281 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Plenty of people have an open remorse for the Paragon line at the Collector Base. I happen to be bewildered by the Renegade.


What rule, exactly, are we throwing out the window?


Is this about working/excavating/researching on what could be called a burial site/mass grave? That's a Citadel rule, but the victims are already dead. That's hardly a huge rule or moral quandry.

Is it committing genocide of the Collector race? We do that regardless (score one for the good guys!), and I doubt anyone is going to argue against it as unjust or wrong to do.

Is it collecting/utilizing Reaper technology? We have, as a galaxy, already embraced a multi-species competition to steal away as much of Sovereign for our own advantages as possible. The Turians stole away the Thannix, for example. Reaper tech, in and of itself, is not a crime, or if it is it's one that has paid handsome dividends for the benefit of the galaxy.

Is it giving technology to Cerberus? We've been doing that all game, for everything from a primary income source to sharing tech so we can reap the benefits as well to gathering top-of-the-line ship technologies onto a Cerberus vessel when the organization would gain the blueprints and knowledge if they lacked it already. The Base is a matter of degree, not intent.

Is it the idea of taking and studying someone own tech to use against them? We, the Alliance, the Council, everyone has done this so many times: even heat sinks are a Geth innovation we now use against them as well. This was even a minor sidequest in ME1, about studying a dead marine's body, and you could have both Paragon or Renegade persuasion to keep thebody for study. (And, in bugged hidden dialogue, new weapons were even developped.) 



What great, horrific rule is keeping the base breaking that Shepard has not already done?

[Iakus]

I suspect that the "rule" is not just using Reaper tech against the Reapers, but in a sense, using Reaper methods to your own benefit. The information gained from the base will be gained from the deaths of tens of thousands of colonists (or more, don't recall a firm number on how many were kidnapped) It seems to be more of an emotional response than a logical one (Legion has the best "renegade" response to the question, imo)



I guess a rough parallel would be if police apprehended a mass murderer, vivisectionist, or whatever, and scientists ended up using notes and equipment from his crimes to research a cure for cancer, or something. It's the best I can think of since even I, a firm paragon, can't believe Cerberus would make their own Reapers, unless it turned out to be way easier than it seems.

[adam_grif]

iakus wrote...

It's the best I can think of since even I, a firm paragon, can't believe Cerberus would make their own Reapers, unless it turned out to be way easier than it seems.

Of course it will be. The devs refuse to give us consequences for decisions during the "tough choices" because the game has to be able to continue on and be won regardless of whether you are a paragon or a renegade. Destroying the base will in no way impede you from destroying the Reapers.

This is the metagaming perspective. In-character, keeping the base is obiviously the right choice, but we know it won't actually matter.

[Markinator_123]

I think both the paragon and renegade lines in this decision were ridiculous and poorly written.

[AntiChri5]

Perhaps it is the rule against renegade options turning out well?

[Randy1012]

iakus wrote...

I suspect that the "rule" is not just using Reaper tech against the Reapers, but in a sense, using Reaper methods to your own benefit. The information gained from the base will be gained from the deaths of tens of thousands of colonists (or more, don't recall a firm number on how many were kidnapped) It seems to be more of an emotional response than a logical one (Legion has the best "renegade" response to the question, imo)

The ethical argument is the only one that works, IMO.  When you try to argue against keeping the base from a logical perspective, I think  we would lose (I'm a pro-Paragon player myself, and I destroyed the base in most of my playthroughs). In war, combatants always take whatever technology they can get from their enemies and turn it to their own advantage. The Romans did it when they captured Carthaginian ships during the Punic Wars and used them to create their own navy and establish Roman dominance in the Mediterranean.

[Dean_the_Young]

Except pragmaticism (and relative costs) is its own ethics, so its not even 'the ethical argument', but 'a ethical argument'... which most Renegade (and quite a few paragons) never make in the first place.

[chris025657]

 Yeah, there was definitely a whole lot of idiocy spouted off at that moment by Shepard, TIM, and squadmates. 

I think the 'rules' Shepard was referring to was the fact that lives were lost at the base. Which, from a decision making point of view, should be considered a sunk cost and irrelevant. Or as Legion explains, saving or destroying the base will not bring back any of those who were lost and the lives lost should not play a role in future decision making. 

