117 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

rma2110 wrote...

First of all, who's to say that using reaper tech won't just get us indoctrinated?

The regular use, and depence on, Reaper technology by Shepard and the crew to complete their mission, without showing any signs of indoctrination?

That technology is not magic, and systems have to be built before they can effect anything? In this case, you'd have to build an indoctrination system in order for any Reaper technology derivative to be able to, well, indoctrinate.


Take your pick.

Second I don't trust TIM to use the reaper tech wisely. We don't exactly have the time or the resources to study new tech and learn how to use it.

You understand that, from the lore perspective, this is entirely untrue? Humanity went from the Prothean data cache to interstellar colonization in under a year. The Collector Base was compared to an equal advance, and we've seen from prior Reaper-adapted technologies that they can be added to systems without needing to forget everything and learn from scratch.

The Normandy was able to destroy one reaper after a few upgrades, so how great can their tech be?  Plus, destroying the base might make it easier to talk the Alliance and the council into joining the fight. I want that Turian fleet.

The Turians will be unlikely to fight against the massive, genocidal armada heading their way if you keep the base?

I also do not believe that the Alliance is doing nothing. Kaiden or Ashley's file is classified for a reason. I think TIM was able to get his hands on it, but didn't want Shep to know the details. I have faith that Anderson was able to get a few things moving.

So you think Anderson was lying to you about being stonewalled, and that the insisted Council position/Alliance harrasment/discharge of people who defend Shepard's claims, effectively ejecting the very people most willing to fight and address the Reapers, is in fact a clever smoke screen?

[FoxShadowblade]

Morals are illogical reasons to destroy a base full of potentially war-winning, galaxy-dominating technology, I agree.
However, humanity, as Mordin puts it, are the most diverse species in the galaxy thus far. If there are three humans in a room, there are six opinions.(Samara) That means your Shepard is merely a conduit(lol) of your own self into this game. He is malleable in your hands, you shape what kind of person he is.

Whether you are logical, driven to keep the base for the good of the galaxy.To let all the people who died on the base and in the colonies not die in vain, that their sacrifice has meant something.

Or you are emotional, driven to destroy the base for the soul of your species, to not sacrifice all the lives you went through death and back to save simply on a chance of better tech.

Unfortunately It doesn't work always black and white, logic and emotion in this game. Something I enjoy, that Paragons and Renegades aren't just good/evil, they are just two perspectives and opinions.

And yet again unfortunately, if anyone were to choose what they themselves would choose in that situation, you would end up with both Paragon and Renegade points, which makes you much less competent in persuading/intimidating and therefore your game play is limited.

Modifié par FoxShadowblade, 08 décembre 2010 - 06:41 .

[-Skorpious-]

Destroying the base is stupid because - You lose potential war-winning technology.

Destroying the base is smart because - Reaper tech has been shown to be highly unstable and dangerous. Plus, when the Krogan were given access to tech far beyond their comprehension and intelligence they almost blew their species to extinction.

Now, who is right? Morality aside, both are perfectly acceptable reasons to keep/destroy the base. The only difference is perspective.

[Markinator_123]

GodWood wrote...

"I won't let fear compromise....." etc etc.
"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species...." etc etc.

Probably the worst dialogue in the whole game.

I 100% agree with this.

[ViktorReznov]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Destroying the base is stupid because - You lose potential war-winning technology.
Destroying the base is smart because - Reaper tech has been shown to be highly unstable and dangerous. Plus, when the Krogan were given access to tech far beyond their comprehension and intelligence they almost blew their species to extinction.
Now, who is right? Morality aside, both are perfectly acceptable reasons to keep/destroy the base. The only difference is perspective.

