586 réponses à ce sujet

[Inverness Moon]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

I have to admit, that decision took me a minute or two. The Illusive Man makes a good point, but it comes down to the simple fact that I just don't trust Cerberus. But I'm super curious why the sun he's sitting in front of for the whole game turns blue at the end if you blow up the base. If you keep it, it's still redish.That I am dying to know.

The sun changing color is simply a visual effect based on whether you save or destroy the base.

[Sajuro]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Dirty_Dan wrote...

I blew it up. Saren thought he could control reaper tech, do YOU wanna be like Saren?

Saren was ignorant of the dangers, Shepard and Cerberus aren't.

We have dismissed that claim.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Here's another claim to dismiss... You worked with Cerberus to stop the Collectors when both you and the council failed (heck you were killed by the Collectors).

Alliance/Council/Shepard vs Collectors = Fail
Shepard/Cerberus vs Collectors = Win

Your partnership with Cerberus has been "good" so far, sure they're as shady as ever but the Collectors are nothing compared to the actual Reaper threat.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 février 2011 - 04:24 .

[Sajuro]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Here's another claim to dismiss... You worked with Cerberus to stop the Collectors when both you and the council failed (heck you were killed by the Collectors).

Alliance/Council/Shepard vs Collectors = Fail
Shepard/Cerberus vs Collectors = Win

Your partnership with Cerberus has been "good" so far, sure they're as shady as ever but the Collectors are nothing compared to the actual Reaper threat.

Ah yes "Collectors" the insect like race that trades advanced technology for organic specimens allegedly living in the core -looks to other councilors- ah we have dismissed that claim.
Shepard: -rage face-

[Inverness Moon]

Sajuro is just trolling, nothing to see here.

[Arijharn]

But I have to say; Sajuro does it with a certain degree of style. In this case, at least.

[aeetos21]

The relationship with Cerberus is only "good" as long as Shepard dances to TIM's tune. The moment he says: "I won't let fear compromise who I am," TIM is all about getting Miranda to stop him - probably by any means necessary given the gravity of the situation. And regardless how ME2 ends you and TIM don't exactly part on the best of terms (something I think BW screwed the pooch on honestly but what can you do when your constrained with making a sequel to it).

Edit: Not that the Council or the Alliance were any better - I'm an equal opportunity organization basher.

Modifié par aeetos21, 08 février 2011 - 09:56 .

[Ieldra]

I keep the base because it may contain technology useful against the Reapers, and because Cerberus is the lesser evil compared to the threat of galactic extinction. In such a situation, you don't blow up a captured HQ of an enemy technologically superior to you without milking it for every bit of information you can get out of it. I maintain that given the knowledge we have when we have to make that decision, destroying the base is a strategic mistake of the first order. Should Cerberus screw up, you can always blow it up later.

That I keep the base should be in no way be construed as supporting Cerberus in anything but fighting against the Reapers, as Shepard says to TIM in the SM debriefing. Having said that, I'm very annoyed at being shoehorned into a decision with two bad scenarios without sufficient justification. I can see no reason why I couldn't keep that Reaper IFF for myself and give it to a group I consider more trustworthy than Cerberus, or even better, to all of them. Most notably to the Alliance and the salarian STG. But in the end, everyone should take part in developing defenses against the Reapers' most potent weapons and means to take them out.

Giving the base to Cerberus is a bad decision. About the only one worse than that is - to destroy it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 février 2011 - 10:23 .

[Markinator_123]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I keep the base because it may contain technology useful against the Reapers, and because Cerberus is the lesser evil compared to the threat of galactic extinction. In such a situation, you don't blow up a captured HQ of an enemy technologically superior to you without milking it for every bit of information you can get out of it. I maintain that given the knowledge we have when we have to make that decision, destroying the base is a strategic mistake of the first order. Should Cerberus screw up, you can always blow it up later.

That I keep the base should be in no way be construed as supporting Cerberus in anything but fighting against the Reapers, as Shepard says to TIM in the SM debriefing. Having said that, I'm very annoyed at being shoehorned into a decision with two bad scenarios without sufficient justification. I can see no reason why I couldn't keep that Reaper IFF for myself and give it to a group I consider more trustworthy than Cerberus, or even better, to all of them. Most notably to the Alliance and the salarian STG. But in the end, everyone should take part in developing defenses against the Reapers' most potent weapons and means to take them out.

