504 réponses à ce sujet

[Getorex]

CmdrStJean wrote...

I had no idea this would be such a contentious topic. I only got ME2 recently (and by extension only finished it recently and I found the decision at the end to be relatively easy. Destroying the base fit with my typical paragon behavior and at least to me made sense on a number of logical levels. Reading through this thread certainly reveals that one can just as easily make an argument for the reverse strategy. Though I am surprised that -keeping- the base seems to be the preferred, if not possibly the default decision. I find that intriguing.



My own reasoning was based on a number of factors, not the least of which is I tended to look beyond the Reaper threat and ask what happens afterwords if Cerberus retains the base, the technology and the know-how to implement reaper level technology on a galactic scale. One part of me was concerned that even the Reapers are defeated, it may simply mean exchanging one existential threat for another. By far I'm thinking more of the power of harnessing indoctrination tech against humans and other races, and the more subtle forms of control Cerberus could exert rather than an all out assault or a "Cerberus Reaper" though I suppose nothing could be ruled out either. If the war against the Reapers is massively devastating, a Pyrrhic victory if you will, effective opposition to Cerberus might be far less than what might be assumed here.



There's also the possibility that Cerberus itself could become compromised by the technology they'd find aboard the Collector base. If Cerberus somehow were to become indoctrinated, even if the Illusive Man himself avoids that fate, you could end up with a "doomsday scenario" in which Cerberus works actively with the Reapers to destroy all civilization. In that case, keeping the base would mean adding yet another enemy to the mix that must be defeated. An unacceptable outcome in my mind.



I also think we just can't know if the base is the key to defeating the Reapers, or not. Destroying it could have adverse consequences, but keeping it carries the same risk. It would be, bold, to say the least for Bioware to make ME3 "unwinnable" without the Collector Base intact. I think that's unlikely but you never know. And, let us not forget that the Illusive Man can not and should not be trusted anyway. He's something of a nefarious anti-villain and while I have no doubt he'd protect Earth and Humanity, I could also see him being just fine with any methods employed, including genocide, to achieve that end. Like others have pointed out here, I too see that Cerberus is not a simple black hat operation out to murder everything in sight. Nor are they paragons of virtue standing for the rule of law. It's a complicated matter, and though I chose to destroy the base, it wasn't without full consideration of the possibility that Cerberus might actually gain something useful from it to help defeat the Reapers.



At any rate, sorry to ramble. My point is I felt the base is too dangerous to keep intact as is, scavengers might indeed find information that could be turned to account, good or bad, but at least it will be harder if the whole thing is reduced to a pile of rubble. Oh! And one other important point. I blew up the base because that was what the mission entailed. I carried out the Illusive Man's orders to the letter; I assembled a team, gathered my strength and destroyed the Collectors. I fulfilled my end of the bargain, and I felt no obligation to turn over such a potentially dangerous asset to a man who's true nature is a complete unknown. Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I think both sides have made many good points here, all very valid. So, good job Bioware for dealing in shades of gray.

And all you say is why I too NEVER keep the base. Hell, you even gain Miranda's apparent ABSOLUTE loyalty as she outright disobeys TIM's order to shoot you and basically tells him to f*ck off.

The possible gain, sequestered away for Cerberus alone to play with, of keeping the base outweighed by what Cerberus WOULD do with it: run roughshod over everyone else, including many humans. End of story.

If I could hand the base over to a mixed race group rather than JUST to TIM and Cerberus, then I'd go for it.

Modifié par Getorex, 28 octobre 2010 - 07:03 .

[Markinator_123]

Once again, people are more fearful of Cerberus than the Reapers. Do some of you forget that you are dealing with an enemy that has committed galactic extinction god-knows-how many times? The opportunity to learn about reaper technologies, how they shut down relays, indoctrination, their guns, their structures, etc are probably only the few things that you could learn from that base. While that base may not win the war, I am sure that it will help. Some of you paragons I bet have no clue on how to fight reapers other fortifying a unified galaxy which is the same galaxy that is too busy killing each other and doesn't even know about the reapers.

Ultimately, I think the main reason people blow up the base rather than keep it is because they want to feel good about themselves , "stick it to the man," and understand that Bioware will reward blind optimism just like they have done before.

