504 réponses à ce sujet

[chris025657]

Polls:

Did you destroy the Collector base and why?

If you could give the base to anyone you chose, would you keep it? 



 I don't think this is a bad topic: there's just two people making personal attacks that got the previous threads closed.  

No more personal attacks allowed for this thread. You know who you are. 

 Anyway, why did you destroy or keep the Collector base?

Reposted my reasons from the previous thread:

"I prefer to keep the base for two reasons; first a significant technological imbalance, and second an asymmetry of risk. 

Wars between two societies with a significant technological imbalance don't go well for the side with inferior technology. Anything that lowers that imbalance through studying the base could save lives

Secondly, I see an asymmetry of risk when it comes to keeping the Collector base. The risks of potential failure from keeping the base doesn't come close to known risk of total genocide at the hands of the Reapers."

Original thread: Why do people destroy the collector base? by Cra5yPineapple

Second thread: The Collector Base Argument Thread by Dean_The_Young

Modifié par chris025657, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:53 .

[Nightwriter]

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I feel I have little to contribute. Everything that went into my decision to destroy the base can be explained by the statement that I tailor my decisions to achieve the best game experience, not the best realistic solution.

[JThompson6577]

I've done both, but I only ever keep the base for my non-canon Sheps. The great thing about it is there are paragon and renagade for either choice. Destroying either because it's an abomination is a given but you could also destroy because you simply don't want TIM to have it.



You could keep it in the hopes that it's tech could save lives or keep it because like TIM you believe it can assure human dominance.



The reason I torched it in my first play through was that there was no way that my Shepard wouldn't look at something that liquifies people to turn them into parts for a Reaper can do anything but bite everyone in the backside long term.

[Inverness Moon]

I'm so annoyed because I was typing this nice a long post to help illustrate my point for why TIM wouldn't build a reaper. But thread was locked when I tried to post, and pressing the back button didn't restore the text of my post.



I really don't like this proprietary forum software.

[chris025657]

Nightwriter wrote...

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I think one problem with this topic is that it tends to be falsely polarizing at times and not always containing constructive discussions. For example, some people refusing to acknowledge any Cerberus crime or failure and others not acknowledging any successes or some noble goals behind Cerberus. 

[Phaedon]

Not much to say.
Both sides have valid arguments, and the choice that you take comes to this:
Will you risk throwing away an advantage against the Reapers, or will you risk giving access to technology to a very dangerous criminal ?

Personally, I don't see how the technology in the Collector base can be anything extraordinary, so I decided to take the risk of 'discarding' of this advantage.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 octobre 2010 - 09:51 .

[Nightwriter]

chris025657 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I think one problem with this topic is that it tends to be falsely polarizing at times and not always containing constructive discussions. For example, some people refusing to acknowledge any Cerberus crime or failure and others not acknowledging any successes or some noble goals behind Cerberus. 

I don't really think that's it. I think it's that some people are not so much interested in discussing the base decision as they are interested in telling other people they're stupid.

[chris025657]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't really think that's it. I think it's that some people are not so much interested in discussing the base decision as they are interested in telling other people they're stupid.

That's why I was trying to put emphasis on the whole "No personal attacks" thing. 

Modifié par chris025657, 16 octobre 2010 - 09:57 .

[hamtyl07]

i still say that there may be something there with the base i always play paragon but i have never blown up the base I simply look at like this it may help and it may not help its one of those things your may not want it but you keep it anyway in the off chance it may just come in handy but then again who knows

[TMA LIVE]

My thoughts are that the Tech will give an advantage in the attack, but not as huge as people think. I think Cerberus won't be able to make real use of the technology till after the Reaper attack, since Cerberus is still just a secret group, with limited resources. To research, and manufacture Repear/Collector base technology without leaks and in secret will take a lot of time and money, and the end result would still be limited to a few hundred Cerberus ships at least. (however, if the writers want, they can bull**** their way around it, and have thousands of ships).

However, afterward the Reapers are destroyed, Cerberus will take advantage of the power you gave them, and most likely use it to advance TIM's vision of humanity to take over the Council races.

Because of that, I destroyed the base.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 10:01 .

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I feel I have little to contribute. Everything that went into my decision to destroy the base can be explained by the statement that I tailor my decisions to achieve the best game experience, not the best realistic solution.