Whoever wrote that scene was just terrible. For example, Thane and Samara's objection to using the Collector base because it will somehow turn us into Reapers was followed with TIM dismissing their opinions simply because they were aliens. 

Modifié par chris025657, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:58 .

[Palathas]

If using or researching Reaper technology is bad then the whole known galaxy is bad. Mass Effect Relays and the Citadel are all Reaper technology. Maybe by keeping the Collector base you are considered to agree with the methods used to create a Reaper. That's a whole lot of soylent green.

Modifié par Palathas, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:59 .

[Dean_the_Young]

I never really understood the horror of soylent green. The movie was more about context than an innate immorality of the product itself: when people starve, you eat what you have to.

[frozngecko]

I have a feeling that in researching the technologies of the Reapers (i.e. the semi-destroyed Reaper where you find Legion), there may be "unforeseen" consequences. The reason why I put unforeseen in quotations is because this technology may actually hinder Shepard's or even Cerberus' ability to fight the Reapers.



Reasons:

1) In trying to research the damaged Reaper, everyone fell victim to indoctrination. There may be a similar effect, if not worse effect, with the Collector Vessel. The "trap" or "unforeseen consequence" may not necessarily be indoctrination, but it that consequence could far outweigh the benefits of getting the evidence.



2) "Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life." My gut (ya, I know) tells me that Sovereign's words about utilizing their technology ring true here. Legion also explained it well when he mentioned that it is better to not utilize the tech of the Reapers to carve their own path and keep themselves open to better suggestions. Shepard's Paragon justification can reflect this kind of reasoning. He is not going to let his ideals get set aside because of a big threat. Logically speaking, however, Shepard may also believe that using Collector tech (essentially Reaper tech) may limit him and Cerberus from any other alternatives that they can utilize manpower to research.



3) Illusive Man is a b@^#h. I wanted to turn the Collector Ship into oblivion.

[Giggles_Manically]

I honestly dont understand what anyone says in the finale.

Its like everyone is reading different cuts, from different authors all over the place.

[Dean_the_Young]

1) How did getting the Reaper IFF do more harm to our ability to fight the Collectors than good? Since that is the baseline you are using.



2) The Reaper intention was for us to get to the Citadel, be at a certain tech point (not even path, considering the galactic variation between cycles, but point), and then die. The Reaper paths had an end point in mind.









None of which matters to the question of what rule?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

It might be the rule regarding Shepard's continued relationship with Cerberus, keeping the base also suggests an intent to continue working with them even though now your mission is technically complete.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Shandepared wrote...After all plenty of base destroyers have argued exactly what I just said: that the galaxy isn't worth saving if it must do bad to do good.

Problem I have with that is that it puts those that do bad above those that do good.  The bad and good should both get their rewards.

Plus I don't get how keeping the base absolutely means doing something bad.  We've been studying and implimenting Reaper technology for a long time now, gaining knowledge at some of their more advanced toys seems like a natural step.

[Ryzaki]

Markinator_123 wrote...

I think both the paragon and renegade lines in this decision were ridiculous and poorly written.

This. 

The whole "soul of our species" line made me facepalm. 

Really Paragon Shep? It can't be the risk of indoctrination, the risk of what TIM might do with it, the probability of backfiring? Nope. The "soul" of our species. >_> 

[Bann Duncan]

adam_grif wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's the best I can think of since even I, a firm paragon, can't believe Cerberus would make their own Reapers, unless it turned out to be way easier than it seems.

Of course it will be. The devs refuse to give us consequences for decisions during the "tough choices" because the game has to be able to continue on and be won regardless of whether you are a paragon or a renegade. Destroying the base will in no way impede you from destroying the Reapers.

This is the metagaming perspective. In-character, keeping the base is obiviously the right choice, but we know it won't actually matter.

I'm a big ME fan but this bothers me more than anything. For example, at the end of ME1 it seems like the choice is between saving the council or an entire batallion - in ME2, they make it so the council's ship had even more people on it than the batallion put together just to make the Paragon choice always work (all my Paragons chose 'Focus on Sovereign')

They'll do something similar for ME3 I'm sure.