Giving the base to Cerberus is a bad decision. About the only one worse than that is - to destroy it.

Destroying the base is indeed bad because if you did destroy it you accomplished absolutely nothing in defeating the Collectors. In other words, you are just back where you started at the end of Mass Effect 1.

[Lapis Lazuli]

TheGreyGhost119 wrote...

And if I HAD lost people during the Suicide mission, it would feel like a betrayal to me.  They would die believing they were trying to destroy the base, and going around and deciding to keep it after that sacrifice seems like kind of a jerk move...

great point

[Mr. Gogeta34]

aeetos21 wrote...

The relationship with Cerberus is only "good" as long as Shepard dances to TIM's tune. The moment he says: "I won't let fear compromise who I am," TIM is all about getting Miranda to stop him - probably by any means necessary given the gravity of the situation. And regardless how ME2 ends you and TIM don't exactly part on the best of terms (something I think BW screwed the pooch on honestly but what can you do when your constrained with making a sequel to it).

Edit: Not that the Council or the Alliance were any better - I'm an equal opportunity organization basher.

lol you can't blame TIM for that...

If what may be the only hope against the Reapers (non-metagaming scenario here) could be found at that base and Captain America wants to destroy it because people died there... you'd want Captain America stopped too.... no matter who he is.

Fact is that we don't have much on the Reapers.... we didn't have much on the collectors either (which is why SHEPARD AND HIS SHIP WAS DESTROYED BY THEM).  To not even try to learn from that mistake (by atleast trying to prepare) is what raises the eyebrows.


Another way to look at it is.... You're willing to team up with Cerberus to stop the Collectors from taking just humans... but NOT willing to team up with them to stop the Reapers from taking EVERYBODY IN THE UNIVERSE?  Really?

[Markinator_123]

Lapis Lazuli wrote...

TheGreyGhost119 wrote...

And if I HAD lost people during the Suicide mission, it would feel like a betrayal to me.  They would die believing they were trying to destroy the base, and going around and deciding to keep it after that sacrifice seems like kind of a jerk move...

great point

It is a stupid point actually. How in the world does keeping the base seem like a jerk move? Just because they died believing the base would be destroyed? The mission was to ultimately stop the collectors and now their sacrifices could save more lives in the future. The fact that some people would feel that keeping the base is a betrayal just because people died there is so preposterous that it is borderline offensive.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 08 février 2011 - 06:58 .

[EnchantedEyes1]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Another way to look at it is.... You're willing to team up with Cerberus to stop the Collectors from taking just humans... but NOT willing to team up with them to stop the Reapers from taking EVERYBODY IN THE UNIVERSE?  Really?

I have to admit, my first Shepard didn't destroy the base for this reason. She doesn't trust Cerberus and handing over the base to TIM keeps her up at night because she is pretty confident that while he will use what he can find against the reapers, other atrocitites will likely be committed along the way.

I'm pretty sure my second Shepard will destroy it, but will wonder if she has damned the universe because of that decision.

[ReluctantMind]

What are you talking about claiming I teamed up with Cerberus? I infiltrated a known terrorist organization, cleverly getting them to spend billions to bring me back from the dead so I could do it. I then stole potential recruits, gained intimate knowledge of their organization, turned some of their top operatives against them, stole their most advanced space vessel and AI, and ultimately thwarted their plan to gain advanced technology for use against other species. By the end of ME2 I've done more damage to Cerberus and it's agenda than I would have thought possible. TIM's backers can't be too happy with him.

[landis963]

ReluctantMind wrote...

What are you talking about claiming I teamed up with Cerberus? I infiltrated a known terrorist organization, cleverly getting them to spend billions to bring me back from the dead so I could do it. I then stole potential recruits, gained intimate knowledge of their organization, turned some of their top operatives against them, stole their most advanced space vessel and AI, and ultimately thwarted their plan to gain advanced technology for use against other species. By the end of ME2 I've done more damage to Cerberus and it's agenda than I would have thought possible. TIM's backers can't be too happy with him.

