504 réponses à ce sujet

[mosor]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Honestly? I think the Paragon ending will equal Humanity sacrificing itself for the others races, which will result in the destruction of Earth. Humanity will become the new version of Quarians without a home world. The Alliance will be in pieces. But the other races will be ok.

While the Renegade ending will have Humanity being on top and ok, while the other races will be in pieces. Leaving them to take over them, and humanity running their lives.

It all depends on the story you want to tell.

If that ends up being  the Paragon eding, then I'm glad I'm heavily renegade.

[tonykart34]

I destroyed the collector base for three reasons:



1. It was a way out of Cerberus and hopefully back at Ashley

2. I dont trust the illusive man. It seemed as though this was his intent from the start... galactic domination with reaper weapons.

3. Why trust leaving that behind? Who knows if the other reapers wouldn't get there first?

[Dean_the_Young]

Elite Midget wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, Midget.  Terrorism, by definition, is a public strategy.

Cerberus has political goals, but does not pursue them by open means meant to invoke, you know, terror. For all their acts, the only ones even known to the public are the failures, and those don't even qualify for mass terror campaigns of any sort.

Call them a cabal, for that is what they are. Call them criminals, for that is also what they are: Shepard in ME2 has a policy of recruiting cameras. But don't sling around emotionally evocative labels that are just wrong.

Not to mention that Cerberus has a habit of killing of those that don't agree with them or know too much about them.

No, only those who know too much.

Much like most secret agencies and governments do 'disappear' people who cross certain lines.

Though their actions do inspire fear to the public though. Everyone that knows Cerberus knows that they're dealing with a very powerful organization that will have you killed if you try to cross them. Combined with the Cerberus agents in the Alliance military and government means that they have no trouble taking down big threats against them. Such as killing an Admiral in ME1. Cerberus had their allies stonewall him but when that didn't work Cerberus silenced him.

It isn't public when so few people no about Cerberus, and 'not crossing with' isn't 'terror,' Midget.

Cerberus is a little known group, not an Al Quada analog. It isn't Hezbolla, or the Shining Path, or Weather Underground, or the Tamil Tigers, or the Lord's Resistance Army, or the IRA, or the Kurdistan's Worker Party, or...

Well, pretty much any actual terrorist group.

Maybe Terrorist might be too strong of a word but it's hard to place another name on them. After all, a Cabal isn't always evil nor doing the amount of inhumane things that Cerberus does. Criminal seems like too weak of a word...

Cerberus doesn't always do evil or inhumane things. As a cell organization, each cell can be likened to its own Cabal.

Cabals can good or bad, and it remains the best descritption. Most malignant conspiraciesare portrayed as cabals: evil Wallstreet Conspiracies, the Masons, the Illuminati, the Military-Industrial Complex ™, these are all examples of popular 'evil' cabals that closer resemble Cerberus than terrorists.

'Good' cabals remain much harder to think of.

[TMA LIVE]

mosor wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Honestly? I think the Paragon ending will equal Humanity sacrificing itself for the others races, which will result in the destruction of Earth. Humanity will become the new version of Quarians without a home world. The Alliance will be in pieces. But the other races will be ok.

While the Renegade ending will have Humanity being on top and ok, while the other races will be in pieces. Leaving them to take over them, and humanity running their lives.

It all depends on the story you want to tell.

If that ends up being  the Paragon eding, then I'm glad I'm heavily renegade.

And I would pick the paragon ending, because I believe more in sacrificing for the greater good, thinking about the long run, and save more them just human lives. Besides, I already like the aliens more then the humans, though I didn't make judgement based on that.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 17 octobre 2010 - 12:18 .

[Nightwriter]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Honestly? I think the Paragon ending will equal Humanity sacrificing itself for the others races, which will result in the destruction of Earth. Humanity will become the new version of Quarians without a home world. The Alliance will be in pieces. But the other races will be ok.

While the Renegade ending will have Humanity being on top and ok, while the other races will be in pieces. Leaving them to take over them, and humanity running their lives.

It all depends on the story you want to tell.

I do not like this, Sam I am, I do not like green eggs and ham.

It's DA:O all over again, every ending sucks.

