504 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

SmokeyPSD wrote...

... Why do people just assume using the base automatically means continuing on with the "harvesting". It doesn't make sense to me at all.

That's all on BioWare. They loaded the keep-the-base decision with 5000 cc's of sinister.

There's all these comments about "becoming no better than the Reapers" and "next thing I know you'll want to build your own Reaper" and "are you kidding, Shepard, he'll just start it all over again".

[Arijharn]

wookieeassassin wrote...
I don't understand why there wasn't an option to have the Alliance and/or the Council come check it out. It makes it a ridiculously binary decision to either destroy it or just give it to Cerberus. This is kind of like how Shepard didn't try to ask the Alliance or the Council for help at all before starting to work with Cerberus.

You are completely wrong. The reason why? Because the base exists in a middle of a vast legal no mans land for the Council. If the Council undertakes any official capacity in the area they risk 'unifying the dissidents.' The Terminus Systems are called the Terminus Systems because they do not recognise the authority of the Council.

Considering where the Collector base is, I think there'd be enough trouble as it is for Cerberus getting to it (I mean, Omega-4 presumably has ladar detection facilities that lie outside the asteroid range, because otherwise Moklan wouldn't have made some comments about Shephard not being as 'subtle as he thinks.'), let alone the Council moving supplies (and ships, principally defensive platforms) into the area.

The Terminus groups/species watch the Council like hawks, I remember a Cerberus News thing that mentioned that the individual government groups and species picked up their military activities whenever the Council did their 'sabre rattling.'

Believe it or not, there's a reason why Cerberus is the only group that has a chance to investigate the base, and that reason has a large amount due to the unstable politics of the region.

[chris025657]

TIM using the base to build a Reaper would be ridiculous for two reasons: first, the significant impracticalities of actually gathering the millions required for a Reaper, and second, even if he did build a Reaper, then what?

TIM is certainly ruthless enough to pursue this path if he felt it would be successful, but I would severely annoyed if Bioware went with the idiocy of this route.

Modifié par chris025657, 20 novembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[Nightwriter]

The Mu Relay is also in the Terminus Systems, but it appears the Council was able to get to Ilos.

[Arijharn]

I doubt doing that was easy though, the Council can't be completely honest about the situation in the galactic core though obviously. It would also depend on I guess where exactly Ilos exists within the Terminus Systems.



Considering O-4 is practically the hub of the Terminus Systems then anything would be a lot more tense.

[Nightwriter]

I actually think it was a bit of an oversight. They probably should have said, "We can't check Ilos out, Shepard, the Mu relay is in the Terminus Systems, how many times must we go over this?"

[AdmiralCheez]

Hm, destroy valuable and potentially dangerous technology that may be key to victory in the upcoming battle? Or give that technology to terrorists bent on assuring the dominance of a single species by any means necessary?



The more you think about it, the grayer it gets. As stupid as those two options are, I like it how neither one is the obviously better decision. It's like being handed a box that could contain either a million dollars or an incredibly deadly strain of anthrax. You can either destroy it, and possibly throw out a million dollars, or open it, and risk getting a faceful of really nasty bacteria. But you can't give it to someone else, nor can you investigate it further or walk away.



Me? I destroyed it on most of my playthroughs, but that's because there was severe hinting that it was the right way to go. And TIM's a jerk. No goodies for TIM.

[chris025657]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Hm, destroy valuable and potentially dangerous technology that may be key to victory in the upcoming battle? Or give that technology to terrorists bent on assuring the dominance of a single species by any means necessary?

The more you think about it, the grayer it gets. As stupid as those two options are, I like it how neither one is the obviously better decision. It's like being handed a box that could contain either a million dollars or an incredibly deadly strain of anthrax. You can either destroy it, and possibly throw out a million dollars, or open it, and risk getting a faceful of really nasty bacteria. But you can't give it to someone else, nor can you investigate it further or walk away.

Me? I destroyed it on most of my playthroughs, but that's because there was severe hinting that it was the right way to go. And TIM's a jerk. No goodies for TIM.

Out of curiosity, in what way do you feel keeping the base is dangerous? 

Most people, according the poll, seem to destroy the base out of a mistrust of TIM. Personally, I feel TIM has done everything he can to demonstrate that he wants to devote all Cerberus's resources and technical expertise to fighting the Reapers and ensuring the survival of humanity. 