Don't forget that Krogans are inherently aggresive and have a very strong attraction to conflict and killing (maybe it's the quad?). The Krogan were the only ones to destroy their planet with the advent
of nuclear weapons. And even with Tuchanka in ruins, they still fight like barbarians instead of saving what's left of that radioactive wasteland and rebuilding their race... I don't even want to think about them getting any
Prothean/Reaper technology.
The other races have a far more rational and controlled mentality... None of them commited planetary-scale genocide against their own species the moment they got their hands on powerful weapons. All of them succesfully expanded across the galaxy with minimal internal conflicts.

If all races could adapt to use Prothean/Reaper technology and even use the Citadel and mass relays to their own advantage, then why would they not adapt again?

Modifié par ViktorReznov, 08 décembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Evidence at this point being?

Historical precedent.  Happens in human history all the time.  One dude has too much power = people get pissed off.  All it takes is one violent and charismatic individual to set off a revolution.  In-game?  Listening to background chatter and news reports.  The other races don't like that we're on top, and eventually one of them is going to realize that their fleets are still bigger than ours.  In fact, it's not even necessary for humans to be tyrants; someone just has to get the other races worked up enough to think they're being persecuted.  In short, human dominance will ultimately end badly, either for us or for the other species.

As for saving the galaxy sans-Collector Base?  So far, one guy with a small team of specialists and an overpriced frigate has been able to save the galaxy largely on his own.  Twice.  We have the advantage this time because we've fought the Reapers before and we know they're coming.  I think we can show 'em who's boss without letting Giovanni TIM and his gang play around with something that will most likely blow up in their faces.  I think I argued this point yesterday, didn't I?  Oh Lord and Master of Quotemining?  Seriously, quit cherry-picking.

Ignoring the whole 'weakening ourselves/letting the Reapers face less opposition/likely greater Reaper genocide before they're stopped, if they're stopped' is another form of screwing over 100% of all life in another, worse way.

See above.  Also, allow me to quote myself, since I am The Goddess of Self-Promoting CopyPasta:

The balance of power may be secondary, but it is not necessary to
disrupt it in order to win.  I nuked the base because I believed it
would ultimately wind up in more Cerberus f*ckupery, possibly crippling
the war effort.  Besides, I'd rather have that massive turian fleet on
my side and not start a race war, thanks.

Especially if said race war broke out while we were supposed to be dealing with the Reapers.  I don't put it past Mr. Illusive and friends to pick a fight at the wrong place and wrong time.  Cerberus has a horrible track record, one that I've outlined back on pages two and three.  Read my convo with Undertone, if you want, and we can go from there.  I put my foot in my mouth plenty of times, so it should be entertaining.  Also, there are cupcakes.

Abridged version: I am under the impression that keeping the base will result in pointless loss of life and petty power-grabs, thereby weakening our ultimate effort against the Reapers.  I'm not letting Cerberus herp-derpery ruin my chances at victory, thank you very much.  I mean, seriously, TIM?  Your most expensive and superfluous project--bringing Shep back from the dead--is ultimately the only one that works out for you?  Not impressed.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 08 décembre 2010 - 10:29 .

[Phaedon]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FoxShadowblade wrote...

1)Morals are illogical reasons to destroy a base full of potentially war-winning, 2)galaxy-dominating technology, I agree.
However, humanity, as Mordin puts it, are the most diverse species in the galaxy thus far. If there are three humans in a room, there are six opinions.(Samara) That means your Shepard is merely a conduit(lol) of your own self into this game. He is malleable in your hands, you shape what kind of person he is.

Whether you are logical, driven to keep the base for the good of the galaxy.To let all the people who died on the base and in the colonies not die in vain, that 3)their sacrifice has meant something.

Or you are 4)emotional, driven to destroy the base for the soul of your species, to not sacrifice all the lives you went through death and back to save simply on a chance of better tech.

Unfortunately It doesn't work always black and white, logic and emotion in this game. Something I enjoy, that Paragons and Renegades aren't just good/evil, they are just two perspectives and opinions.

And yet again unfortunately, if anyone were to choose what they themselves would choose in that situation, you would end up with both Paragon and Renegade points, which makes you much less competent in persuading/intimidating and therefore your game play is limited.

