803 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

As for (2): metagaming doesn't count for this discussion. We all know we'll be able to win with or without the base, because Bioware wouldn't put the 63% who destroyed the base on an unavoidable track to mission failure.

As for (1). We don't deal in facts here, no, but we needn't. Dealing in risks in quite enough to make a rational choice. We should not dismiss the chance to lower the risk of galactic extinction just because that may increase the risk of some Cerberus dictatorship. Because the former is permanent, and the latter is temporary. I really don't get why the decision is even in question. 

What I base my argument on is the assumption that at the end of ME2, without taking meta-knowledge into account, we can't reasonably expect to win against the Reapers without closing the technology gap.

Or do you think Shepard will find a convenient maintenance shaft into the heart of every Reaper out there? Or a convenient backdoor to their home base which will be conveniently vulnerable to nukes and the deactivation of which will conveniently render all Reapers inactive? Bad enough yeah, but even that depends on detailed knowledge of the Reapers. And where would we get that? Yes, in a place where Reapers were to be made...

You know, I actually fear they'll set it up that way - that conventional military might will be the ultimate deciding factor, with no regard for the fact that Sovereign shrugged off the attacks of a whole fleet until it made the mistake of uploading a significant part of itself to Saren's implants which could then conveniently be destroyed be Shepard. What about those impregnable shields? What about indoctrination?

It might be we needn't answer those questions to win, no matter how much I'd dislike that, but my point is this: at the point where we are at the end of ME2, we can't *expect* things to go that way. We can't destroy the base on the assumption that we will find another way when we're grasping at straws to find a means against the Reapers in the first place.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mars 2011 - 10:21 .

[jeweledleah]

pro collector base folks, you are dismissing the fact that working with Cerberus alienates you from citadel and alliance aid. keeping the base and working with Cerberus basically means that you won't be able to convince the strongest fleet in the galaxy to assist you until its too late. did I mention that aforementioned strongest fleet is also responsible for developing the weapon you destroyed collecto cruser with?  will potential technology from collector base compensate for the loss of allies? we don't know yet, but this is one of those choices where you alienate some of the allies regardless of the choice you make - so it comes down to which allies would you like to keep. I'm more inclined to work with citadel races then Cerberus and maybe terminus systems? that's going to be fun, trying to convince those independent folks to work together)

we have access to a lot of technology already, some of the prototypes have been developed while we were dead. we have citadel, we have independent research, we even have collector technology on board as well as downloaded data. sometimes you have to let go of some of the opportunities when you want to grab others. you need to make a choice. your choice is to work with Cerberus. my choice is to work with alliance. both are valid. you are trying to claim that only one choice is valid.

and I'm sorry but meta gaming does count in this discussion, because meta gaming showed us that there are no losing choices, only different methods.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 08 mars 2011 - 10:33 .

[Doctor Solus]

Just a question; why are everyone so sure the base is gonna matter so much? The only thing I can see is the construction of the Reaper, which sure can prove useful in finding weaknesses etc. but from my point of view there isn't much else to be of great value/danger.

You may object, saying that TIM can get dangerous technology that he can use for Cerberus killing the Galaxy because they are evil (doh..), but what? Weapon technology? The only major weapon-tech we know about is the main canons mounted on Sovereign, which have already been studied and reproduced, and are mounted on a Cerberus vessel. Armor? From the millions of tons blasted inside the Citadel from the battle with Sovereign there, the scientist should easily be able to work out if the Reapers have some advanced armor-tech/material they can use.

And when it comes to indoctrination, I'm pretty sure that is some kind of real advanced radiation-ray-manipulation-devise or something, probably way beyond what any scientists can effectively use anyway, and TIM is way too smart to try to work with some existing indoctrination device, if that stuff was mounted on the proto-reaper or lying somewhere in the base.

And what are the organics used for on the reaper on anyway? Used for making muscle fibers simply for stronger and more versatile mechanical parts? (Like moving the "arms" etc.) I'm sure that that'ssomething that noe-one can, other than on a theoretical basis, for study.

Any vital parts I forgot? Just trying to see it from a scientific point of view..