[AdmiralCheez]

chris025657 wrote...

Out of curiosity, in what way do you feel keeping the base is dangerous? 

Most people, according the poll, seem to destroy the base out of a mistrust of TIM. Personally, I feel TIM has done everything he can to demonstrate that he wants to devote all Cerberus's resources and technical expertise to fighting the Reapers and ensuring the survival of humanity.

Yes, I voted that.  I mistrust TIM because I did all the sidequests in ME1, thus I know that Cerberus isn't all bunnies and rainbows.    That and his one line, "Cerberus is humanity," really rubbed me the wrong way.  Extremism always ends badly.

Anyway, the answer to your question: Reaper technology is notoriously dangerous.  Even a "dead" one was still able to mind-control and husk-ify an entire crew of scientists.  Plus, look at what happened with Paul Grayson in the last ME novel.  I get the feeling that, no matter what technological wonders the base may hold, it will somehow backfire.

Of course, I would love for Bioware to prove me wrong.  Let the renegades be right for once.  Seriously.

[chris025657]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Anyway, the answer to your question: Reaper technology is notoriously dangerous.  Even a "dead" one was still able to mind-control and husk-ify an entire crew of scientists.  Plus, look at what happened with Paul Grayson in the last ME novel.  I get the feeling that, no matter what technological wonders the base may hold, it will somehow backfire.

Of course, I would love for Bioware to prove me wrong.  Let the renegades be right for once.  Seriously.

I've always thought that there is currently no better group than Cerberus to deal with the dangers of indoctrination. Even before the derelict Reaper project, Cerberus was aware of the indoctrination threat, and I don't think it was reasonable to believe that a Reaper that has been dead for some 37 million of years would still be capable of indoctrination. 

Through these experiences, Cerberus now more fully recognizes that threat and presumably take steps against it in the future. 

[AdmiralCheez]

chris025657 wrote...

I've always thought that there is currently no better group than Cerberus to deal with the dangers of indoctrination. Even before the derelict Reaper project, Cerberus was aware of the indoctrination threat, and I don't think it was reasonable to believe that a Reaper that has been dead for some 37 million of years would still be capable of indoctrination. 

Through these experiences, Cerberus now more fully recognizes that threat and presumably take steps against it in the future.

Yes, but you forget that Cerberus are the "bad guys."  The bad guys have a habit of losing.  Also, they spent four billion credits to bring one guy back from the dead.  They don't seem that smart to me.

[chris025657]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

 Also, they spent four billion credits to bring one guy back from the dead.  They don't seem that smart to me.

While this plot point and the reasoning behind it is questionable, it still demonstrates Cerberus's technical capabilities and commitment to fighting the Reapers. 

[Manic Sheep]

chris025657 wrote...

Out of curiosity, in what way do you feel keeping the base is dangerous? 

Most people, according the poll, seem to destroy the base out of a mistrust of TIM. Personally, I feel TIM has done everything he can to demonstrate that he wants to devote all Cerberus's resources and technical expertise to fighting the Reapers and ensuring the survival of humanity. 

Coming from someone who hasn't read the comics or played overlord and who saved the base:

Well there is the fact that he looks like a James bond villain and likes to sit in ominous lighting. He always comes across as knowing far more than he is telling you (which he dose) and that really your just dancing on his string. He just oozes villain vibes.

Then that the paragon lines which are typically polite and avoid hurting people’s feelings even to enemies, are the dick lines. It’s kind of funny that one of my Sheps is a complete **** but picks up paragon points talking to TIM and you’re a dick to TIM but instantly trust Miranda, Jacob and everyone else in Cerberus. Then spend the whole game screaming HE'S GOING TO BETRAY US only to defend him when he actually dose set you up but I'm getting off topic...

Then experiments form ME1 and Jacks past and loyalty mission. The Cerberus is humanity line and strangely enough the fact that the crew is too friendly and perfect. I mean come on, you have the psychiatrist who wants to sleep with
loves all species and many of the crew are former alliance...almost like they were handpicked specifically to portray a nice image yeah?

They have clearly set him up to be the villain, even before the post suicide mission cut scene

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 20 novembre 2010 - 03:39 .

