504 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Really? Paragon players by this point have severed their ties with TIM, and Renegade ones are getting major dark foreshadowing in the aftermath of the base decision. Having them remain allies seems highly unlikely.

[Count Viceroy]

I think Shepard will go independent in Me3, Cerberus will be one of many factions you can gain support from if you want.(Council, krogan, Quarian, Geth, Rachni, Cerberus, Alliance)

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 20 novembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Really? Paragon players by this point have severed their ties with TIM

TIM still considers a future opportunity to work with Shepard, base exploded or not.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Really? Paragon players by this point have severed their ties with TIM

TIM still considers a future opportunity to work with Shepard, base exploded or not.

Not to mention Shepard was 100% successful in completing what he was brought back for: stopping the Collectors.

[Asheer_Khan]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

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.

Are you stealth Bioware representative to stated such claims?

However IF this will be the case then this will be another proof that Bioware have player choices where sun never rises... <_<

[mopotter]

Count Viceroy wrote...

I think Shepard will go independent in Me3, Cerberus will be one of many factions you can gain support from if you want.(Council, krogan, Quarian, Geth, Rachni, Cerberus, Alliance)

I actually like this idea.  One of my Shepards is still a spectre and some who aren't, some who saved the base some who didn't.   I could see any of them deciding to work alone at the start and then bringing in their allies as the game progresses.  Even having to figure out some way to get the council and cerberus working together, the old enemy of my enemy thing.    

[mopotter]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

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.

Are you stealth Bioware representative to stated such claims?

However IF this will be the case then this will be another proof that Bioware have player choices where sun never rises... <_<

I don't trust TIM and would be happy for the chance to kill him in ME3 - because he's been playing with things and has become indoctrinated himself - or actually any other reason and I would definitely not turn my back on him without a mirror I could watch him and his guards in, but really, I do think if the everyone is facing destruction Shepard may have to find a way to work with Cerberus.  And I wouldn't feel that my choices were not being considered.  Most of my Shepards willl always distrust TIM.

I would not want Shepard to work for Cerberus, but with them.  History shows that people who hate one another can work together for the time it takes to destroy the threat.   Of course once the threat is gone, it's a whole new story.  

[wookieeassassin]

Yeah, I actually remember a Cerberus information thing saying that they used highly advanced video editing software for, I think, recruiting purposes. Whatever it was that said that said it basically looked real.

[wookieeassassin]

It still makes no sense why the only choices you have are to give it to a terrorist group or destroy it. At the very least you could've told the Alliance or the Citadel about it and they could have said "yes we can go there" or "are you crazy Shepard? We'll cause a galactic war if we do that!"



The only "renegade" part of the the renegade choice is giving it to Cerberus. If you had the chance of trying to give it to either the Council or the Alliance it would've been perfectly fine. The whole paragon shepard argument of "BUT PEOPLE DIED HERE!" is stupid. If you have Legion with you he pretty much tells you this: "Shepard Commander, this base has no intrinsic moral value..."



Anyway, in the end I'm not sure it will make a difference or not. Someone actually said that in one of the novels that Cerberus got some of the tech after the base explosion anyway. I don't know if that is true, but if it is it basically makes your decision almost null and void.

[chris025657]

wookieeassassin wrote...

It still makes no sense why the only choices you have are to give it to a terrorist group or destroy it. At the very least you could've told the Alliance or the Citadel about it and they could have said "yes we can go there" or "are you crazy Shepard? We'll cause a galactic war if we do that!"

Seeing as the relay to the Collector base is in the same system as Omega, I imagine trying to get the Council or the Alliance to conduct an intensive study of the base would be difficult if not impossible. 

The whole paragon shepard argument of "BUT PEOPLE DIED HERE!" is stupid. If you have Legion with you he pretty much tells you this: "Shepard Commander, this base has no intrinsic moral value..."

Yeah, there was a whole lot of idiocy spouted off as reasons for keeping or destroying the base. For example, Shepard saying keeping the base throws all rules out the window or destroying it because it's an abomination.

Then there was this exchange:

Samara: You have not really defeated your enemies if you adopt their methods.

TIM: An alien can't understand the risks this represents to humanity.

At no point would studying the base mean that humanity now wants to exterminate all sentient life. Samara point isn't wrong because she's an alien, surely she could recognize the Reapers as a threat to all species. 