I'm with you Night.  I was getting fed-up with folks denouncing my decision, then when I defend myself, ignoring my argument.  But I do the same thing as you.  I made decisions that suited what I felt would fit my Shepard at that moment.  It might not seem rational or logical, but it was in-character.  And we all know that, regardless of our individual decisions, that Bioware will cater to destroyers and keepers.  So arguing the realism/rationality at this point is moot.

[chris025657]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I'm with you Night.  I was getting fed-up with folks denouncing my decision, then when I defend myself, ignoring my argument.  

I can understand this criticism. Any suggestions of some guidelines to write in the original post? Such as "Try to keep this topic on discussing the decision and not denouncing others" type statement? 

[Pacifien]

I view keeping the base as a massive risk that pays off in dividends if it all goes well. It can also lead to disaster if it all goes badly. What do you get if it all goes well? Something like the Thannix Cannon or EDI. What do you get if it all goes wrong? You lose control of the base again.

So it depends on how much of a risk-taker your Shepard happens to be. Possible extinction of all space-faring races > destroying valuable intel. Possible indoctrination incident a la Saren > gaining valuable intel.

No matter which side of the fence you're on, you should always keep in mind the base is dangerous. Do you think Cerberus (or anyone, for that matter) has the ability to safeguard and react to unknown dangers? Go for it, keep the base. Do you think fortune favors the bold? Go for it, keep the base. Or perhaps you feel that no one has the ability to withstand the technology of the Reapers, that diving in to readily and greedily will unleash disaster? Blow the thing up. Perhaps you think only fools rush in? No base for you!

Modifié par Pacifien, 16 octobre 2010 - 10:28 .

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I feel I have little to contribute. Everything that went into my decision to destroy the base can be explained by the statement that I tailor my decisions to achieve the best game experience, not the best realistic solution.

I'm with you Night.  I was getting fed-up with folks denouncing my decision, then when I defend myself, ignoring my argument.  But I do the same thing as you.  I made decisions that suited what I felt would fit my Shepard at that moment.  It might not seem rational or logical, but it was in-character.  And we all know that, regardless of our individual decisions, that Bioware will cater to destroyers and keepers.  So arguing the realism/rationality at this point is moot.

The thing is, they will say this is metagaming, making everything you have to say inadmissible.

I just can't summon the interest to participate in a non-metagaming discussion of that caliber. This is a game world where people can take down gunships with acrobatics and loyalty makes people bulletproof. Can they comprehend the force of will it takes to forget things like this, to look at the situation in a hardcore non-metagaming way? I just do not have the strength to create such a powerful self-delusion. Every time I see Samara's boobs exposed to vacuum space it breaks my immersion.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 16 octobre 2010 - 10:34 .

[Dean_the_Young]

...wouldn't it be more effective to just temp-kick/ban the offenders in question, rather than close a thread we all know is just going to re-start in a matter of minutes regardless?

As the end-game decision, this is something that's going to get talked about. Even if you ban threads on the topic, the subject will simply divert to other threads, and if those threads are closed as well it will simply start again in another. It'll be a never-ending cycle, about as effective as pushing water up hill.

Why not just let it stay in one place?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 16 octobre 2010 - 10:37 .

[hamtyl07]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

...wouldn't it be more effective to just temp-kick/ban the offenders in question, rather than close a thread we all know is just going to re-start in a matter of minutes regardless?

you would think but some people just to get simply logic like that

[hamtyl07]

Pacifien wrote...

I view keeping the base as a massive risk that pays off in dividends if it all goes well. It can also lead to disaster if it all goes badly. What do you get if it all goes well? Something like the Thannix Cannon or EDI. What do you get if it all goes wrong? You lose control of the base again.

So it depends on how much of a risk-taker your Shepard happens to be. Possible extinction of all space-faring races > destroying valuable intel. Possible indoctrination incident a la Saren > gaining valuable intel.

No matter which side of the fence you're on, you should always keep in mind the base is dangerous. Do you think Cerberus (or anyone, for that matter) has the ability to safeguard and react to unknown dangers? Go for it, keep the base. Do you think fortune favors the bold? Go for it, keep the base. Or perhaps you feel that no one has the ability to withstand the technology of the Reapers, that diving in to readily and greedily will unleash disaster? Blow the thing up. Perhaps you think only fools rush in? No base for you!

so do you look at like playing the lottery or play a table game at the casion you can win big or it can all go south and really F you over

[TMA LIVE]

Nightwriter wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I hope this thread doesn't go the way of the last one. Eventually paragons just stop looking in here.