"And now I'll be doing the same to the Shadow Broker, without all the Resurrection rigmarole.  Not to worry, good Council members, I will have them at their knees just as soon as my mission with them is over."  And then you skip off to save the galaxy with (*Spoilers*) Liara (/*Spoilers*) on intel, while the Council is still getting its pants up.  I like your thinking ReluctantMind.  

[Arijharn]

EnchantedEyes1 wrote...
I'm pretty sure my second Shepard will destroy it, but will wonder if she has damned the universe because of that decision.

I think that's a pretty unexcusable excuse for a Commander and a Spectre at that, to have to be honest. It may seem noble and even heroic to say: "This is the line, we do not cross it", but if Shephard has to wonder if she's potentially damning the universe because of her actions, then isn't she committing an even greater atrocity?

I get it, she doesn't want to see people suffer, but your Shephard wasn't the one who captured/processed the colonists in the first place. The blood isn't on her hands, but it will be if you refuse to try and learn something about your enemy to prevent them from completely destroying everything and everyone.

How does a Spectre, a figure raised and entrusted into an elite force by the Citadel Council, properly execute the responsibilities of that position, by letting everyone die because maybe the CB will have nothing of value at best, and at worst could be some sort of trap. How can she take that risk when there's so much more at stake (namely; everything else). 

By destroying that one real hope of combating the Reapers, even if yes you're handing it to Cerberus, you become a far greater villian than Saren ever was.

[aeetos21]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Fact is that we don't have much on the Reapers.... we didn't have much on the collectors either (which is why SHEPARD AND HIS SHIP WAS DESTROYED BY THEM).  To not even try to learn from that mistake (by atleast trying to prepare) is what raises the eyebrows.


Another way to look at it is.... You're willing to team up with Cerberus to stop the Collectors from taking just humans... but NOT willing to team up with them to stop the Reapers from taking EVERYBODY IN THE UNIVERSE?  Really?

I remember using a certain reaper IFF that didn't work out so well for the SR2's crew. I also remember hacking a certain collector ship that nearly got my team killed.

Presuming you know what is best about an unknown alien tech (even when in your post you hypocritically say "fact is we don't know much about the reapers") and assuming its a win-win all around is foolish. Especially given the history the reapers have with allowing the civilizations of the galaxy to advance on the technology they left behind - though granted it seems highly unlikely they wanted us to find and locate the collector base.

Now if I could've handed the base over to someone a little more trustworthy than the Illusive Man then yes, I would've done it. I recall a lot of the tech that went into the SR2 was from alien sources, the Thanix cannon for example was based on reaper tech and was an all around win-win. Handing the base over to the same guys who developed the cannon for our purposes, who have proven that they are responsible enough to handle this sort of technology and willing to share it for the greater galactic good, would've been preferrable. As that wasn't an option though I wasn't about to hand unknown alien weaponry over to an organization I didn't trust, I'd rather see it destroyed first.

Make no mistake, despite their past actions I came in ME2 open minded and willing to give Cerberus and TIM a chance. In the end though, I found that I didn't trust him anymore than I trust the collectors. It's that simple. Also I fail to see how you believe that choosing to destroy the base and still being able to win is meta-gaming ESPECIALLY when we know next to nothing about ME3.

During the leadup to ME2 there were countless threads like this one that were proven one hundred percent wrong, don't make the mistake of presuming you know what is going to happen or what will end up being the most advantegous decision(s).

Edit: On another note, nor do I believe any single race is ready for that power and in the renegade ending of ME2 TIM made no illusions that he planned on using the base for human dominance over both the reapers and the rest of the galaxy. Trading one race that has been corrupted by power for another that could easily become just as corrupted makes little sense to me. This is something a lot of the people on the forums agree with and something a lot of others don't, and I believe that that is what the real issue is here.

Modifié par aeetos21, 09 février 2011 - 08:18 .

[Ieldra]

Arijharn wrote...

EnchantedEyes1 wrote...
I'm pretty sure my second Shepard will destroy it, but will wonder if she has damned the universe because of that decision.

