504 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why is the cockpit at the front of the ship? Why does Normandy not have a front window? Why do we hear sounds from a space battle?

The cockpit may have beenin front, but EDI was not and could fly the ship independantly. The reality is in space, collisions are silly unlikely with anything other than maybe a planet (curse you, gravity, you win again!), in which case the cockpit isn't as relevant.

Then there's no point to put it at one of the most exposed parts of the ship.

No front window is a structural integrety issue.

Actually a typo on my part, because the Normandy does have one.

Space battles do make sounds, just those sounds are not transmitted between ships. The explosions would certainly be heard inside the exploding ships. We don't normally see them out of a ship's window anyway, but from a third person view in space. Its not like we, personally, are drifing there in space either.

When the viewpoint is from outside the ship in space, yeah, it really should apply.

Except it doesn't, and the reason is 'fictional license,' which was the point in the first place.

[Jabarai]

Mesina2 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.

Same here.

But that's sort of boring. In fact, I'd say it's intentionally killing the game experience. What I want from an RPG is that I can jump into the world, see the adventures first hand and come here to discuss as if we're the Normandy crew...



+7 Renegade points, thank you.

[TcheQ]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TcheQ wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You're... not familiar with the Mass Effect lore, are you?

Please show me where Reaper-originated genetic experiments have caused some good.

Krogan? no
Rachni? no
Saren? no
Protheans? no
Humans? no
Keepers? no (insert Admiral Akbar quote)

All are evil genetic mutations that left their hosts soulless.

Unless there are other genetic mutations the Reapers have created that weren't solely for their own benefit that I don't know about, that somehow undoes all the above evil, my decision is fully justified.

I was talking about genetic alteration in general, since you were also using such broad terms.

The skills and knowledge that the Reapers used to genetic modify to their ends can just as well be reused to ours. Genetic tinkering is established and effectively universal for most humans, let alone aliens: all Alliance soldiers have a basic gene therapy that we hear about inME1 and2 from place to place.

Genetic tampering certainly can lead to benefits.

What's the point of this reply?
The sentence you decided to contest started with "reaper's are pure evil", then you went off on your own tangent trying to argue something I didn't even say.

Don't take things out of context, then argue points based upon that out-of-context phrase. The only reply that would have been appropriate is one of remission.   Anything but such a statement will lead people to the conclusion that you are Khalid bint Al-Jalani.

Modifié par TcheQ, 21 octobre 2010 - 10:59 .

[Inverness Moon]

TcheQ wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

You can go ahead and forge the biggest alliance ever, but if you think that is going to assure you victory then you're deluding yourself.

I have never supported tyranny, injustice, cruelty, torture or slavery in order to achieve my goals or to advance the human race, and I never will.  I sacrificed eight human cruisers in order to save the citadel.  You are not the council.  You are not worthy to question my judgement.

Don't be so dramatic; this is a game. 

Anyhow, it's foolish to put all your hopes of victory on one strategy like your Shepard seems to be doing. There are no assurances that a galactic alliance will make a significant difference in the outcome of a war with the reapers. That is why you need to explore all available avenues, including the Collector base. Now then, I'm wondering where all this nonsense about tyranny, injustice, cruelty, torture and slavery is coming from.

[Arijharn]

Sorry TcheQ, but I read your statements on genetic manipulation to be as equally broad as Dean, aka, not something limited purely towards the effects from Reaper experiments.

Having said that, what makes you personally believe TIM would do something utterly moronic like melting down peeps to make Reapers? Didn't you take Shep's statement of 'You're completely Ruthless, next thing I know you'll be making your own baby Reaper' to be something completely hyperbolic?

I'm guessing then, if you didn't take TIM's statements as hyperbole because he refused to confirm or deny Shephard's disingenious assertions, then you therefore must wear odd coloured socks and occasionally wear your shirt back-to-front or inside out, because you also didn't confirm nor deny my statement to you either.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I guess I've done enough standing up for the Renegade choice. Time to convey some Paragon views.


It all comes down to TIM and Cerberus. They're branded as an evil group so why give them the potential to be powerful or waste a handful of lives that we assume they'll throw away at the base as victims (even in the face of the Reaper onslaught)?

Plus, the only time you've seen Cerberus succeed at something is when you personally worked with them and was resurrected by them.  They'll either put the galaxy in more danger by using the base (Grayson... though admittedly that was Anderson's fault)... or they'll become the next great threat after the Reapers are gone.  Why make an enemy you face later stronger?  We already see Cerberus as a villainous organization that needs to be destroyed... and were only a necessary evil to stop the Collectors.  With the Reapers though we don't need that kinda help so what's the big deal?