[Getorex]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Once again, people are more fearful of Cerberus than the Reapers. Do some of you forget that you are dealing with an enemy that has committed galactic extinction god-knows-how many times? The opportunity to learn about reaper technologies, how they shut down relays, indoctrination, their guns, their structures, etc are probably only the few things that you could learn from that base. While that base may not win the war, I am sure that it will help. Some of you paragons I bet have no clue on how to fight reapers other fortifying a unified galaxy which is the same galaxy that is too busy killing each other and doesn't even know about the reapers.

Ultimately, I think the main reason people blow up the base rather than keep it is because they want to feel good about themselves , "stick it to the man," and understand that Bioware will reward blind optimism just like they have done before.

First, I'm never a "paragon". I am always a mix that turns out to be about 70% paragon, 30% renegade.

Second, I did a pretty damn good job of defeating the Collectors and everything they had to toss my way, plus a partially complete Reaper with less than a dozen crew in their own base. I'd say that seems to be pretty damn good. Who needs their tech when the team can take them on (repeatedly at that) with mere standard galactic tech.

There's no 'feeling good about myself' involved. It is simply a cost-benefit analysis vs Cerberus (please recall Cerberus from ME1. You spent a large portion of your time dealing with crimes against humanity and similar crimes against non-humanity).

Cerberus, based on ME1 and ME2, would NOT use the base to the benefit of humanity, it would use it for the benefit of humanity as Cerberus saw it, and that means too damn bad non-humans or any humans that disagree with Cerberus judgements. Oh, and then there's the fact that Cerberus is private/corporate. Sorry, corporations don't get to make judgements on what is, or is not, in the "best interests of humanity". The People do.

By the way, you get a host of ominous warnings if you keep the base from virtually EVERYONE on your crew. I doubt that Bioware put that in there just for giggles, though it is always possible. I suggest those warnings portend something more. You may be dealing with Cerberus in a direct adversarial role AGAIN (ala ME1) only they will be all Collectored up.

Modifié par Getorex, 28 octobre 2010 - 08:18 .

[Markinator_123]

Getorex wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

Once again, people are more fearful of Cerberus than the Reapers. Do some of you forget that you are dealing with an enemy that has committed galactic extinction god-knows-how many times? The opportunity to learn about reaper technologies, how they shut down relays, indoctrination, their guns, their structures, etc are probably only the few things that you could learn from that base. While that base may not win the war, I am sure that it will help. Some of you paragons I bet have no clue on how to fight reapers other fortifying a unified galaxy which is the same galaxy that is too busy killing each other and doesn't even know about the reapers.

Ultimately, I think the main reason people blow up the base rather than keep it is because they want to feel good about themselves , "stick it to the man," and understand that Bioware will reward blind optimism just like they have done before.

First, I'm never a "paragon". I am always a mix that turns out to be about 70% paragon, 30% renegade.

Second, I did a pretty damn good job of defeating the Collectors and everything they had to toss my way, plus a partially complete Reaper with less than a dozen crew in their own base. I'd say that seems to be pretty damn good. Who needs their tech when the team can take them on (repeatedly at that) with mere standard galactic tech.

There's no 'feeling good about myself' involved. It is simply a cost-benefit analysis vs Cerberus (please recall Cerberus from ME1. You spent a large portion of your time dealing with crimes against humanity and similar crimes against non-humanity).

Cerberus, based on ME1 and ME2, would NOT use the base to the benefit of humanity, it would use it for the benefit of humanity as Cerberus saw it, and that means too damn bad non-humans or any humans that disagree with Cerberus judgements.

By the way, you get a host of ominous warnings if you keep the base from virtually EVERYONE on your crew. I doubt that Bioware put that in there just for giggles, though it is always possible. I suggest those warnings portend something more. You may be dealing with Cerberus in a direct adversarial role AGAIN (ala ME1) only they will be all Collectored up.

I don't consider beating a Reaper's minions and baby reaper (that was nowhere close to being even near done) much of a victory even if you had everyone survive. I am sorry but I don't have that much faith in Shepard. As far as the squadmates opinion about the collector base decision is concerned, it was a case of bad writing because those who favored the decision at time of making it, were opposed to it once you made the decision. It was such a poor writing inconsistency that it was offensive and borderline insulting.