Anyway, in the end I'm not sure it will make a difference or not. Someone actually said that in one of the novels that Cerberus got some of the tech after the base explosion anyway. I don't know if that is true, but if it is it basically makes your decision almost null and void.

It's possible that this decision will have little effect in ME 3, but the optimist in me hopes that the writers give us some meaningful consequences of actions taken in past games.  

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

chris025657 wrote...

Anyway, in the end I'm not sure it will make a difference or not. Someone actually said that in one of the novels that Cerberus got some of the tech after the base explosion anyway. I don't know if that is true, but if it is it basically makes your decision almost null and void.

It's possible that this decision will have little effect in ME 3, but the optimist in me hopes that the writers give us some meaningful consequences of actions taken in past games.  

If I had to guess it will probably have about as much of an impact as the Council decision did in ME2. Maybe a little bit more. I think it's simply a resource problem. They can't (and shouldn't) waste tons of resources on two extremely divergent story arcs.

[Rekkampum]

I kept the Collector Base in a couple of my playthroughs, both paragon and renegade, and destroyed it in the rest of them. While it seems logical to keep the base and its technology rather than destroy it, we all know TIM would use the tech for his own ulterior motives. I could understand if this tech was shared with the Alliance - which is highly unlikely - but that isn't the case.

Arguments for/against keeping it were poorly-done, but they perfectly captured how any empathic human would think when tasked with such a difficult choice, as we rarely do things simply because it's the logical route. By that argument, keeping the Teltin facility on Pragia and allowing Maelon to continue his genophage research would have been feasible. In the end, this is an argument that can't really be won with logic, but with personal opinion.

Modifié par Rekkampum, 21 novembre 2010 - 08:21 .

[Dave of Canada]

Rekkampum wrote...

I could understand if this tech was shared with the Alliance - which is highly unlikely - but that isn't the case.

Most Cerberus projects go to the Alliance when completed and working, though. It's how "humanity" gets the improvements instead of the 12 or so Cerberus operatives.

[Rekkampum]

Exactly, "most", but not all. Since, the Alliance is now tied with the Council, I think it would be considered "suicide" in the eyes of TIM if he shared information that other races could use.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

So what IF TIM could use it for ulterior motives? We use against the reapers and if TIM is getting out of hand with it, just go get rid of him then. You mean to say that all the races that just defeated the reapers can't take out whatever TIM creates with the base? lmao, right.

[Rekkampum]

^

Easier said than done, if you've been reading the books.

[-Skorpious-]

*my comment from the poll on the first page*

Giving a loaded gun to a child is both stupid and dangerous (even if robbers have broke into your home) - destroyed the base for the potential threat it presents.

[mosor]

-Skorpious- wrote...

*my comment from the poll on the first page*
Giving a loaded gun to a child is both stupid and dangerous (even if robbers have broke into your home) - destroyed the base for the potential threat it presents.

So is trying to destroy a tank by charging it with your horse and lance- saved the base to better prepare for the certain threat that's coming.

Modifié par mosor, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:26 .

[Xilizhra]

Clearly you've never heard of Spearman vs. Tank.

[Arijharn]

wookie; even if you did tell the Council "Btw, there's a super advanced base with interesting tech in the galactic core" they still wouldn't be able to get it because of the legal minefield that is the Terminus systems, and that's even assuming they'll just accept Shephard's word at face value (since you know, when has that happened? To be fair though; I wouldn't just blindly trust the word of anyone either, and Shephard's recruitment into the Spectre's hasn't got really anything to do with their faith in his abilities, but because it was politically expedient to do so. Shephard is good at what he does and if you save the original council, they owe you their lives, but still... it would be I feel asinine for them to just trust me just like that).



But for the purposes of argument, lets just say the Council did trust your word; how on Earth are they going to get to it? It's past the Omega-4 relay, the basic hub of the Terminus Systems, the 'dark citadel' if you will. Considering the Terminus Systems are the Terminus Systems, then any act that the Council does could be seen as an invasion which is something that the Council are desperate to avoid.