[Therion942]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...After all plenty of base destroyers have argued exactly what I just said: that the galaxy isn't worth saving if it must do bad to do good.

Problem I have with that is that it puts those that do bad above those that do good.  The bad and good should both get their rewards.

Plus I don't get how keeping the base absolutely means doing something bad.  We've been studying and implimenting Reaper technology for a long time now, gaining knowledge at some of their more advanced toys seems like a natural step.

It's almost like someone with hams for hands is trying to tell us that TIM is supposed to be Vishnu, Asura, Hitler, and Invincible wrapped up in to one supra-dense being of evil. Except that most of the interactions with him shows us that TIM is a practical, logical person, if a bit untrustworthy and idealistic at times.

[NYG1991]

Maybe shep was just under alot of stress and couldn't think of anything clever to say.



I'm sure bioware will release a shepard roast dlc where everyone makes fun of his lines.



They can call it the "I should go" pack

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Therion942 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...After all plenty of base destroyers have argued exactly what I just said: that the galaxy isn't worth saving if it must do bad to do good.

Problem I have with that is that it puts those that do bad above those that do good.  The bad and good should both get their rewards.

Plus I don't get how keeping the base absolutely means doing something bad.  We've been studying and implimenting Reaper technology for a long time now, gaining knowledge at some of their more advanced toys seems like a natural step.

It's almost like someone with hams for hands is trying to tell us that TIM is supposed to be Vishnu, Asura, Hitler, and Invincible wrapped up in to one supra-dense being of evil. Except that most of the interactions with him shows us that TIM is a practical, logical person, if a bit untrustworthy and idealistic at times.

Agreed.  I feel though (as Miranda and others have said) that TIM and Cerberus have been given a darker persona than they actually have.

On the flip side, TIM's been pretty no-nonsense and uncompromising regarding his own security above all others... but that's to be expected of those that reach as high a social class as he has.  

[brfritos]

adam_grif wrote...

This is the metagaming perspective. In-character, keeping the base is obiviously the right choice, but we know it won't actually matter.

So, a book is only a book, a movie is a only a movie and study is only study?
You can't actually learn something from them?
We are talking about a game, OK, but the question OP did is a rather good one.

I understand what you are saying, because ME2 is shallow, nothing we do affects Shepard directly and this is very frustrating.
Of course we can find better examples for discussing the subject - Star Trek series has better philosophical and ethical discussions than the two ME games - but this not invalidate the question.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What great, horrific rule is keeping the base breaking that Shepard has not already done?

As for the question per se, Shepard and Cerberus are two anthagonical characters, but they are alligned towards the same goal: stop the Reaper moving through the Collectors.

After resolving the matter you have two options, continue your alliance with Cerberus and give them the base or end your relathionship destroying it.
If you have to be in league with "the devil" for some purpose will you continue after resolving the matter?

I think that's what Shepard want to say with the paragon/renegade decisions.

And there other problems with Mass Effect story and it's the books.
The Star Wars: Clone Wars TV series don't define WHAT happens in the movies, but explains WHY they happened.
The books are very dislocated from the games, defining the course of the story, instead of explaining some questions about it (damn my poor english, wish I could write this better ).

If Bioware wants to use diferent media, at least make them coherent.
 

[brfritos]

Therion942 wrote...

It's almost like someone with hams for hands is trying to tell us that TIM is supposed to be Vishnu, Asura, Hitler, and Invincible wrapped up in to one supra-dense being of evil. Except that most of the interactions with him shows us that TIM is a practical, logical person, if a bit untrustworthy and idealistic at times.

It's almost like someone with hams for hands is trying to tell us that TIM is supposed to be Vishnu, Asura, Hitler, and Invincible wrapped up in to one supra-dense being of evil. Except that most of the interactions with him shows us that TIM is a practical, logical, ruthless person, who is very untrustworthy and idealistic, albeit his idealism come at the expense of anyone who disagree with him.

Corrected for you.

And let's not forget that Hitler WAS idealistic. 

Modifié par brfritos, 21 octobre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Commander Kurt]

Maybe it's the rule "better safe than sorry". Renegade Shep has been living by it pretty much to a note until the CB decision.