If we can't study something safely that allows us to stop galactic genocide, we shouldn't do it at all. There's always another way.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 22 octobre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

TcheQ wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TcheQ wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You're... not familiar with the Mass Effect lore, are you?

Please show me where Reaper-originated genetic experiments have caused some good.

Krogan? no
Rachni? no
Saren? no
Protheans? no
Humans? no
Keepers? no (insert Admiral Akbar quote)

All are evil genetic mutations that left their hosts soulless.

Unless there are other genetic mutations the Reapers have created that weren't solely for their own benefit that I don't know about, that somehow undoes all the above evil, my decision is fully justified.

I was talking about genetic alteration in general, since you were also using such broad terms.

The skills and knowledge that the Reapers used to genetic modify to their ends can just as well be reused to ours. Genetic tinkering is established and effectively universal for most humans, let alone aliens: all Alliance soldiers have a basic gene therapy that we hear about inME1 and2 from place to place.

Genetic tampering certainly can lead to benefits.

What's the point of this reply?
The sentence you decided to contest started with "reaper's are pure evil", then you went off on your own tangent trying to argue something I didn't even say.

The point I bolded, which was its own segment in and of itself, was amazingly silly.

Don't take things out of context, then argue points based upon that out-of-context phrase. The only reply that would have been appropriate is one of remission.   Anything but such a statement will lead people to the conclusion that you are Khalid bint Al-Jalani.

Your own words weren't out of context. They simply don't stand up.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I guess I've done enough standing up for the Renegade choice. Time to convey some Paragon views.


It all comes down to TIM and Cerberus. They're branded as an evil group so why give them the potential to be powerful or waste a handful of lives that we assume they'll throw away at the base as victims (even in the face of the Reaper onslaught)?

Because infinitely more lives can be saved.

Plus, the only time you've seen Cerberus succeed at something is when you personally worked with them and was resurrected by them.  They'll either put the galaxy in more danger by using the base (Grayson... though admittedly that was Anderson's fault)... or they'll become the next great threat after the Reapers are gone.  Why make an enemy you face later stronger?  We already see Cerberus as a villainous organization that needs to be destroyed... and were only a necessary evil to stop the Collectors.  With the Reapers though we don't need that kinda help so what's the big deal?

The only time you see Cerberus at all is if you personally work with them or against them. Three blind men and an elephant. When one limits their understanding to only what they can immediately perceive from one point of view, they lose all context and objectivity.

If we can't study something safely that allows us to stop galactic genocide, we shouldn't do it at all. There's always another way.

No there isn't.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Because infinitely more lives can be saved.

We don't know if it'll lead to that... it's better to assume the worst about the base and think about galactic unity.  If we get together we could destroy the Reapers... we don't need to know anything else about them.

The only time you see Cerberus at all is if you personally work with them or against them. Three blind men and an elephant. When one limits their understanding to only what they can immediately perceive from one point of view, they lose all context and objectivity.

I'm not relying on what I percieve as much as what I've heard from those against Cerberus.  Sure TIM helped out a great deal bringing Shepard back (and even chose and allied with aliens to help stop the Collectors).  However, while he is responsible for stopping the Collectors through Shepard, the base may revert him back to his truly evil alien-hating nature ways that we've heard tales about.

No there isn't.

There is, we just haven't found it yet.

[Arijharn]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
There is, we just haven't found it yet.

How can someone be sure though? When did guaranteed crystal balls come out because I really want one. Could you give me the name of your supplier?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Arijharn wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
There is, we just haven't found it yet.

How can someone be sure though? When did guaranteed crystal balls come out because I really want one. Could you give me the name of your supplier?

Bioware

We know all Paragon decisions turn out great... The Reapers get stopped because they threaten the entire galaxy... TIM's the only real liability we can't anticipate.

[tommyt_1994]

Base keepers around here are generally renegades right? The guys who say "We can't risk letting the rachni go they could risk galactic stability" and things very similar right? Renegades are all about NOT taking the risk, while Paragons are correct? This is largely hypocritical to Renegade ideals. Keeping the collector base just because it MAY help, is just like letting the rachni go because they may become allies or saving the genophage cure because they krogan may help us out. The Paragon/Renegade options here seem to be switched, at least from a Renegade POV, I can still see why Paragons would not take the risk with a shady organization like Cerberus though.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 22 octobre 2010 - 03:12 .