[Giggles_Manically]

Nightwriter wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Honestly? I think the Paragon ending will equal Humanity sacrificing itself for the others races, which will result in the destruction of Earth. Humanity will become the new version of Quarians without a home world. The Alliance will be in pieces. But the other races will be ok.

While the Renegade ending will have Humanity being on top and ok, while the other races will be in pieces. Leaving them to take over them, and humanity running their lives.

It all depends on the story you want to tell.

I do not like this, Sam I am, I do not like green eggs and ham.

It's DA:O all over again, every ending sucks.

Not every ending really, you can get a happy ending in some cases.
The Loghain Redeemer one is very amazing, and I think about as close to a happy ending you can get (except if you are Alistair).

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...
Honestly? I think the Paragon ending will equal Humanity sacrificing itself for the others races, which will result in the destruction of Earth. Humanity will become the new version of Quarians without a home world. The Alliance will be in pieces. But the other races will be ok.

While the Renegade ending will have Humanity being on top and ok, while the other races will be in pieces. Leaving them to take over them, and humanity running their lives.

It all depends on the story you want to tell.

I do not like this, Sam I am, I do not like green eggs and ham.

It's DA:O all over again, every ending sucks.

While I like my dark endings (destroying all the Mass Relays is my favorite), I wouldn't want to punish those who prefer to play the game for lighter entertainment. Some people thought it was great that DA:O didn't make allowances for people wanting to play a certain way -- you were going to have to swallow a bitter pill whether you wanted to or not. Some people thought it was taking the roleplay and fun away from what is ultimately a level of escape for them.

But DA and ME are not the same games and they don't have to deal with choices in the same manner. It's not likely to be about making the hard choice now and be rewarded for it later, or make the easier choice now and find things difficult later. Based on what little carried over significantly from ME1 to ME2, the choices you make are more about altering the feel of the story you are in versus how the story unfolds.

Keeping the Collector Base is a decision that, whether you want it to or not, ties you to Cerberus. Destroying it can potentially set you free. I can see those destroying it making a statement that they do not want their ME3 experience tied to Cerberus to the point they'd destroy a potentially useful asset just to make sure it won't happen. I can see those keeping it making a statement that they'll accept that collaboration.

So all the choices are simply about whether this trilogy was a paragon's story or a renegade's story. Would I have preferred choices have a bit more pull than that? Yes. No. Did that even make sense?

Anyway, if my dark ending was an option and dependent on decisions being made from ME1 through ME2 into ME3, then Bioware should have done a better job making me feel like my decisions mattered while playing ME2. Now it would be like doesn't matter.... doesn't matter.... doesn't matter.... doesn't matter... holy ****, everyone's dead! Freight train out of nowhere!

Okay, now I'm pretty sure I'm not making sense.

[Therion942]

You're too benevolent Pacifien. In a perfect world, the only way everyone survives in ME3 is if you talked to every NPC and took that one obscure conversation option with C-Sec Officer Lang. Didn't do that? Everyone dies. You lose, good day sir, the reapers win and the future refuses to change.



I however do not think BioWare would survive the backlash >_>

[Giggles_Manically]

Shandepared wrote...

I have yet to hear a rational argument for destroying the base. Does keeping the base entail risk? Yes, it does. However you are taking an even greater risk if you destroy it.

In your opinion.

[Alessar]

Am I the only person who feels that the collector base decision is more about Cerberus than the technology within the collector base?



Keep the base, good standing with Cerberus, you have their support behind you. Destroy the base, you seem to pretty much lose their backing.



I mean while the technology will be useful, will it be usable by the time the reapers arrive? Keeping or losing Cerberus support seems like a more direct option.

[hamtyl07]

for me i'd rather take the risk keeping the base than not possibly having a (and i use this term extremely lightly) "safety net" it could backfire and it could not

[Nightwriter]

I do not play for lighter entertainment. I play for meaningful entertainment. A bad ending invalidates all that came before it.

... And help me out here, Pacifien. I'm lost. You would like a darker ending? You would like choices? You feel them springing a darker ending on us would be unfair? I - I don't under *brain explodes*

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
... And help me out here, Pacifien. I'm lost. You would like a darker ending? You would like choices? You feel them springing a darker ending on us would be unfair? I - I don't under *brain explodes*

Well, to put it differently, what I want is not something I would force on others. I would like a dark ending. Do I think the developers should spring a dark ending upon the unsuspecting? No, not really.