1) Morals are illogical ? No disrespect to you but... 
2) Galaxy dominating. "...Reapers and beyond", "Cerberus is humanity". See what TIM did there ?
3) Yes, it did. It meant that TIM would continue the horrors that the Cerberus imposed upon their victims. Abduct, implant, destroy. Read Retribution.
4) Emotions =/= Moral Principles

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A forum bashing video game characters for having principles. Depressing, if not worrying.

[aeetos21]

Shepard summed up the whole Cerberus moral dilemma with just this line: "I won't let fear compromise who I am."



It'd be interesting if he said all that G-Knight but its a bit of a mouthful. Unless Shepard is giving one of his patented speeches he/she is usually a man of little words.

[Aggie Punbot]

Since the only options you are given in-game are to either destroy the base or give it to Cerberus, it basically boils down to this:

1). You trust The Illusive Man.
2). You don't.

TIM and Cerberus has a track record of abysmal failure, morally-abhorent actions and outright lying to Shepard. None of my Shepards could ever trust a man such as him with such a potentially dangerous technology. My paragon Shepards won't trust terrorists like him and my renegade Shepards hate people that lie to him/her.

[Theoristitis]

"I won't let fear compromise who I am."

Was disappointed to see this as a line, just because the whole Base decision is based on fear. Either the fear of what happens if you keep it (it can do bad things!), or the fear of what happens if you lose it (it can do good things!).

Certainly one of the most vague ways I could've phrased that, though...

[Cra5y Pineapple]

I would definately say "Well...ummm...let's see. It's a choice between giving Reaper tech to an evil cooperation and blowing stuff up. If you know me Timmy, I love to blow stuff up. No offense."

There needs to be a bigger dialouge wheel based on D&D alignments lol. The above would make a good Chaotic Neutral. For Lawful and chaotic good you would mention his experiments (for chaotic you'd threaten him with death), for lawful neutral you would keep the base hoping it can stop the Reapers. For true Neutral you destroy the base just in case it turns against you. For lawful evil you would say something about only Cerberus can stop the Reapers and for chaotic evil it would be something about how we must use their weapons to strengthen humanity.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 08 décembre 2010 - 11:32 .

[Markinator_123]

Phaedon wrote...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Morals are illogical ? No disrespect to you but... 
2) Galaxy dominating. "...Reapers and beyond", "Cerberus is humanity". See what TIM did there ?
3) Yes, it did. It meant that TIM would continue the horrors that the Cerberus imposed upon their victims. Abduct, implant, destroy. Read Retribution.
4) Emotions =/= Moral Principles

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A forum bashing video game characters for having principles. Depressing, if not worrying.

Apparantly, if you opt for destroying the base, Shepard is destroying the base simply because it is "evil" which is ridiculous. The line "I won't let fear compromise who I am" makes him/her look like a complete idiot. Shepard should just have just said, "Illusive man, I'm sorry, but you would just make things worse." See! Easy! There is nothing evil about keeping the base in general. Those people are dead! You can't help them! Having concerns about Cerberus is understandable but once again restating, Shepard is having misguided ideals about things being evil when he/she blows it up. In the words of Zaeed, "when someone gives you  a weapon you don't complain that it's dirty, you use it!" If you don't trust Cerberus, that's fine. However, that better be your reason for blowing it up if you choose to do so.

[Ieldra]

Do I wish I could change the dialogue here?

I water wet? How I wish I could! Shepard's (and others') ridiculous dialogue at the CB makes me go up the wall every time. It's by far the most annoying part of the game.

(1) "This place is an abomination"? (or so...don't reacall) Maybe, but that has no strategic or moral significance. It is nothing but sentimentality.
(2) Regardless of how his decision goes in th end, Shepard should've seen the strategic value of keeping the base by himself. That he doesn't makes him appear incompetent and stupid. Instead, we get his SOP: blow things up.
(3) "I won't let fear compromise who I am" Ugh. Again a ****** argument if I ever saw one. Cringe-worthy.

