically "spiritual", proving by our thinking we are a failure in the
game of life, followed by action.

A very good point. In fact, your whole post was quite rejuvenating, even though for the most part we disagree. Through your example I noticed that what I'm expecting or at least hoping for is a kind of (sorry for the poor wording, but here we go) "spiritual victory" over the Reapers. We must win and do it in a way that'll take us further as an alliance.

You're implying co-operation has an objective value independent from results. It hasn't. We appreciate co-operation because it most often yields better results than separate action. If it didn't, we wouldn't value it.

My take on the whole game trilogy would be that we - meaning all the species in the ME universe - would have to find a new way to form a strong cohesion that would prove to go above and beyond the Reapers' expectations and capabilities. We have a word in our language depicting a small, peaceful and most definitely mythical corner of the universe where people are safe. 'Lintukoto' means nothing to you, but it's what my Shepard is thinking in the back of his mind when fighting with the Reapers, TIM and, well, fear.

Strong co-operation would definitely be an extremely important factor in the upcoming conflict. I'm not so sure about how to judge the merging of the species of galactic civilization into a more cohesive whole, though. For as long as the survival of all isn't threatened, diversity is a useful trait. That applies to biology and to culture. To a point.

OK....this time it's me who's gone off-topic. Sorry about that.

[Markinator_123]

smudboy wrote...

Jabarai wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
... 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.

I find Shepard's line rather well versed. The ultimate fear is the Reaper threat. Researching and deploying a base designed to foul and humiliate organic races would be compromising one's view on who is the enemy.

I also find it a bit disappointing that people see such emotional approach as weak. But I'll leave it at that.

...?

I find that line to be the worst in the entire game.

The ultimate fear is the Reaper threat.  Which you have stated.  So how on earth, do you then, conclude that researching the base would blahblahblah compromise one's "view" on who the enemy is?  You just stated ultimate fear = Reapers.  How does ultimate fear then translate to changing a viewpoint on the enemy?  What?  You might want to look over your logic one more time, cause all I'm listening to is more  trying to explain .

To add to that the whole line just makes Shepard look like an idealistic, spineless "lawful stupid" jedi. Overall, I am not convinced by the arguments to destroy the base. They are all the same. "The base is evil," "Cerberus is evil," "Reaper tech is bad despite us using it everytime."

Modifié par Markinator_123, 11 octobre 2010 - 01:37 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Markinator_123 wrote...

To add to that the whole line just makes Shepard look like an idealistic, spineless "lawful stupid" jedi. Overall, I am not convinced by the arguments to destroy the base. They are all the same. "The base is evil," "Cerberus is evil," "Reaper tech is bad despite us using it everytime."

Actually the line "I'll let no fear..." is inherently self-contradictory, because the paragons win even more if the Base study by Cerberus ends up in disaster. Maybe this one will be big enough to finish Cerberus off, while the Forces of Good comprising their Shepard, Anderson, Biotic God and a few Turian marines will be able to collect the important data. UNLESS they FEAR, that Cerberus may succeed this time... Which is also inconsistent with their official stance that Cerberus is inept by definition.

[Barquiel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Actually the line "I'll let no fear..." is inherently self-contradictory, because the paragons win even more if the Base study by Cerberus ends up in disaster. Maybe this one will be big enough to finish Cerberus off, while the Forces of Good comprising their Shepard, Anderson, Biotic God and a few Turian marines will be able to collect the important data. UNLESS they FEAR, that Cerberus may succeed this time... Which is also inconsistent with their official stance that Cerberus is inept by definition.

Well, I definitely fear Bioware's writing. I have the impression that they assume...
renegade Shepard = obsessed with human dominance

Of course, in real life I would have kept the base. I would give it to the council (if they are interested^_^)...or I could try to stop TIM, if he will use the base against other races.
In ME, I don't have full control over Shepards behavior (see the final choice in ME1, or the time between ME2 and ME3).

Modifié par Barquiel, 11 octobre 2010 - 02:21 .