[chris025657]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Base keepers around here are generally renegades right? The guys who say "We can't risk letting the rachni go they could risk galactic stability" and things very similar right? Renegades are all about NOT taking the risk, while Paragons are correct? This is a huge hypocrisy. Keeping the collector base just because it MAY help, is just like letting the rachni go because they may become allies or saving the genophage cure because they krogan may help us out. The Paragon/Renegade options here seem to be switched, at least from a Renegade POV, I can still see why Paragons would not take the risk with a shady organization like Cerberus though.

I can't speak for others, but I tend to play my main Shepard as much more paragon than renegade and still keep the base. I see him as paragon as a general rule, renegade when necessary and I view continuing to work with Cerberus and the risks associated with keeping the base as necessary. I don't see anything hypocritical or inconsistent in this position. 

[tommyt_1994]

chris025657 wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Base keepers around here are generally renegades right? The guys who say "We can't risk letting the rachni go they could risk galactic stability" and things very similar right? Renegades are all about NOT taking the risk, while Paragons are correct? This is a huge hypocrisy. Keeping the collector base just because it MAY help, is just like letting the rachni go because they may become allies or saving the genophage cure because they krogan may help us out. The Paragon/Renegade options here seem to be switched, at least from a Renegade POV, I can still see why Paragons would not take the risk with a shady organization like Cerberus though.

I can't speak for others, but I tend to play my main Shepard as much more paragon than renegade and still keep the base. I see him as paragon as a general rule, renegade when necessary and I view continuing to work with Cerberus and the risks associated with keeping the base as necessary. I don't see anything hypocritical or inconsistent in this position. 

You just made my point. Paragons take the risk in hopes that it will pay out. I think the Paragon and renegade options should really be reversed. The "paragon" path won't take the risk while the "renegade" does. This is completely contradictory towards previous Paragon/Renegade ideals. 

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 22 octobre 2010 - 03:15 .

[Ryzaki]

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?



Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

[TcheQ]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Don't be so dramatic; this is a game. 

Anyhow, it's foolish to put all your hopes of victory on one strategy like your Shepard seems to be doing. There are no assurances that a galactic alliance will make a significant difference in the outcome of a war with the reapers. That is why you need to explore all available avenues, including the Collector base. Now then, I'm wondering where all this nonsense about tyranny, injustice, cruelty, torture and slavery is coming from.

Well I don't waste my time accusing eveyrone of having lax moral standards.  Mass Effect allows me to have high standards of morality, that I might not have an outlet to exercise for in real life, yet when I express those on a forum, that's not allowed?  Gimme a break, people are clearly are spoiling for fights and "be in the right" when the whole Mass Effect experience is never about being in the right, it's always about standing up for what you believe.  The OP clearly states in the title "no personal attacks", yet some seem so eager to try and provoke emotional responses.

My professor once told me "one thought per sentence".  I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh on people who don't have a postgraduate education, but it does irk me that they continue on the point long after the horse has become a skeleton. 

I see no point in taking the thread off-topic further (because it will just be closed and will start "Collector Base Discussion 4"), and the arguments people are coming up with are turning the way of "religious fanatic".  If they turned their own statements on themselves, how they could possible explain themselves?

As for your questions, it seems you are unaware of the many sins Cerberus have committed, you do realise they killed an Admiral of the alliance?  You do realise it was Cerberus who led Kahoku's men to their death?  If it had been Captain Anderson, would we be having this conversation?  It is my opinion that they are atrocious.  There is always another way.  I am not going to judge others on their opinions, but this does not mean I will not defend my own decisions if provoked.

My opinion of Cerberus has been formed by the league of information on their atrocities throughout both games.  I consider the use of reaper-forged genetic tech as a crime against nature (indoctrination is slavery, genetic manipulation to allow domination of a race is tyranny).  

As an aside, I do hope Bioware develop both sides of this very sharp coin.  I can see for some that having Cerberus on your side can be very powerful, but I simply do not agree with their methods.

Let's revisit this conversation when ME3 has been completed, ok?  

[tommyt_1994]

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?

Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

The general consensus is that the base builds reapers, therefore it must have some info on their construction. That info on their construction could lead to big breakthroughs in tactics to use against them, vital weakpoints, possible info on how to defend against indoctrination.

[Arijharn]

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?

Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

Maybe they like to get out the big weapons when it's time to crush some skulls? The CB wasn't a weapon in and of itself but merely a factory. Destroying a factory doesn't diminish the weapons on the field of course, but it might mean that we get better kevlar vests.

I do agree with you that the base in itself one way or the other wont be instrumental in our defeat of the Reapers, but I try to RP my Shephard's to not have all the information I know as well. It can be difficult at times I guess and I still trip up occasionally.

[Ryzaki]

Arijharn wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?

Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

Maybe they like to get out the big weapons when it's time to crush some skulls? The CB wasn't a weapon in and of itself but merely a factory. Destroying a factory doesn't diminish the weapons on the field of course, but it might mean that we get better kevlar vests.

I do agree with you that the base in itself one way or the other wont be instrumental in our defeat of the Reapers, but I try to RP my Shephard's to not have all the information I know as well. It can be difficult at times I guess and I still trip up occasionally.

..It's a baby factory. You have no proof it's anything but (granted I have no proof that it's just a baby factory but still). There's no strange weapons lying around, no nothing. Just collectors, swarms (that they need for the baby food) and well...baby food and the baby. That's it. You don't see anything else in there even though you go to the core. That to me was pretty telling. 

And yes game wise you knwo there's not going to be anything deal breaking in there because 50% of people if not more blew the base up. And the epic nerd rage that would ensue on these forums if BW made the game unwinnable for them...

[Ryzaki]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?

Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

The general consensus is that the base builds reapers, therefore it must have some info on their construction. That info on their construction could lead to big breakthroughs in tactics to use against them, vital weakpoints, possible info on how to defend against indoctrination.

I could've sworn EDI uploaded that info (or at least the gist of it) when you have that datapad. I mean why else have the picture of a Reaper? 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Base keepers around here are generally renegades right?

I'm a Paragon (still kept the base).

[tommyt_1994]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Base keepers around here are generally renegades right?

I'm a Paragon (still kept the base).

I was proving a point. I'm a paragon/base keeper as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

A short list of things the Base has been known to do.



Genetic analysis, bio warfare, targetting software development, cyberwarfare algorithms, organic non-lethal weapon systems, husk creation/upgrades, husk-combination technology, particle weapons, organic weapon systems development, fast-regen armor development, cybernetic development/creation, cloning facilities and technologies, indoctrination, stealth-detection systems, galactic espionage, FTL communication, Mass Relay hidden functionality knowledge and utillity, organic-to-metallic conversion material sciences, building reapers.





Good night.

[Arijharn]

Ryzaki wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is we have no proof that base is used for anything other than reaper babies. I mean it had little security, barely any internal weapons (other than the collector's and seeker swarms). I mean why leave a weapon hub so lousily protected?

Yeah. I get the whole "no one would ever come." but if that's where many of their better weapons are why not use such weapons? That's why I have a hard time believing that base is necessary to defeat the reapers.

Maybe they like to get out the big weapons when it's time to crush some skulls? The CB wasn't a weapon in and of itself but merely a factory. Destroying a factory doesn't diminish the weapons on the field of course, but it might mean that we get better kevlar vests.

I do agree with you that the base in itself one way or the other wont be instrumental in our defeat of the Reapers, but I try to RP my Shephard's to not have all the information I know as well. It can be difficult at times I guess and I still trip up occasionally.

..It's a baby factory. You have no proof it's anything but (granted I have no proof that it's just a baby factory but still). There's no strange weapons lying around, no nothing. Just collectors, swarms (that they need for the baby food) and well...baby food and the baby. That's it. You don't see anything else in there even though you go to the core. That to me was pretty telling. 

And yes game wise you knwo there's not going to be anything deal breaking in there because 50% of people if not more blew the base up. And the epic nerd rage that would ensue on these forums if BW made the game unwinnable for them...

It's not just a baby factory though, it has examples of Collector technology that is by itself approx 10 years ahead of galactic standard. I mean, the Collectors have to be able to make their Collector Beam Rifles somewhere right? During the course of the game the boffins had nfi how a CBR works, let alone how it is made and providing you kept the base, you get both!

Maybe, just maybe there's a chance that will lead us to mount ever more powerful weapons on ship configurations of all sizes, and if that is the case, then that is more than what would be offered if you blew up momma base.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Base keepers around here are generally renegades right?

I'm a Paragon (still kept the base).

I was proving a point. I'm a paragon/base keeper as well.

Good point.