Markinator_123 wrote...
Shepard should just have just said, "Illusive man, I'm sorry, but you would just make things worse.

Yes, that would've done it. With this, I could've destroyed the base without feeling like a complete idiot.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 décembre 2010 - 07:57 .

[Phaedon]

Markinator_123 wrote...
Apparantly, if you opt for destroying the base, Shepard is destroying the base simply because it is "evil" which is ridiculous. The line "I won't let fear compromise who I am" makes him/her look like a complete idiot. Shepard should just have just said, "Illusive man, I'm sorry, but you would just make things worse." See! Easy! There is nothing evil about keeping the base in general. Those people are dead! You can't help them! Having concerns about Cerberus is understandable but once again restating, Shepard is having misguided ideals about things being evil when he/she blows it up. In the words of Zaeed, "when someone gives you  a weapon you don't complain that it's dirty, you use it!" If you don't trust Cerberus, that's fine. However, that better be your reason for blowing it up if you choose to do so.

At the time, destroying the base due to Cerberus/TIM was what I did. After following CDN for a while, I am almost certain that the Alliance or the Council wouldn't do anything better.

'I won't let fear compromise who I am'.

Just because there is a possibility that this base might help, I won't let TIM continue abducting and experimenting on people. We know what's his style is after all...

Since the previous Collector Base thread that was locked, I am still waiting for a valid reason to keep the base. 

'Tech.'

What kind of tech ?

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
As for saving the galaxy sans-Collector Base?  So far, one guy with a small team of specialists and an overpriced frigate has been able to save the galaxy largely on his own.  Twice.  We have the advantage this time because we've fought the Reapers before and we know they're coming.  I think we can show 'em who's boss without letting Giovanni TIM and his gang play around with something that will most likely blow up in their faces.  I think I argued this point yesterday, didn't I?  Oh Lord and Master of Quotemining?  Seriously, quit cherry-picking.

Completely different circumstances between 'killing singular enemy ships, the Reaper one taking fleets to engage and destroy' and 'armada of Reapers'. That's not a claim to pattern recognition. That's incredibly poor analysis to equate all three as equivalent.

'Oh, I did what no one else before has been able to do' doesn't mean you can do anything that no one else could do. I wish it did, because a successful romance (of sorts) with Morinth would have opened up a great deal of possible character development, but sadly Shepard couldn't do the impossible there either.

Especially if said race war broke out while we were supposed to be dealing with the Reapers.  I don't put it past Mr. Illusive and friends to pick a fight at the wrong place and wrong time.  Cerberus has a horrible track record, one that I've outlined back on pages two and three.  Read my convo with Undertone, if you want, and we can go from there.  I put my foot in my mouth plenty of times, so it should be entertaining.  Also, there are cupcakes.

Why would a Race War break out, and against who? The Council and Alliance already target Cerberus. Cerberus, who is not the representative of humanity. Cerberus's goals are not advanced by an open war (especially when even a victorious war would devestate the Alliance, and humanity), and especially not before the Reapers. The other races have no reason to attack the Alliance over something an open enemy of the Alliance does.

No Cerberus failure has yet to undermine the ability of the galaxy to defend itself from the Reapers. The only, singular, one that came close was Overlord, which was stopped and caused no harm to galactic ability to prepare.

Abridged version: I am under the impression that keeping the base will result in pointless loss of life and petty power-grabs, thereby weakening our ultimate effort against the Reapers.  I'm not letting Cerberus herp-derpery ruin my chances at victory, thank you very much.  I mean, seriously, TIM?  Your most expensive and superfluous project--bringing Shep back from the dead--is ultimately the only one that works out for you?  Not impressed.

And here I thought pushing the creation of the Normandy (the original one as well, mind you), and EDI, and even pushing for the creation of Cerberus which would later enable the other two would also certainly count.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 décembre 2010 - 02:14 .