I think that's a pretty unexcusable excuse for a Commander and a Spectre at that, to have to be honest. It may seem noble and even heroic to say: "This is the line, we do not cross it", but if Shephard has to wonder if she's potentially damning the universe because of her actions, then isn't she committing an even greater atrocity?

I get it, she doesn't want to see people suffer, but your Shephard wasn't the one who captured/processed the colonists in the first place. The blood isn't on her hands, but it will be if you refuse to try and learn something about your enemy to prevent them from completely destroying everything and everyone.

How does a Spectre, a figure raised and entrusted into an elite force by the Citadel Council, properly execute the responsibilities of that position, by letting everyone die because maybe the CB will have nothing of value at best, and at worst could be some sort of trap. How can she take that risk when there's so much more at stake (namely; everything else). 

By destroying that one real hope of combating the Reapers, even if yes you're handing it to Cerberus, you become a far greater villian than Saren ever was.

This exactly. For that reason, I maintain that keeping the base is not only the strategically superior decision, but also the *morally* superior one.

[aeetos21]

According to BW, the renegade option was keeping the base - can we all agree on that?

Then why do people suddenly assume that using the collector base will STOP being the renegade option. Look at DAO, the anvil of the void. Very powerful, it gives you golems, but at the morally questionable act of dwarfs being consumed in the process. Look at ME1, letting the Council die (while tactically sound) ended up killing more people in the end.

The general idea right now is that there won't be a lot of time between ME2 and ME3 (this could be wrong but right now that's what people are generally being led to believe). The collector base seems to primarily be a factory or research facility. All of the collectors weaponry is based off organic life - its why the reapers show up every 50,000 years.

Knowing all of this and knowing BW's tendency to set players up with controversial decisions, do you honestly really think all of a sudden we'll conveniently figure out a new "fuel source" to give us this advancement in technology? True renegades won't care of course. If a few million humans need to die so that billions will live then so be it.

My point is, don't go assuming that saving the collector base will be the major renegade decision or the seemingly "betrayal" of the colonists killed in it would be the end of that renegade fallout. It would fit BW's pattern if THAT was only the beginning.

Edit: On the other hand, in contrast to my earlier post about reaper tech, it would likely seem the paragon choice's consequences will be you won't have that advanced tech meaning a tougher fight and more people potentially being killed. If I had any influence in designing ME3, that's how I'd handle it at least.

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. No right or wrong decision. It's practically BW's motto.

Modifié par aeetos21, 09 février 2011 - 09:12 .

[gloops]

Your partnership with Cerberus has been "good" so far, sure they're as shady as ever but the Collectors are nothing compared to the actual Reaper threat.

Moreover, Cerberus' study of Reaper tech proved vital in toppling the Collectors, so there's no telling what advantage Cerberus study of the Collector Base could provide.

[Arijharn]

aeetos21 wrote...

According to BW, the renegade option was keeping the base - can we all agree on that?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you saying that paragon is the moral choice and renegade's aren't? If so, I'd hate to be the one who lays it out for you, but you are sadly misinformed because either response is one made by morality. 

It's simple common sense I'd think, if you want to understand how something works, you examine it. How much blind luck are you (treating the situation as a real life circumstance of course) going to use in your 'battle plans' in combating the Reapers. I'll tell you what, everyone who is pro-destroying the base is essentially saying: "It's okay that we'll destroy the base, because we'll get access to an even greater source of technology next tuesday."

If your decision is predecated on saving the most lives as possible, then you don't leave things to prayer, you don't leave things to chance... you hedge your bets, and the opportunities represented by the Base are much more than say the opportunities of destroying it.

aeetos21 wrote...
Then why do people suddenly assume that using the collector base will STOP being the renegade option. Look at DAO, the anvil of the void. Very powerful, it gives you golems, but at the morally questionable act of dwarfs being consumed in the process. Look at ME1, letting the Council die (while tactically sound) ended up killing more people in the end.

First, trying to tie the morale centre of Mass Effect to Dragon Age is flawed, because they purposely tried to not have that sort of system. If you must; then I'd also like to point out that the 'paragon' decision of backing Lord Harrowment was the worse choice by far by any system when it came to Dwarf advancement. 