If I was to tell you that Area 51 had definitive proof that extra-terrestial life exists, what good is that information without your ability to verify it? You can attempt to break into Area 51, but in all honesty, your chances of successfully breaching it's defences are zilch, you'll be turned around at the fence before you've managed to even scale it and even if you managed to make a sizeable penetration, then armed security guards would penetrate your body with NATO rounds fired from M16's.

[Ieldra]

Rekkampum wrote...
I kept the Collector Base in a couple of my playthroughs, both paragon and renegade, and destroyed it in the rest of them. While it seems logical to keep the base and its technology rather than destroy it, we all know TIM would use the tech for his own ulterior motives. I could understand if this tech was shared with the Alliance - which is highly unlikely - but that isn't the case.

Arguments for/against keeping it were poorly-done, but they perfectly captured how any empathic human would think when tasked with such a difficult choice, as we rarely do things simply because it's the logical route. By that argument, keeping the Teltin facility on Pragia and allowing Maelon to continue his genophage research would have been feasible. In the end, this is an argument that can't really be won with logic, but with personal opinion.

Actually, the good arguments for either keeping the base or destroying it are based on risk estimation. Logic does come into it, but it depends heavily on how you see the situation we find ourselves in. How desperately do we need a tech upgrade against the Reapers (IMO: very)? How like is it that we can get that without the base, how like is it that the base will help with that? How likely is it that so much Cerberus personnel gets indoctrinated while studying the base that having it will be more hindrance than help against the Reapers?

The conditions to make destroying the base a supportable decision are this:
(1) We must be able to get the needed technological upgrade from other sources.
(2) The chance that the base in the hands of Cerberus poses a decisive disadvantage in the war against the Reapers must be estimated to be greater than the chance of an intact base being a decisive advantage.

In my opinion, most people who argue for destroying the base overestimate the chance that a big Cerberus f*ckup will result in a decisive disadvantage. I don't doubt that a Cerberus f*ckup is a distinct possibility, but I very much doubt it would be decisive for a defeat, and if it isn't, then the advantages still outweigh the drawbacks, because I do think there is - metagaming aside - a distinct chance that the sum of the information gained from the base will be decisive for victory. The derelict Reaper would have been a better source, but unfortunately it has been swallowed by a brown dwarf.

[mosor]

Xilizhra wrote...

Clearly you've never heard of Spearman vs. Tank.

Spearmen destroying my tank annoyed me to no end in Civ. I guess if it works in Civ, then we should just mount some hanar on some elcor and have them take care of the reapers for us. Shepard is too busy being a pimp to save the galaxy anyway.

[Inverness Moon]

Xilizhra wrote...

Clearly you've never heard of Spearman vs. Tank.

I've heard of plenty of unrealistic game mechanics like that and Tali and Legion's AI hacking, what's your point?

[Rekkampum]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, the good arguments for either keeping the base or destroying it are based on risk estimation. Logic does come into it, but it depends heavily on how you see the situation we find ourselves in. How desperately do we need a tech upgrade against the Reapers (IMO: very)? How like is it that we can get that without the base, how like is it that the base will help with that? How likely is it that so much Cerberus personnel gets indoctrinated while studying the base that having it will be more hindrance than help against the Reapers?

Risk estimation is part of all processes of decision-making, inherently steeped in logical reasoning, so the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The conditions to make destroying the base a supportable decision are this:
(1) We must be able to get the needed technological upgrade from other sources.
(2) The chance that the base in the hands of Cerberus poses a decisive disadvantage in the war against the Reapers must be estimated to be greater than the chance of an intact base being a decisive advantage.

Your conditions are too narrow. You have not included chances that Cerberus already has knowledge of Reaper technology - which it does, considering EDI was created with it - or that other races have advanced technology which could pose a significant threat to the Reapers. Cerberus isn't interested in other races and their concerns, but the furthering of "humanity". Paragon Shepard said that TIM would try to build his own Reaper and -voila! - we get the premise of Retributions. By far, the dangers that Cerberus poses - even to Humanity- are very underrated.

To note, it wasn't Reaper technology that was used to to defeat the Collectors, but the combined knowledge of the Council races and those affiliated. One could say that people who kept the base "overestimated" the threat of the Reapers and the ingenuity of the very races themselves just as much as those implying the opposite, but that's irrelevant. In the end, keeping or destroying the base can be defended logically, but it is one's own personal values that make their decision the "right" choice.