[Arijharn]

I wouldn't say it was 'bad writing' really, but I would consider it a cheap shot to my decision in the sense that they're trying to almost send me into a guilt trip. But I draw solace from the fact that not one of those sanctimonious bastards offered me a workable solution.

[Getorex]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

Once again, people are more fearful of Cerberus than the Reapers. Do some of you forget that you are dealing with an enemy that has committed galactic extinction god-knows-how many times? The opportunity to learn about reaper technologies, how they shut down relays, indoctrination, their guns, their structures, etc are probably only the few things that you could learn from that base. While that base may not win the war, I am sure that it will help. Some of you paragons I bet have no clue on how to fight reapers other fortifying a unified galaxy which is the same galaxy that is too busy killing each other and doesn't even know about the reapers.

Ultimately, I think the main reason people blow up the base rather than keep it is because they want to feel good about themselves , "stick it to the man," and understand that Bioware will reward blind optimism just like they have done before.

First, I'm never a "paragon". I am always a mix that turns out to be about 70% paragon, 30% renegade.

Second, I did a pretty damn good job of defeating the Collectors and everything they had to toss my way, plus a partially complete Reaper with less than a dozen crew in their own base. I'd say that seems to be pretty damn good. Who needs their tech when the team can take them on (repeatedly at that) with mere standard galactic tech.

There's no 'feeling good about myself' involved. It is simply a cost-benefit analysis vs Cerberus (please recall Cerberus from ME1. You spent a large portion of your time dealing with crimes against humanity and similar crimes against non-humanity).

Cerberus, based on ME1 and ME2, would NOT use the base to the benefit of humanity, it would use it for the benefit of humanity as Cerberus saw it, and that means too damn bad non-humans or any humans that disagree with Cerberus judgements.

By the way, you get a host of ominous warnings if you keep the base from virtually EVERYONE on your crew. I doubt that Bioware put that in there just for giggles, though it is always possible. I suggest those warnings portend something more. You may be dealing with Cerberus in a direct adversarial role AGAIN (ala ME1) only they will be all Collectored up.

I don't consider beating a Reaper's minions and baby reaper (that was nowhere close to being even near done) much of a victory even if you had everyone survive. I am sorry but I don't have that much faith in Shepard. As far as the squadmates opinion about the collector base decision is concerned, it was a case of bad writing because those who favored the decision at time of making it, were opposed to it once you made the decision. It was such a poor writing inconsistency that it was offensive and borderline insulting.

End of ME1. Shepard and two squadmates defeated a Reaper all on their own. They didn't beat Saren, they didn't beat the Geth, they beat a Reaper. That Saren-thingy WAS a Reaper.

And you cannot simply brush off Cerberus' past (and present) with handwaving unless you entered ME ONLY via ME2 where there is no actual history for Cerberus. If you came in only at ME2, then you are a victim of retcon.

[Arijharn]

That Saren-thingy was a husk type 'possessed' Reaper that sure, had Reaper designed implants, but wasn't a Reaper. The Reaper was the thing that was attached to the Citadel remember? That Reaper was when killing Saren knocked down it's shields so Joker could fire the coup de grace remember?



If a man producing a salad accidently chops off his finger which gets lost in the salad, is that salad therefore a man? That's basically the crux of your argument which is patently false.

[Getorex]

Arijharn wrote...

That Saren-thingy was a husk type 'possessed' Reaper that sure, had Reaper designed implants, but wasn't a Reaper. The Reaper was the thing that was attached to the Citadel remember? That Reaper was when killing Saren knocked down it's shields so Joker could fire the coup de grace remember?



If a man producing a salad accidently chops off his finger which gets lost in the salad, is that salad therefore a man? That's basically the crux of your argument which is patently false.

It did more than "drop its shields". It did real damage to it. It lost self control, it began losing its grip on the citadel prominence it was connected to. You can hand wave all you want but it still boils down to a group of less than a dozen defeating EVERYTHING the Reaper could throw at them, including itself.

The Collector base is clearly of no particular importance in defeating them, a group of 3 ultimately defeated his DIRECT controlled proxy. Consider the Saren husk thing a telepresence. The Reaper was there in the Saren husk. It was NOT a husk husk, it was not a robot, it was directly controlled and empowered by the Reaper. It was defeated by a dude (Shep) and two chicks in my case.