I understand some people's thought processes behind leaving the Council to die though (even though I disagree, because the entire reason for having the backdoor to the Citadel was for the Reapers to assassinate your heads of state, so actually leaving them there to die to me seems like I'm doing the Reapers job for them), but in war you can't be afraid of having people under your command dying in order to achieve your objectives.

aeetos21 wrote...
The general idea right now is that there won't be a lot of time between ME2 and ME3 (this could be wrong but right now that's what people are generally being led to believe). The collector base seems to primarily be a factory or research facility. All of the collectors weaponry is based off organic life - its why the reapers show up every 50,000 years.

Supposition. Maelon also believed that without the Genophage, the Krogan would have meant that no Eden Prime would have occured. You could be right, but you know, it might not be too.

aeetos21 wrote...
Knowing all of this and knowing BW's tendency to set players up with controversial decisions, do you honestly really think all of a sudden we'll conveniently figure out a new "fuel source" to give us this advancement in technology? True renegades won't care of course. If a few million humans need to die so that billions will live then so be it.

Why not? It didn't take us that long to go to space travel from the Wright Brothers. It took us a pretty short time to decipher the Prothean data caches (presumably at least). We aren't morons either.

And yes, I consider 'millions' to die to be infinitely more preferrential than 'billions.' Why? Because billions is more.

aeetos21 wrote...
My point is, don't go assuming that saving the collector base will be the major renegade decision or the seemingly "betrayal" of the colonists killed in it would be the end of that renegade fallout. It would fit BW's pattern if THAT was only the beginning.

Sure I hope there's repercussions, but if there's only ever 'bad' repercussions for Renegade decisions, and only 'good' repercussions for paragons, then the game would be actually pretty boring imo. Personally, I don't think the real world is black and white (or... red and blue), so I actually would think the game would be childish if it was.

aeetos21 wrote...
Edit: On the other hand, in contrast to my earlier post about reaper tech, it would likely seem the paragon choice's consequences will be you won't have that advanced tech meaning a tougher fight and more people potentially being killed. If I had any influence in designing ME3, that's how I'd handle it at least.

That's how I see it going down too. Which is why I'd sacrifice those 'millions' if it meant many more would live. I'll give the caveat though that perhaps Paragons would have access to other species as allies, but personally I don't think the potential of throwing more people into a meat grinder is actually any more benefit.

If a Reaper can single handedly destroy some 2000 people, I think 2000 people dying is 2000 people dying, it doesn't matter if they're human, drell, or whatever.

If I can mitigate a Reaper from being able to kill those 2000 people somewhat, then I think that is more essential.

[aeetos21]

Arijharn wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

According to BW, the renegade option was keeping the base - can we all agree on that?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, are you saying that paragon is the moral choice and renegade's aren't? If so, I'd hate to be the one who lays it out for you, but you are sadly misinformed because either response is one made by morality.

This whole comment was never about what was morally right or what was morally wrong, its about what BW considers to be renegade and what is paragon but if you want to tie right and wrong into it, that's your perogative. I think that that sort of question is too great for the scope of this thread.

First, trying to tie the morale centre of Mass Effect to Dragon Age is flawed, because they purposely tried to not have that sort of system. If you must; then I'd also like to point out that the 'paragon' decision of backing Lord Harrowment was the worse choice by far by any system when it came to Dwarf advancement.

Which is why I side with Aeducan (can't remember his first name), unless I'm playing a drawf noble of course; though the main reason was because he was strong, determined, and was open to reform. As for it being flawed? Same developer, same type of moral choices (for lack of better term, if you have a better term than moral to use than by all means identify it). And if you want to get REALLY technical the same DEVs that created ME were the same ones that created kotor, they actually came out and said that in one forum posting I remember - long time ago on the old forums. Kotor veterans will definitely agree that that game also presented morality controversies (again, morality for lack of better term).

in war you can't be afraid of having people under your command dying in order to achieve your objectives.