ETA: So to keep on clarifying, springing a dark ending on someone playing a paragon who destroyed the base? Yeah, I wouldn't do that to someone.

Modifié par Pacifien, 17 octobre 2010 - 01:19 .

[TMA LIVE]

Nightwriter wrote...

I do not play for lighter entertainment. I play for meaningful entertainment. A bad ending invalidates all that came before it.

... And help me out here, Pacifien. I'm lost. You would like a darker ending? You would like choices? You feel them springing a darker ending on us would be unfair? I - I don't under *brain explodes*

I don't think you'll ever get a "Reapers win" ending. Well, not unless you did absolutely nothing to try and get the best ending, like not talk to anyone, don't do any side quests, don't upgrade anything, make crappy choices, and never pick a side when given a choice. But those people had it coming (aka, those that got the Shepard Dies ending). However, those that made an effort to do something will get the same ending, except one is more paragon, and the other isn't.

[Pacifien]

Therion942 wrote...
You're too benevolent Pacifien. In a perfect world, the only way everyone survives in ME3 is if you talked to every NPC and took that one obscure conversation option with C-Sec Officer Lang. Didn't do that? Everyone dies. You lose, good day sir, the reapers win and the future refuses to change.

I however do not think BioWare would survive the backlash >_>

..... I'd like to write the guide for how to get that ending, though.

[Iakus]

I blow up the base (yes, I'm paragon) and here's my reasoning:

1) Cerberus has a rather poor overall track record when it comes to playing around with aliens and alien tech.  I mean, how many messes did Shepard have to clean up over ME 1 and 2 when something goes haywire?  With something as particularly dangerous as Reaper tech, Cerberus could well make matters worse for the galaxy before the Reapers even arrive.  Cerberus may be willing to fight the Reapers.  But I am not yet convinced that they respect the power of the Reapers  Either TIM is incredibly callous concerning employee turnover, or he's completely incompetant in overseeing Cerberus projects.  Either way I wouldn't trust him around a bronze knife let alone Sufficiently Advanced technology.

2) This sorta ties in to #1:  potential booby traps.  I'm not talking about just self-destruct mechanisms or dormant husks.  I mean indoctrination gizmos.  There has been at least one UNC and N7 mission which involved humans finding an alien artifact and ending up indoctrinated before they realized what was happening.  Clearly it's not just Reapers themselves that can do that. 

3) I admit a worst case scenerio: we end up fighting Cerberus with Reaper tech.  Anyone who was a fan of Babylon 5 remember the Advanced Omega destroyers?  Granted TIM is probably smart enough not to turn on the Council or other governments before the Reapers are dealt with once and for all (barring alien mind-control or influence, see #2).  But once they are dealt with, you have to deal with an organization which is morally a very dark gray, armed with the most advanced tech in the galaxy and is not known for "playing well with others"  Cerberus may end up becoming, figuratively if not literally, a new race of Reapers.

Granted blowing up the base leaves the Home Team at a disadvantage.  I would have preferred leaving the base for someone whom I felt properly respected the power of the Reapers and had the wisdom to take proper precautions.  Liara or Anderson spring immediately to mind.  It would definitely be useful in understanding the Reapers.  However, I am also of the belief that the key to defeating the Reapers is not in immitating them or duplicating their abilities, but in finding our own way.  For millions of years they have manipulated the course of developement in intelligent life.  They have been writing the playbook, so to speak.  The answer is going to be in learning our own tricks.  Learning something the Reapers don't know yet, Using a weapon the Reapers haven't developed themselves.  The base may teach us who ansd what the Reapers are.  But it won't show us how to win.

[UpDownLeftRight]

Shandepared wrote...

Choices are meaningless without consequences, as is this entire discussion.

As is your life, and mine, from an objective view. Yet you indulge in it.

Any argument can be "rational" from a certain perspective. For some it is more rational to keep the base. For others it's more rational to destroy it.

[AresXX7]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Call them a cabal, for that is what they are. Call them criminals, for that is also what they are: Shepard in ME2 has a policy of recruiting cameras. But don't sling around emotionally evocative labels that are just wrong.