You STILL ignore Cerberus from ME1. You are literally retconning yourself rather than being retconned by the writers.

[Arijharn]

The fact is though that Saren wasn't plated in a weird organic metal that was constructed from the bodies of millions. He didn't have thanix weapons. You said it; it was 'telepresence.' If I Mind Controlled you it may be my thoughts that direct you, but you are the one physically doing the deed. It's your body even though it's my intent.



Sure, the fight against Sovereign was a victory, but why would any sane person suspect that defeating Sovereign in that fashion is going to be exactly the same for all the other Reapers out there, or do you really believe that they'll all possess some convenient proxies so that we can shoot them with our Assault Rifles or scope via our Sniper Rifles?



Saren was re-forged using Reaper technology, but that doesn't make him any more a Reaper than your human made gun being an actual human.



I don't 'ignore' Cerberus, I see them as being the necessary evil to work with in order to settle this mess (the Reapers). My fear of what the Reapers can do (what was it? ~740 cycles in at least the 37 million years we know they existed and pre-supposing a civilisation evolves every 50,000?) makes them startingly, even glaringly more obvious an immediate threat to anything a 'terrorist' organisation can muster in what ~20-30 years of it's existence. In any case, should a human controlled galaxy emerge from the Reaper's ashes, then I would argue that this result is infinitely more preferable than one in which we all die.



Lets just rehash that last bit because I honestly think the enormity of that situation is lost on some people. We all die. This means of course

- No more Shephard

- No more Shephard's family/friends, indeed no more humanity, left on Earth or it's colonies or on it's space stations or space vessels.

- No more Turian Hierarchy -- no more Turian's

- No more Elcor

- No more Asari

- No more Quarian's

- No more Salarian's

- No more Hanar

- No more Raloi

- No more Krogan

- No more Yahg

- No more Geth (perhaps? -- maybe they'll be the lucky ones to 'survive.')

- No more Volus

- No more Vorcha

- No more Batarian's

- Consider that Citadel space is less than 1% explored; what's there to assume that in the other 99% intelligent life doesn't exist?



Maybe your mileage varies, but to me, galactic stability means more than just who sits on the Citadel Council (or even for that matter, which species). It means that the infrastructure and the individual governments that exist as each sovereign entities of their own species must also continue to exist and to reliably function as best they're able.



In other words; I personally welcome the Cerberus 'ret-con' as you paint it, because just because something is as it was originally portrayed doesn't mean that it was the best way automatically... and lets face it, any side that is uniformly good or uniformly bad is completely and utterly boring.

[GuardianAngel470]

Why exactly does this thread keep getting renewed? It has to be the most stagnant discussion on the whole forum.



What exactly is the purpose?

[Pacifien]

No discussing why threads exist. Or what you think of the thread. Or discussing threads on the forums in general. You can discuss the topics that are the purpose of the threads. Or you can move on.

Modifié par Pacifien, 29 octobre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Getorex wrote...

You STILL ignore Cerberus from ME1. You are literally retconning yourself rather than being retconned by the writers.

Cerberus from ME1 is the same Cerberus as from ME2.

In ME1 you dind't know anything about Cerberus, but that they were doing "evil experiments". What were their goals and motives was enigmatic in the very least.

But I was thinking that they might not be "rogue" as soon as Kahoku told me they were. I said to myself: "They went rogue, so now the Alliance stonewalls own admirals who want to investigate it in connection to death of a marines unit. Rrright..."

ME2 only confirmed my suspicions that Cerberus has always remained the Alliance's "Dirty Stuff" branch.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 29 octobre 2010 - 07:17 .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Ah Zulu, why aren't you so strident about this topic as you were 4 months ago? The very feel of your language has gone from bombastic to what might be described as "trying to be rational" (read: meek)...

I dare say, i know why....

Modifié par JohnnyBeGood2, 29 octobre 2010 - 07:19 .

[RiouHotaru]

...Where are people getting the idea that the Reapers always strike every 50k years? You do realize that's likely not long enough between galactic extinction cycles most likely, right?