Modifié par Doctor Solus, 08 mars 2011 - 11:06 .

[jeweledleah]

Tim's been trying to build a super weapon or a super army to do his bidding for years now. thresher maw studies, rachni, biotic experiments, thorian, studying derelict reaper (by the way, speaking of derelict reaper and TIM not working with some existing indoctrination device...), experiments on controlling Geth, even bringing back Shepard with improvements no less. what the collector base is good for? building a super weapon.

he might not use humans specifically. he might even justify it with: "we need to fight fire with fire and the only thing that can reliably defeat a reaper - is another reaper". and who knows, it might even compensate somewhat for the loss of council races support...at least for the duration of reaper war (I'm still not convinced that it will be compensation enough and I can envision my base keeping shepards working like crazy, trying to gather enough allies).

I don't think TIM wants to destroy the galaxy. I think he wants to rule it in more open fashion (he's already manipulating galactic policy etc - something we find out from shadow broker dossiers). I

[Doctor Solus]

I'm sorry, but you are
ignoring facts here!



A) Cerberus aren't even close to have the resources to build the largest
dreadnought in the known galaxy, with experimental new technology, much more
compact design (I believe the reapers are much less hollow and fragile than
standard ships = more resources) and huge energy-usage.



Even if Cerberus were to frantically build a reaper, one would have not make
a difference. We all understand that defeating the Reapers will play out in a
tactical way, probably in like making some signal that deactivates them, making
a black hole in the center of their fleet, etc. Not by military force.



C) For Cerberus dominating, also here a single dreadnought wouldn't make a
difference. Cerberus is way to small an organization to affect the whole galaxy
by force. Even if Cerberus had the support of the Alliance, they couldn't take
on the role as a defiant leader, just a major player, just like now.

 

Just to point out some
things..





 

Modifié par Doctor Solus, 08 mars 2011 - 11:02 .

[jeweledleah]

in other words...collector base will not result in substantial advantage when kept. though it just might result in a lot of extra deaths coupled with minor fighting advantage...like basically every renegade decision so far. you lose/kill extra people and you get an easier fight for Shepard.

which basically proves my point that keeping collector base is not necessary to win - it might just make it faster at more substantial life cost while preparing, while blowing up collector base will not result in a loss but rather a longer fight with less lives lost in preparation.

[Zulu_DFA]

jeweledleah wrote...

pro collector base folks, you are dismissing the fact that working with Cerberus alienates you from citadel and alliance aid. keeping the base and working with Cerberus basically means that you won't be able to convince the strongest fleet in the galaxy to assist you until its too late. did I mention that aforementioned strongest fleet is also responsible for developing the weapon you destroyed collecto cruser with?

First off, in our "pro Collector Base" universes the "strongest fleet" isn't strongest any more.

Secondly, even in your self-hating anti-human universes, working for Cebrerus didn not alienate you from your favorite aliens right away. They just let you do your part. They are not going to help you, you are going to help them. because you're too small. But are they really that moronic as to say: "No, Shepard, you betrayed us, so we're willing to be all gooified now!"? (Also, if they are, do they deserve saving at all?)

jeweledleah wrote...

will potential technology from collector base compensate for the loss of allies? we don't know yet, but this is one of those choices where you alienate some of the allies regardless of the choice you make - so it comes down to which allies would you like to keep.

You don't alienate TIM. He's just "Oh, well, Shepard is an idiot. Still can probably use him for PR..."

jeweledleah wrote...

I'm more inclined to work with citadel races then Cerberus and maybe terminus systems? that's going to be fun, trying to convince those independent folks to work together)

Doing stuff based on what you are more inclined to, as opposed to what is your duty as a Savior of the Galaxy, is irresponsible.

jeweledleah wrote...

we have access to a lot of technology already, some of the prototypes have been developed while we were dead. we have citadel, we have independent research, we even have collector technology on board as well as downloaded data.

And you have no means of knowing all that is remotely enough, other than "it's just a game and BioWAre won't punish us paragons".

jeweledleah wrote...

sometimes you have to let go of some of the opportunities when you want to grab others. you need to make a choice.

All right, let's check it. The Base is real, right here, you're standing in the middle of it.