[Terraneaux]

Markinator_123 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

"I won't let fear compromise....." etc etc.
"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species...." etc etc.

Probably the worst dialogue in the whole game.

I 100% agree with this.

+1

[Mike Effect]

I wish you could have contacted the Council at the end of the game... 


Shepard: Councilors, I have to warn you about a grave threat to the galaxy!

Council: Yeah yeah, we know, the reapers are coming to reap blah blah blah..

Shepard: Wha..? No! Screw the reapers! Do you guys have any idea how many mercs there are out here??






DLC maybe?

[JG The Gamer]

I wish there was an option to put you and the Illusive Man on the same page, rather than part ways with some degree of distrust when you opt to keep the Collector Base.

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Completely different circumstances between 'killing singular enemy ships, the Reaper one taking fleets to engage and destroy' and 'armada of Reapers'. That's not a claim to pattern recognition. That's incredibly poor analysis to equate all three as equivalent.

Well, duh.  There's obviously a difference between fighting one Reaper and fighting a fleet of them.  My point was that it's a videogame, and therefore Shepard will be able to save the day unless you really screw it up.  Saving or blowing the base will probably only have a minor impact on the final outcome.  They aren't going to make ME3 unwinnable for half the people that import.

Frankly, I think both outcomes will be a double-edged sword, but we'll have to wait and see.

As for pattern recognition, note that every single squadmate tells you that blowing the base was a good decision, going so far as to break character to do it (for which I should slap the writers upside their heads).  It's foreshadowing the outcome in giant neon letters.  Also, note TIM's creepy smile if you keep the damn thing.  All logic aside, Bioware's either letting you know what decision will be most beneficial or dropping more red herrings than their current teaser campaign.

'Oh, I did what no one else before has been able to do' doesn't mean you can do anything that no one else could do. I wish it did, because a successful romance (of sorts) with Morinth would have opened up a great deal of possible character development, but sadly Shepard couldn't do the impossible there either.

I actually liked that fact that he couldn't take Morinth, because I was totally expecting him to come out of that alive (after all, he's Shepard).  Imagine my surprise when I critical mission failured.

Why would a Race War break out, and against who? The Council and Alliance already target Cerberus. Cerberus, who is not the representative of humanity. Cerberus's goals are not advanced by an open war (especially when even a victorious war would devestate the Alliance, and humanity), and especially not before the Reapers. The other races have no reason to attack the Alliance over something an open enemy of the Alliance does.

TIM's "against the Reapers and beyond" speech sealed him as a fanatical nutcase.  Fanaticism leads to stupidity.  Stupid fanatics start wars.

No Cerberus failure has yet to undermine the ability of the galaxy to defend itself from the Reapers. The only, singular, one that came close was Overlord, which was stopped and caused no harm to galactic ability to prepare.

We've only known about the Reapers for two years.  As for Overlord, the only reason it didn't nerf the entire galaxy was because Shepard went in and cleaned up Cerberus's mess.  Again.  It's like he's their babysitter.

The only reason Cerberus hasn't screwed up yet on a galactic scale is because they haven't been given the opportunity.  Yet.

And here I thought pushing the creation of the Normandy (the original one as well, mind you), and EDI, and even pushing for the creation of Cerberus which would later enable the other two would also certainly count.

I count the new Normandy/EDI under the Shepard thing (should have said Project Lazarus, my bad), and there's a difference between pushing for something and actually handling it yourself.  Cerberus's rate of success is too low for me to trust them with anything as potentially deadly as the CB.

Anyway, I hope I have made myself clear.  This poor thread has been tortured enough by my godawful TL;DR.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 10 décembre 2010 - 01:02 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Mike Effect wrote...

I wish you could have contacted the Council at the end of the game... 