[Zulu_DFA]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

Ah Zulu, why aren't you so strident about this topic as you were 4 months ago? The very feel of your language has gone from bombastic to what might be described as "trying to be rational" (read: meek)...

I dare say, i know why....

I believe it's your perception that fluctuates.

[Asheer_Khan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...Where are people getting the idea that the Reapers always strike every 50k years? You do realize that's likely not long enough between galactic extinction cycles most likely, right?

ME 1 gives pretty clear explanation that reapers strike every 50 000 years and even in ME 2 e-mail from Chorban (Salarian scientist from ME 1 "scan the keepers" side quest) confirm that he discover that keepers have been genetic moded to respond at unknown signal every 50 000 years.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Ah Zulu, why aren't you so strident about this topic as you were 4 months ago? The very feel of your language has gone from bombastic to what might be described as "trying to be rational" (read: meek)...
I dare say, i know why....

I believe it's your perception that fluctuates.

It had better... the only other conclusion is:

[Getorex]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Getorex wrote...

You STILL ignore Cerberus from ME1. You are literally retconning yourself rather than being retconned by the writers.

Cerberus from ME1 is the same Cerberus as from ME2.

In ME1 you dind't know anything about Cerberus, but that they were doing "evil experiments". What were their goals and motives was enigmatic in the very least.

But I was thinking that they might not be "rogue" as soon as Kahoku told me they were. I said to myself: "They went rogue, so now the Alliance stonewalls own admirals who want to investigate it in connection to death of a marines unit. Rrright..."

ME2 only confirmed my suspicions that Cerberus has always remained the Alliance's "Dirty Stuff" branch.

I consider that too (or consider them to be a futuristic version of Blackwater/Xe) and that doesn't make them acceptable to me at all - quite the opposite, in fact. The idea makes me want to undermine and wreck them even more, as well as ferret out the sh*ts in the Alliance responsible for feeding and supporting the nasty f*cks.

[Ieldra]

I still wonder why people apparently consider Cerberus a greater evil than the Reapers. Or rather no, I suspect why, but I can't understand how people can't get over that irrational attitude. It's as if seeing the likes of David Archer tied to that (admittedly horrible, but laughably implausible) contraption blinds people to the fact that the Reapers are the ultimate evil: no one will survive if they win.

I get why people hate Cerberus. I also get why they don't hate the Reapers - they are too big a threat for hate. But I cannot believe that people let that hate rule their actions instead of necessity - in the face of a threat to the survival of everything. I must say it's an attitude similar to the Council's.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 octobre 2010 - 09:29 .

[SmokeyPSD]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I still wonder why people apparently consider Cerberus a greater evil than the Reapers. Or rather no, I suspect why, but I can't understand how people can't get over that irrational attitude. It's as if seeing the likes of David Archer tied to that (admittedly horrible, but laughably implausible) contraption blinds people to the fact that the Reapers are the ultimate evil: no one will survive if they win.

I get why people hate Cerberus. I also get why they don't hate the Reapers - they are too big a threat for hate. But I cannot believe that people let that hate rule their actions instead of necessity - in the face of a threat to the survival of everything. I must say it's an attitude similar to the Council's.

Completely agree with this.

[Googlesaurus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I still wonder why people apparently consider Cerberus a greater evil than the Reapers. Or rather no, I suspect why, but I can't understand how people can't get over that irrational attitude. It's as if seeing the likes of David Archer tied to that (admittedly horrible, but laughably implausible) contraption blinds people to the fact that the Reapers are the ultimate evil: no one will survive if they win.

I get why people hate Cerberus. I also get why they don't hate the Reapers - they are too big a threat for hate. But I cannot believe that people let that hate rule their actions instead of necessity - in the face of a threat to the survival of everything. I must say it's an attitude similar to the Council's.

And yet The Illusive Man himself seems to have the same attitude. 

[Dave of Canada]

Googlesaurus wrote...

And yet The Illusive Man himself seems to have the same attitude.

I don't see how, he's actively working to prepare for war.

[chris025657]

Googlesaurus wrote...

And yet The Illusive Man himself seems to have the same attitude. 

Not really. TIM doesn't put hate above the Reaper threat. Zaeed's killed dozens of Cerberus operatives and Shepard could have shut down several Cerberus operations. However, he recognizes their value against the Reapers and makes the rational decision. 