The Council support? The last time they gave you the airquotes. What are the chances they'll treat you differently the next time?

jeweledleah wrote...

your choice is to work with Cerberus. my choice is to work with alliance. both are valid. you are trying to claim that only one choice is valid.

This is not just your decision. The other side's choice matters too. Think of it as of marriage: you may not be happy in matrimony with Cerberus, but it's your only chance of making a family. Because all other parties seem to not willing to marry you. And, you can always divorce Cerberus, if you find the true love of your life. That's what's happening with Liara fans... Only it seems that it has always been TIM's plan, to "marry" you to Liara. And it also leaves the question as to what would Liara do with the Base.

jeweledleah wrote...

and I'm sorry but meta gaming does count in this discussion, because meta gaming showed us that there are no losing choices, only different methods.

I pity your Shepard. Knowing you're a bunch of pixels, fully controlled by a god from the real world must suck.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 11:19 .

[jeweledleah]

Zulu dear, give it up. you are biased and it shows more and more with every post you make. I don't have just one shepard, I don't play just paragon. I see both sides. you however, are blind to everything but your own opinion. so give it up. keep your smugness while you still can. you won't be able to stay smug for much longer.

[Doctor Solus]

jeweledleah wrote...

in other words...collector base will not result in substantial advantage when kept. though it just might result in a lot of extra deaths coupled with minor fighting advantage...like basically every renegade decision so far. you lose/kill extra people and you get an easier fight for Shepard.

which basically proves my point that keeping collector base is not necessary to win - it might just make it faster at more substantial life cost while preparing, while blowing up collector base will not result in a loss but rather a longer fight with less lives lost in preparation.

Wow, where did you fish that out? How will the Collector base result in people dying? Seriously, you are either convinced that keeping the base will make Cerberus the tyrant king of the universe, or like Zulu, intantly win the war against the Reapers. 
Keeping/destroying is sort of the equilant to saving/killing the Council; it won't mather! Yes, some stuff like attitude from different people, and maybe you get an extra Reaper-based weapon from Cerberus scientists if you keep the base, or something akin to that. Nothing more, unless BioWare decides to be radical..

Modifié par Doctor Solus, 08 mars 2011 - 11:32 .

[jeweledleah]

how did I get people dying? well Cerberus experiments generally tend to end up with a lot of deaths and here we are giving Cerberus ready made lab, all set up to liquefy sentient beings. there will be deaths. in a long run, we'll still win either way. but the journey and casualties, as well as galactic atmosphere WILL change depending on your choices.

[Zulu_DFA]

jeweledleah wrote...

Zulu dear, give it up. you are biased and it shows more and more with every post you make. I don't have just one shepard, I don't play just paragon.

But you must have a "canon" shepard, a favorite one. The one that is "you".

jeweledleah wrote...

I see both sides. you however, are blind to everything but your own opinion. so give it up. keep your smugness while you still can. you won't be able to stay smug for much longer.

How about you stop trying to teach me how to live and answer the points of my previous post? Or don't answer the points of my previous post, but stop trying to teach me how to live anyway?

[Doctor Solus]

Why would Cerberus want to grind up people? 

"Hai TIM, let's see how this Reaper grinding-machine affects a Turian, lol:wizard:"

And no, Cerberus ops. don't "generally" end up in people dying, that are just the minority you are sent to clean up. Everyone f*ck up every once and again, Cerberus maybe more often and more severe than the average research group, but that doesn't mean they are completely relenthless and without ethnics.

Modifié par Doctor Solus, 08 mars 2011 - 11:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, why would you rely on Cerberus do it at the worst time and the worst way?

Ignore whether Cerberus even could master Indoctrination- why is the argument based upon Cerberus, the one organization to recognize the Reapers and take steps to prepare against them, to actively sabatoge efforts that would be used against them when no one is sure if we can survive at all? [/quote]

Risk assessment isn't about certainties or 'relying.' It is about possibilities, probabilities, and risk. We know for a fact that TIM is already undermining the other powers by virtue of conceiling key intel, and undermining Shepard's credibility. Given that, despite what is coming, why do you assume they would act differently if given additional power?[/quote]I don't assume they would act differently: that's why I am continually puzzled by your insistence that they would.