Shepard: Councilors, I have to warn you about a grave threat to the galaxy!
Council: Yeah yeah, we know, the reapers are coming to reap blah blah blah..
Shepard: Wha..? No! Screw the reapers! Do you guys have any idea how many mercs there are out here??



DLC maybe?

Ah yes, the "Blue Suns."

Seriously, though, I lol'd.

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

As for pattern recognition, note that every single squadmate tells you that blowing the base was a good decision, going so far as to break character to do it (for which I should slap the writers upside their heads).  It's foreshadowing the outcome in giant neon letters.  Also, note TIM's creepy smile if you keep the damn thing.  All logic aside, Bioware's either letting you know what decision will be most beneficial or dropping more red herrings than their current teaser campaign.

The same teammates change their own position, which violates pattern recognition? None of the teammates suggest that the technology will backfire or weaken us against the Reapers, only that they don't like who it's benefiting.

TIM's "against the Reapers and beyond" speech sealed him as a fanatical nutcase.  Fanaticism leads to stupidity.  Stupid fanatics start wars.

You need to work with more actual fanatics before you use that brush.

We've only known about the Reapers for two years.  As for Overlord, the only reason it didn't nerf the entire galaxy was because Shepard went in and cleaned up Cerberus's mess.  Again.  It's like he's their babysitter.

The only thing needed to do to prevent the Overlord danger was to blow up a satelite dish. Any ship in orbit could do that. Shepard wasn't needed, Shepard merely responded first. If you never download or do the Overlord DLC, the universe still will not have ended.

I count the new Normandy/EDI under the Shepard thing (should have said Project Lazarus, my bad), and there's a difference between pushing for something and actually handling it yourself.  Cerberus's rate of success is too low for me to trust them with anything as potentially deadly as the CB.

You don't even know Cerberus's success/failure rate, because you have no inkling of it's project history. You know a bare few projects, and that's it.

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The same teammates change their own position, which violates pattern recognition? None of the teammates suggest that the technology will backfire or weaken us against the Reapers, only that they don't like who it's benefiting.

The pattern recognition is that every single one of them thinks that, in the end, keeping it was a bad idea.  It is so important for them to tell you this that many of them spontaneously change their original position and break character.  Do you deny that there's some major foreshadowing up in here?

I'm not arguing that Collector tech could never be beneficial; I'm arguing that Cerberus will inevitably screw it up.  I would have kept it in 90% of my saves had their been a "give to someone other than Cerberus" option, but there wasn't one.  Hence why the decision is so hotly debated: no choice is clearly "better."

You need to work with more actual fanatics before you use that brush.

I've met a couple.  And I've paid attention to history and current events.  Not going to name which ones as political discussions = insta-ban, but I think you can figure it out.  Additionally, one can look at how fanaticism is commonly portrayed in fiction.  More often than not, it's a bad sign.

The only thing needed to do to prevent the Overlord danger was to blow up a satelite dish. Any ship in orbit could do that. Shepard wasn't needed, Shepard merely responded first. If you never download or do the Overlord DLC, the universe still will not have ended.

Maybe, maybe not.  Either way, Overlord still failed and almost caused a technological apocalypse.

You don't even know Cerberus's success/failure rate, because you have no inkling of it's project history. You know a bare few projects, and that's it.

Overlord: Fail.  Lots of people dead.
Gillian Grayson: Fail.  Lots of people dead.
Paul Grayson: Fail.  Lots of people dead.
Subject Zero: Fail.  Lots of people dead.
Rachni experiments: Fail.  Lots of people dead.
Reaper IFF: Fail until Shep comes along.  Lots of people dead.
Thorian creepers: Fail.  Lots of people dead.
Akuze: Really don't know what the hell they wanted to accomplish with this one.  Lots of people dead.
Project Lazarus: Oddly, a success!  But still, lots of people dead.

The evidence so far is hardly flattering.

[Praetor Knight]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

*snip*

Therefore,

Cerberus = lots of people dead.

Good thing I always destroy the base.