So....what are we talking about here? Nikon, Canon, or Kodak? 


I actually prefer to call them a questionable Human Supremacist Group, myself, whether it's for advancement or dominance, either way it's centered around putting humanity first & foremost on their agenda. I say questionable because of their tactics, as well as the outcomes.

Having said that, I tend to blow up the base, not  because of my feelings towards Cerberus, the stakes are too high for personal issues, but because of their lack of proper safety protocals in dealing with the unknown. I know there are risks, and they have to be taken, but that's when extra safety measures should be utilized.


This last thought is just one of an observational nature:

If TIM is a fan of using monitoring devices, why doesn't he implement them on all of the 'important' projects? Had he used them for Teltan, the derelict reaper and Overlord, he would know whether, or not, the project lead/team members were lying, showing signs of incompetence or going too far. He wouldn't necessarily need to watch them 24/7, but at least do a progress check, visually, on a regular basis, or assign someone to do it.
(just a thought)

[Faolin]

AriesXX7 wrote...
If TIM is a fan of using monitoring devices, why doesn't he implement them on all of the 'important' projects? Had he used them for Teltan, the derelict reaper and Overlord, he would know whether, or not, the project lead/team members were lying, showing signs of incompetence or going too far.

Someone has to install the monitoring devices. Someone knows where they are. Even if TIM managed his staff rotation so that none of the project crew took part in the construction of the project base (which is cumbersome) I can't imagine a project head thinking of going rogue not looking for any bugs (as TIM's control freak nature is fairly widely known).

That, and it's a sci-fi tradition that people experimenting with dangerous technology/aliens NEVER take appropriate and simple security precautions. Because that would put protagonists out of work.

[Inverness Moon]

AriesXX7 wrote...

I actually prefer to call them a questionable Human Supremacist Group, myself, whether it's for advancement or dominance, either way it's centered around putting humanity first & foremost on their agenda. I say questionable because of their tactics, as well as the outcomes.

Having said that, I tend to blow up the base, not  because of my feelings towards Cerberus, the stakes are too high for personal issues, but because of their lack of proper safety protocals in dealing with the unknown. I know there are risks, and they have to be taken, but that's when extra safety measures should be utilized.

I believe TIM's goal is to ensure that no other entity can hold back or threaten humanity. As Legion would say: "to protect our future." To do this, Cerberus engages in several high-risk high-reward operations. Of course there were several problems as evidenced by ME1, but that is to be expected with what Cerberus is doing. I'm not going to say that TIM and Cerberus wont learn from past mistakes. After all, they brought Shepard back, built the SR2, and created EDI, who was essential to the mission.

When people say that Cerberus has a bad track record, they tend to overlook the fact that it is due to Cerberus's efforts that Shepard is able to stop a human reaper from being built and save countless lives.

Safety measures exist to protect you from the known unknowns, but I think Cerberus often deals with the unknown unknowns. Indoctrination is an example of this.

AriesXX7 wrote...
This last thought is just one of an observational nature:

If TIM is a fan of using monitoring devices, why doesn't he implement them on all of the 'important' projects? Had he used them for Teltan, the derelict reaper and Overlord, he would know whether, or not, the project lead/team members were lying, showing signs of incompetence or going too far. He wouldn't necessarily need to watch them 24/7, but at least do a progress check, visually, on a regular basis, or assign someone to do it.
(just a thought)

I'm sure this is because TIM had different expectations of Shepard and his crew as opposed to the Teltan facility. Shepard was working with Cerberus out of necessity, and the rest of his team were only working with Shepard. If Shepard and his team were all proven members of Cerberus there would probably be less listening devices and such.

On that note, I'm reminded of how I want black and gold Cerberus outfits for my squad. Color coordinations and all that. 

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 17 octobre 2010 - 01:52 .

[UpDownLeftRight]

Shandepared wrote...

UpDownLeftRight wrote...

As is your life, and mine, from an objective view. Yet you indulge in it.

You know what? I like you. We should totally meet up sometime. We can overdose on carbon monoxide together.

It would be fortuitous.

This is getting offtopic. I suggest that the correspondence should turn back to it's main topic unless this thread is to be locked.

Modifié par UpDownLeftRight, 17 octobre 2010 - 01:52 .