[quote]
Only if Shepard isn't onside with his plans, [/quote]And EDI, and Joker, and Miranda, and Jacob, and Jack, and Grunt, and....

[quote]
and only if he doesn't have a failsafe 'blow up the Normandy' switch.[/quote]Since it's rather apparent he doesn't, or at least isn't using it...

[quote]
Which flys Cerberus colours and has Cerberus idealists on board (or at least did as of the last intel of the Council's), and who have no evidence of anything other than a data-pad of 'dismissable fiction.'
[/quote]And so they're interrogated, and give leads trusted investigators can follow. That's how these things work.

[quote]
TIM can change the IFF designation before starting. [/quote]How can he, when the Reapers couldn't/didn't? Where does the presumption that this is the sort of IFF that can be 'changed' come from?

[quote]
Heck, just place a minefield with a separate IFF in the entry area. Any scout or probe sent through blows up and the Council says 'And you wanted us to send a fleet into that deathtrap?"[/quote]Why would anyone have to travel to the far side to stop the delivery of bodies through the Omega Relay?
[quote]
TIM has done everything he can to make sure that Shepard isn't believable to anyone else, even to the extent of risking the galaxy on his opinion that Cerberus can stop the Reapers alone. [/quote]Hardly. Typical hyperbole from you, and a total denial that other people might not support Shepard for Shepard's own actions, but not surprising.

[quote]
Source reference? Or just making that up?[/quote]Legion.

[quote]

Pretty sure it was dismissing them as unworthy, not saying anything like what you are saying. We didn't know about the proto-reaper yet.[/quote]Salarians were outright deemed 'too unstable'. And, at the time of decision, we certainly do know about the proto-reaper.

[quote]
Because the Batarians still have an organized fleet, whereas Illium is isolated in the 'forbidden zone' of Terminus. The Collectors were allegedly going to hit Earth, which would have been a lot better defended than Illium. Done right, TIM might even be able to make it look like the Terminus systems were behind it, since the Council rejected concepts of any outside threats.[/quote]But Illium is Asari: the Council already made clear in ME1 that had a Council race been hit, they would have reacted. And in ME2, the Alliance itself was never barred or prevented from acting in the Terminus.

Nothing really suggests Illium is sufficient... or isolated at all.

When the Collectors hit Earth, they would have had an entire allied Geth race at their disposal, an actual mega-transport, and full mastery of their technology. TIM... would not.


[quote]

How is that any different than the line fed to Saren? It is completely compatable with their infiltrate and destroy strategy. They may even believe it. That doesn't make it so.[/quote]They have far greater claim to a technological singularity than anyone.
[quote]

Really? [/quote]Yes. For what should be blindingly obvious reasons I know you've heard before.

[quote]You think reapers would be ineffective as weapons against Reapers? [/quote]One reaper would be ineffective against hundreds of Reapers.

Especially since the parts of the Reaper that would actually be worthwhile (the weapons, shielding, drive core) don't need to be made out of smoothies in the first place.
[quote]
He was willing to sacrifice Horizon already, why not Illium? Or at least other worlds?[/quote]At all? Not the dispute. But horizon was a sacrifice with a point: bringing the Collectors to an engagement when they couldn't otherwise be hit. Illium doesn't do that, and putting other races through the gooey doesn't do that either.

pquote]
You are assuming he isn't taking defeating the Reapers as a given.[[/quote]I have no reason to believe he does take defeating the Reapers as a given.

[quote]
He is way too sure of himself in that regard, or he would want the other races prepared too. [/quote]How has he blocked other races from all the necessities to recognize the threat and prepare for them? They had an entire Reaper to fight, significant amounts of salvage, and even civilian scientists right on the citadel who could note the disrepencies.

Cerberus claiming 'dibs' on salvaging a Reaper first, after the main races got their own chance to scramble and fight for the lion's share of the last, is not blocking them from preparing.