Yes but there's a difference between sacrificing people for the sake od survival and sacrificing needlessly or for the advancement of humanity above other races - and again that's where most of is differ I believe. This goes back to Zaeed's loyalty mission. Save the workers or sacrifice them to kill Vito? Or the other DLC in ME1, BDtS, kill the batarians at the expense of losing the hostages or let them go? Giving this, as well as past examples in Kotor and DAO, I don't foresee BW changing its working formula for ME3.

Supposition. Maelon also believed that without the Genophage, the Krogan would have meant that no Eden Prime would have occured. You could be right, but you know, it might not be too.

Redundant statement, I believe I stated as much in my original post - that I could be wrong,

Why not? It didn't take us that long to go to space travel from the Wright Brothers. It took us a pretty short time to decipher the Prothean data caches (presumably at least). We aren't morons either.

We also didn't have the threat of the reapers looming on the horizon either. We're talking about Cerberus and TIM here, I don't see him taking precautions for the sake of human life (Akuze comes to mind). He's about defeating the reapers and securing human dominance, at any cost. Whatever is the fastest and most efficient route of getting the tech available is the route he'd choose. Also, again this is BW who is making this game. They won't give you such a powerful weapon without real consequences. If they only penalized the paragon players they'd get a poorer response.

And yes, I consider 'millions' to die to be infinitely more preferrential than 'billions.' Why? Because billions is more.

So would I but we don't know that for certain and IMO the cost benefit for keeping the base will ultimately come down to one thing 1) securing human dominance in the future. If you destroy it then it will likely be more of a galactic coopertive when all is said and done. That's the real ending to Shepard's story, not whether we defeat the reapers or not (that much is a given whether you keep the base or not). How you choose to shape the galaxy though, that's the real ending you the player will get to decide upon.

Going back to the billions versus millions, I seriously doubt BW would go out of its way to make the paragon players feel stupid or less heroic. That's just not good story telling. How many people will die in ME3 will likely, IMO, come down to how you actually play ME3 and not whether you kept the base or not.

Sure I hope there's repercussions, but if there's only ever 'bad' repercussions for Renegade decisions, and only 'good' repercussions for paragons, then the game would be actually pretty boring imo. Personally, I don't think the real world is black and white (or... red and blue), so I actually would think the game would be childish if it was.

So would I, I'm not sure what exactly the repercussion will be for paragons in terms of "fighting the reapers" but it seems like a subsequent penalty for using the base would be at the cost of human lives, at least that's what fits the pattern in BW games. What are some of the likely actual repercussions that will likely occur in ME3 - that is what this thread should really be talking about, IMO. Whether you like it or not keeping or destroying the base will have little outcome on whether you are able to defeat the reapers in ME3 (or how many lives are lost for that matter), it may be harder or easier certainly but ultimately it will come down to your own decisions you make in ME3.

aeetos21 wrote...
That's how I see it going down too. Which is why I'd sacrifice those 'millions' if it meant many more would live. I'll give the caveat though that perhaps Paragons would have access to other species as allies, but personally I don't think the potential of throwing more people into a meat grinder is actually any more benefit.

As you said people will die, either way. I for one think that whether you keep the base or not (and its not even YOU that's keeping the base its Cerberus) will have little impact on the amount of people who actually die. I could be wrong but I don't think BW would pin all of that on one single decision you made in a previous game.

Though your idea of allies versus tech does hold some merit, I agree with that.

If a Reaper can single handedly destroy some 2000 people, I think 2000 people dying is 2000 people dying, it doesn't matter if they're human, drell, or whatever.

If I can mitigate a Reaper from being able to kill those 2000 people somewhat, then I think that is more essential.

Again, I keeping the base or destroying it is less about numbers and people getting killed and more about the final outcome of the Mass Effect universe (human dominance or galactic cooperation). As for human, drell, asari or whatever I agree with you (at least I think I do). People are people and aliens are jerks and saints just like the rest of us, as Kaidan would say.

So again, in summary. I believe the collector base will have more of an impact on the overall outcome of the ME series (not unlike either a human dominant council or the old council). As for the total number of people dead? Renegades might get the hard choice of superior tech at the sacrifice of "human fuel" why paragons might have an equally hard choice of losing more squadmates (as they won't have the superior tech) versus millions more people dying.