I feel I have little to contribute. Everything that went into my decision to destroy the base can be explained by the statement that I tailor my decisions to achieve the best game experience, not the best realistic solution.

I'm with you Night.  I was getting fed-up with folks denouncing my decision, then when I defend myself, ignoring my argument.  But I do the same thing as you.  I made decisions that suited what I felt would fit my Shepard at that moment.  It might not seem rational or logical, but it was in-character.  And we all know that, regardless of our individual decisions, that Bioware will cater to destroyers and keepers.  So arguing the realism/rationality at this point is moot.

The thing is, they will say this is metagaming, making everything you have to say inadmissible.

I just can't summon the interest to participate in a non-metagaming discussion of that caliber. This is a game world where people can take down gunships with acrobatics and loyalty makes people bulletproof. Can they comprehend the force of will it takes to forget things like this, to look at the situation in a hardcore non-metagaming way? I just do not have the strength to create such a powerful self-delusion.

Yeah, the thing is, you can't. If the writers want something to happen, they'll break logic to do it. And if they don't want something to happen, they'll just write a bull**** excuse dance around it. Like TIM having working reaper Indoctrination technology from a base that blew up in the Galactic core (as well as other stuff even the Shadow Broker wanted). In the end, it's like watching a cartoon or reading a comic book. It's not about logic, more about the story they want to tell.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pacifien wrote...

I view keeping the base as a massive risk that pays off in dividends if it all goes well. It can also lead to disaster if it all goes badly. What do you get if it all goes well? Something like the Thannix Cannon or EDI. What do you get if it all goes wrong? You lose control of the base again.

So it depends on how much of a risk-taker your Shepard happens to be. Possible extinction of all space-faring races > destroying valuable intel. Possible indoctrination incident a la Saren > gaining valuable intel.

No matter which side of the fence you're on, you should always keep in mind the base is dangerous. Do you think Cerberus (or anyone, for that matter) has the ability to safeguard and react to unknown dangers? Go for it, keep the base. Do you think fortune favors the bold? Go for it, keep the base. Or perhaps you feel that no one has the ability to withstand the technology of the Reapers, that diving in to readily and greedily will unleash disaster? Blow the thing up. Perhaps you think only fools rush in? No base for you!

The cost of losing the base is insignificant. There are no more collectors or collector cruiser-scale vessels to sack colonies. There is no collector general to allow direct control. There is a copy of the IFF that can be made time and time again, and so whatever is lost can be regained.


And that ignores the leaps and bounds required to be made to lose the base in the first place: indoctrinataion is not inevitable, uncircumventable, or unlimited in utility. Outside Collectors are without the general to coordinate them, if there are any at all (which mining the base computer would find).

[fongiel24]

I usually keep the Collector base but it really is a huge gamble. I'm willing to take that gamble though because the stakes are so high (destruction of all sapient life and all that). I could go on for paragraphs about why I thought the potential payoffs outweighed the risks, but I can sum up my primary reason for keeping the base in one overused cliche: Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.



If keeping the base turns out to be a bad idea, we can go back and fix it. Shepard already captured it once - it can be captured again or destroyed later. If we just blow up the base, only to realize it might have held tech we need against the Reapers, we can't "un-explode" it. Keeping the base is a mistake that can be remedied more easily than destroying the base and realizing we needed it later.

[Nightwriter]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Yeah, the thing is, you can't. If the writers want something to happen, they'll break logic to do it. And if they don't want something to happen, they'll just write a bull**** excuse dance around it. Like TIM having working reaper Indoctrination technology from a base that blew up in the Galactic core (as well as other stuff even the Shadow Broker wanted). In the end, it's like watching a cartoon or reading a comic book. It's not about logic, more about the story they want to tell.

Exactly. What I suffer from is a gross inability to separate the game from the writers.

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...
I just can't summon the interest to participate in a non-metagaming discussion of that caliber. This is a game world where people can take down gunships with acrobatics and loyalty makes people bulletproof. Can they comprehend the force of will it takes to forget things like this, to look at the situation in a hardcore non-metagaming way? I just do not have the strength to create such a powerful self-delusion. Every time I see Samara's boobs exposed to vacuum space it breaks my immersion.