[chris025657]

Manic Sheep wrote...
They have clearly set him up to be the villain, even before the post suicide mission cut scene

I see it as a bit more complex than TIM simply being a outright villain. He's certainly ruthless and Machiavellian and many of his actions are indefensible, but I think the survival of humanity against the Reaper threat and the advancement of humanity are noble goals.

Plus it's easy to miss things such as Cerberus funneling aid to the survivors on Horizon or caring for the families of Cerberus personnel for example. 
  

[Manic Sheep]

chris025657 wrote...

Manic Sheep wrote...
They have clearly set him up to be the villain, even before the post suicide mission cut scene

I see it as a bit more complex than TIM simply being a outright villain. He's certainly ruthless and Machiavellian and many of his actions are indefensible, but I think the survival of humanity against the Reaper threat and the advancement of humanity are noble goals.

Plus it's easy to miss things such as Cerberus funneling aid to the survivors on Horizon or caring for the families of Cerberus personnel for example. 
  

I didn’t mean that he’s the pure evil comic book villain archetype who destroys things for the sake of destroying things and practices evil laughs in the mirror.
More the villain with noble underlying goals who ends up going too far and then becoming obsessed and getting caught up in a power trip archetype. Like Saren was I suppose.

I didn’t miss the good he does and I actually agree with him on a number of things but I still think they are setting him up to be a villain good intentions or not. I could be wrong of course, I often am but I would be very (pleasantly) surprised if he doesn’t turn out to be one of the big bad guys.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 20 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Arijharn]

I think it would be absolutely foolish, in all honesty, to completely trust TIM. I trust him to do whatever he can to assist me in stopping the Reapers however, because in that at least our goals align. I think any dastardly shenanigans he has in store pales compared to the threat that the Reapers represent for everyone, Cerberus included.



So much about the Reapers are unknown, so much about their (true) capabilities are unknown that I think leaving any stone unturned is in fact grossly irresponsible, because it isn't just you who is going to bite the bullet but everyone else too. To me, the scale of that responsibility is enormous, ergo I can not put my faith in what I would call limitations (aka; a sense of morality) to govern what I should do or not, and its that thought process that rationalises my sense of co-operation with the Cerberus group.



Obviously, any person would take issues with actions that Cerberus has taken in the past, but we're talking about the future here.

[Dave of Canada]

While there's a lot of foreshadowing in the ending scenes, it seems... forced to make you feel bad, as if the writers dislike people who do the Renegade choices and the Paragons get high fives from everybody for doing their own irresponsible thing.



Who knows? Maybe they'll surprise us and TIM isn't going to be as evil as people make him out to be on the forums, however the game certainly pushes that idea forward. This is coming from somebody who actually likes TIM.



Though what Cerberus can accomplish with the base aside from information and superior weaponry is very little, more so if you consider Retribution in the mix. If in the epilogue it says "TIM CREATED A REAPER AND IT KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE" I'll just facepalm at the stupidity of everything about it.

[CroGamer002]

I'm for both so I have multiple playtroughs to go with both.

[Xilizhra]

I had a thought about what might happen; it seems less than likely, as it might be a bit too unbalancing, but:

If you save the base, TIM goes mad with power and does something to screw with the Reaper-fighting efforts, and you have to kill him.

If you destroy it, TIM is pissed off, but eventually admits that you were right and that he couldn't be trusted with that power at that time, and you actually do get Cerberus forces fighting the Reapers.

[GodWood]

Is that a joke?

[Xilizhra]

Well, sort of. Like I said, I seriously doubt it'd actually happen, since while it would fit the seeming pattern of "Paragon choices make your army bigger, Renegade ones don't," it might unbalance the scales too much. I think we'll have to fight Cerberus in ME3 regardless of our choice here.



If my idle guess turned out to be right, I'd laugh very hard.

[GodWood]

Might as well have it as; if Shepard is paragon, the Reapers apologise for their misdeeds and promise to never bother anyone again.

[Dave of Canada]

Shepard spares the Reapers and they start an orphanage on the Citadel for every orphan from the Reaper / "human" war.



Harbinger will go "You spared the base and you gave it to Cerberus? You did a bad thing, man" and then fly away into dark space.

[Xilizhra]

Well, it would be quite the unexpected twist, yes?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

We are not fighting Cerberus in ME3. It's not going to happen. They are on our side against the Reapers whether you like it or not. You may consider them "villains," but they're as interested as anyone in preventing the Reaper apocalypse.