[Markinator_123]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I still wonder why people apparently consider Cerberus a greater evil than the Reapers. Or rather no, I suspect why, but I can't understand how people can't get over that irrational attitude. It's as if seeing the likes of David Archer tied to that (admittedly horrible, but laughably implausible) contraption blinds people to the fact that the Reapers are the ultimate evil: no one will survive if they win.

I get why people hate Cerberus. I also get why they don't hate the Reapers - they are too big a threat for hate. But I cannot believe that people let that hate rule their actions instead of necessity - in the face of a threat to the survival of everything. I must say it's an attitude similar to the Council's.

Could not have said it better myself! At this point in time Shepard can't really afford to pick and choose his/her allies. Shepard needs all the help he/she can get. Honestly, that's what my playthroughs have been mostly about. I kept the genophage data, rewrote the heretics,  save the rachni queen and kept the collector base. Are all the parties involved in these decisions trustworthy? No. However, it is important to realize that you can't be paralyzed by a lack of trust or else you will get nowhere.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 30 octobre 2010 - 01:15 .

[Dave of Canada]

Sort-of ontopic and I don't believe I've seen it anywhere, I've also been unable to find it anywhere on the internet. Blue names are those who support blowing it up and Red being those who wanted to keep it. Just wrote it off my recent Paragon save.

At the base itself.
Tali: Shepard, we fought to stop it. Us using it doesn't make it right.
Jack: Seriously? Shepard, he's a user - just like Collectors.
Thane: Shepard, I've made a life of killing those who deserve to die. We must struggle to not become what we hate.
Samara: You have not really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods.
Miranda: I'm not so sure. Seeing it first hand - using anything from this base seems like a betrayal.
Kasumi: Shep, he's talking about doing it all again. How will that help anything?
Jacob: It's better because we'll do it? Shepard, this is way over the line.
Grunt: He's right. When your enemy gives you a weapon, you use it. You might not get another chance.
Zaeed: Someone gives you a weapon, you don't complain that it's dirty - you use it.
Mordin: Hmm... Agreed. Collector base horrific. Vile experiments, but should use what's here. Risks galaxy to ignore opportunity.
Legion: Shepard-Commander, this facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.
Garrus: I don't know, Shepard. What happened here was horrible, but we have to stop the Reapers. If we destroy this base, then all these people died for nothing.

On the ship after choosing to keep the base.
Tali: I know you're working with Cerberus, but turning over the base to them was dangerous. I hope it doesn't come back to haunt us.
Jack: I can't believe you gave that base to Cerberus. You know how they **** with everything they touch. Guess we can just hope they blow their own asses off.
Samara: I am not sure it was wise to hand that base over to the Illusive Man. Cerberus has a very... narrow view of the galaxy. Nonetheless, the choice was yours to make, and I respect that.
Thane: I'm disquieted, Shepard. I trust you, but not the one you work for. He is driven by wrath and fear.  I fear all we've done is make him a giant.
Miranda: Before we started this mission, I never would've questioned our goals... I just hope we made the right choice. I hope whatever Cerberus finds at that base is worth it.
Jacob: Glad we gave the Collectors what they deserved, Shepard. Can't say I like handing their assets over to the Illusive Man, but at least humanity is in the clear. For now, anyway. The Collectors aren't the end of it. Can't be. I don't know what kind of time we have, but we better dust off and stay ready. You sure as hell know how to make enemies.
Grunt: The fight was great, Shepard. But giving Cerberus the base was... weak. This "Man" of theirs, he hides. He was smart to get you, but a real battlemaster charges with his clan.
Legion: An interesting choice, Sherpard-Commander. The Old Machines offered your race what the geth aspire to. Unity. Transcendence.  Now you possess the knowledge yourselves. We hope you do not use it. Your species has much potential. You should build your own future.
Garrus: I hope Cerberus can figure out what to do with all that tech. I also hope they don't decide to do something worse than what the Collectors were planning. Watch yourself, Shepard.
Mordin: Cerberus better than Collectors. Still wouldn't turn base over to them. Risky. More than risky. Dangerous. Hope you know what you're doing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2010 - 01:54 .