Can I comprehend that it takes you so much willpower? No, really I can't. Because it doesn't cost me that much. If I weren't able to forget these things, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game. There's too much stuff that would break my suspension of disbelief if I'd take it at face value. So I play the game as if things like "exposed skin in space" didn't exist and hope we've complained enough about it that they'll fix it in the next game. A game that I had to treat like just a game would be of absolutely no interest to me - I need to believe in the game world, the story and its characters, and I need to pretend I can make realistic choices.

Consequently, I treat the Collector base decision as if it were real, as if I didn't know that it will, in fact, be perfectly possible to win without it. So much so that, being convinced that strategically and using only in-game knowledge, keeping the base is the only possible decision you can make, destroying it in those games where I do it to see the outcome in ME3 feels terribly contrived, and I'm constantly tempted to replay the suicide mission, rectifying the strategic mistake. Just the same with ME1 and Feros - not even trying to save the colonists makes no sense at all unless you're a callous jerk - only you *can* play a callous jerk without risking galactic extinction, so even that is not in the same league. Fortunately, in most cases you can justify both sides, or all my games would play out the same....

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 octobre 2010 - 10:59 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I just can't summon the interest to participate in a non-metagaming discussion of that caliber. This is a game world where people can take down gunships with acrobatics and loyalty makes people bulletproof. Can they comprehend the force of will it takes to forget things like this, to look at the situation in a hardcore non-metagaming way? I just do not have the strength to create such a powerful self-delusion. Every time I see Samara's boobs exposed to vacuum space it breaks my immersion.

Can I comprehend that it takes you so much willpower? No, really I can't. Because it doesn't cost me that much. If I weren't able to forget these things, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game. There's too much stuff that would break my suspension of disbelief if I'd take it at face value. So I play the game as if things like "exposed skin in space" didn't exist and hope we've complained enough about it that they'll fix it in the next game. A game that I had to treat like just a game would be of absolutely no interest to me - I need to believe in the game world, the story and its characters, and I need to pretend I can make realistic choices.

Consequently, I treat the Collector base decision as if it were real, as if I didn't know that it will, in fact, be perfectly possible to win without it. So much so that, being convinced that strategically and using only in-game knowledge, keeping the base is the only possible decision you can make, destroying it in those games where I do it to see the outcome in ME3 feels terribly contrived, and I'm constantly tempted to replay the suicide mission, rectifying the strategic mistake. Just the same with ME1 and Feros - not even trying to save the colonists makes no sense at all unless you're a callous jerk. Fortunately, in most cases you can justify both sides, or all my games would play out the same....

Okay, I'm with Iedra in that I can believe in the story and world setting.  And like her, I can treat the Collector Base decision as real enough, that I make my decision based on what I think my Shepard would do, not me as a player.  However, I do realize that there has to be some detachment.  Even if I can make the decision as the character, not the player, as a player I still recognize that this decision will likely not effect the finale very much, unless BW pulls a fast one on us.

What made me so despondant over this topic was the fact that when I justified destroying the base I was treated like an idiot, despite using the same logical processes that others did.  I simply came to a different conclusion.  How is it so hard to believe that it's possible to reach such a different conclusion using the same train of thought?

[TMA LIVE]

I kind of see the base like the decision Doctor Serizawa had to make in the Original Godzilla. He invented the Oxygen Destroyer, and didn't want it to leak out, because he figured the knowledge would lead to lots of future death and destruction if it fell into the wrong hands. However, Godzilla shows up, and starts destroying Tokyo as if he was a walking atomic bomb. He has to make a choice. "You have your fear, which might become a reality. And then you have Godzilla, which is reality." So he chose to use the weapon on Godzilla, but destroys his notes, and himself, so no one will ever use the device again.

However, we do not have the option (at least right now) to destroy the base once we're done using it, nor is there anyway to prevent it's knowledge and secrets from being leaked. And TIM, as said by most of your crew, is not the right person to give the thing to, as the writers are clearly telling you. Besides, Godzilla still comes back, and continues to for many other sequels.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:11 .

[Elite Midget]

Blew it up on my canon playthrough.



The only thing I can trust TIM with is that he's a terrorist that will backstab me as soon as the Reapers are dealt with. Than there's the risks with dabbeling with intact Reaper tech compared to the innovations, with no real risk involved, that came from the scraps of broken Reaper Tech. By broken I mean Sovereign broken and not Derelict Reaper broken which ironically wasen't all that broken since it still had active self-defense mechanisms.