Any questions or misinterpretations, feel free to comment, question or snidely remark as my old psych prof would say

Modifié par aeetos21, 09 février 2011 - 10:57 .

[Madman123456]

It always bugged me that the Collectors where so ridiculously weak.

Not the Drones themselves, if i shoot something in the Head a few times i'm ok when it dies;

But the Collectors had this one Base and one Cruiser. And both that Cruiser and the Base where very underpowered.

The Cruiser did destroy the Normandy SR1, a Frigate. Great Job, pitting a Cruiser against a Frigate. And the Cruiser has the Element of Surprise.

If they had known the Collectors where hostile when they first saw them they would have had a good chance of destroying the cruiser first or disabling it. Seeing from what Renegade Shepard could do in the first Game, i wouldn't put it past her/him to order to shoot everything down that isn't friendly on sight.



"Unknown Ship appeared on Sensors!" "Intercept course, Fire all Weapons when ready!".



At the end of the Game, another Frigate, granted, a rather big Frigate, halfway between Frigate and Cruiser size, blows the Collector Cruiser to pieces with two Shots. Even if those two Shots aren't from the Thanix cannon but rather from "normal" Weaponry.



The Collector Base has no Defenses. Well ok, they don't expect anyone to drop by but from what i understand they drift from the mass relay is merely imprecise, it isn't programmed to send you right into the next black hole. So you could go there and have a slight Chance to end up surviving the Trip. And then there are some petty defense Drones and a Cruiser between you and the Base.



Ok, thats not something i would do, but several other People didn't know about all the Black Holes there which turned pretty much everything into scrap metal, so they went there. In massive Numbers with many many Ships.



If i where sitting in that Base, i'd fear that one of these days, a Dreadnought size Ship will come be and swat all the measily Defenses like Flies and take control of my Base.

Granted, that day may not come for a few thousand Years, but the odds will increase over time and the Collectors settled there for the long haul.



The Base goes up in Flames every time i go there for Reasons that haven't been mentioned as far as i know;

This Thing may be trapped in a way that turns everyone into Collector like Drones who happens to be around there for too long. A Reaper could take control of the Systems of the Base and for all we know it could remotely indoctrinate everyone on their, so they supply my shepard with new and awesome collector tech that blows up in my Face.



This Base could be booby trapped in any Number of Ways. This, combined with the Track record of Cerberus who aren't exactly great in avoiding getting their People killed would be enough Reason to blow up the Base. Along with the other Reasons which have been discussed at length that leaves me with little Choices but to destroy the Base.



I don't think it would matter in anyway; or at least i think Bioware could make it so that it wouldn't matter much, if at all in the next Game.



If Shepard needs some magical Plot driving technological Marvel you can get it from the massive debris field around the blown up base. As i understand it, the Collector Base is older then the Collectors, otherwise every ship in the Scrapyard could be easily identified as Asari, Turian, whatever.



So maybe the Reapers had this Base floating around for whatever Reason for quite some time, maybe this thing was their Fallback Plan for when the Citadel Relay wont work or maybe some Civilization decides to not place their Government their for some Reason.



So the Scrapyard is older then the Collectors and older then the last cycle of Extinction.

You could find magical tech from Extinction cycle # 457 and combine it with magical tech from Cycle #52 and create new magical tech to defeat the Reapers.



Keeping the Base may very well turn out to be something bad, since the Reapers could have stuffed any number of things inside the Base, besides Booby traps, to help them.

[CannotCompute]

Well, everytime I see that look on TIM's face when Shep keeps the Collector's base (the last time he is seen in the game, right after you see Cerberus vessels approaching the base) I get the feeling he can't be up to something good.

Modifié par CannotCompute, 09 février 2011 - 06:43 .

[Tennessee88]

 I never understood what the problem was with keeping it. 

For those who say its a terrible place... Just because something is terrible does not mean knowledge of such a thing is evil.

Then there are those who fear TIM. It provides the single greatest source of potential knowledge other than maybe the Protheans (that we know of). Which outcome is worse, TIM uses it to advance himself and/or humanity or everyone is dead? The cost-benefit ratio makes the choice obvious.