[quote]
No, the quote isn't proof. He didn't outright tell us his master plan. But that doesn't make you right either. He might not even believe they are coming, and might think he is just playing Shepard to gain tech like the Collector base.
[/quote]...yes, because the first five minutes of the game, in which TIM is conferring with a trusted top-level associate, were completely faked. As was the basis for nearly bankrupting Cerberus. And pretty much every TIM insight we've had since his character was revealed.

No, seriously: what the **** is this ****? The entire plot of the game and sequel novel revolves around the fact that TIM believes in the Reapers, and is willing to overturn the laws of nature and conscience to prepare for them.

[Zulu_DFA]

Doctor Solus wrote...

Keeping/destroying is sort of the equilant to saving/killing the Council; it won't mather!

This is exactly the main reason people feel that destroying the Base is an "equally valid choice".

What we, the "pro Base folks" argue is that frome the in-universe perspective, it's not an equally valid choice at all, Because Shepard can't know that "it's just a game".

Keepeing the base is a valid choice from both perspectives: we'll get our share of teh lulz in ME3 as players playin "just a game", and we have our Shepards acting like a Saviour of the Galaxy, who is doing his part and acquiring a potentially vital resource to have a chance against the Reapers, as opposed to a pshycho-moron Shepard saying "I'd rather see the Galaxy burning than my race dominating it!!!"

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

Zulu dear, give it up. you are biased and it shows more and more with every post you make. I don't have just one shepard, I don't play just paragon. I see both sides. you however, are blind to everything but your own opinion. so give it up. keep your smugness while you still can. you won't be able to stay smug for much longer.

"Hey, Pot, this is Kettle. You're black."

[jeweledleah]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

How about you stop trying to teach me how to live and answer the points of my previous post? Or don't answer the points of my previous post, but stop trying to teach me how to live anyway?

isn't that exactly what you're trying to do here to everyone disagreeing with you?  all those, irresponsible, stupid, etc comments?

me, I'm just trying to show that there's more then one way to sucesfuly achieve a goal, especialy when that goal exists in a computer game with some very clear rules for consequences of player's choices.  Even if you are hardcore role playing, especialy if you hardcore roleplaying.

I will not hope that renegade players crush and burn and eat their own words, becasue I don't want my own renegade shepards to suffer. 

Dean, how am I biased?  you mean seeing validity in variety of methods is bias?  as opposed to thinking that one way is the only good way and everything else, regadless of prior results - is wrong and stupid?  interesting

Modifié par jeweledleah, 08 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[Doctor Solus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Doctor Solus wrote...

Keeping/destroying is sort of the e
What we, the "pro Base folks" arguequilant to saving/killing the Council; it won't mather!

This is exactly the main reason people feel that destroying the Base is an "equally valid choice".
 is that frome the in-universe perspective, it's not an equally valid choice at all, Because Shepard can't know that "it's just a game".

Keepeing the base is a valid choice from both perspectives: we'll get our share of teh lulz in ME3 as players playin "just a game", and we have our Shepards acting like a Saviour of the Galaxy, who is doing his part and acquiring a potentially vital resource to have a chance against the Reapers, as opposed to a pshycho-moron Shepard saying "I'd rather see the Galaxy burning than my race dominating it!!!"

I agree, but I try to see it from both an in-game view, and as a gamer. And yes, I agree, keeping the base is logical. But what don't agree is the Collector base being so important, yes one may be able to find tech that can help us in different ways; improve engineering techniques and understanding of the reapers (mechanically, and as a race).

But no game-changers, I KNOW this from a gamer perspective, since the people blowing it up got to have a chance, to, and i can assume this from an in-game perspective since the Reapers wouldn't keep an on/off switch (metaphorically, anything that easily could end their harvesting-cycles) in the base, even though no-one else than the Collectors were supposed to get there.

They are after all the most advanced "race" known, I think we can assume they are smart enough to take precautions. 

EDIT: Explained more.. http://social.biowar...6841/26#6409091

Modifié par Doctor Solus, 08 mars 2011 - 12:09 .

[Kekkis]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Doctor Solus wrote...

Keeping/destroying is sort of the equilant to saving/killing the Council; it won't mather!

This is exactly the main reason people feel that destroying the Base is an "equally valid choice".

What we, the "pro Base folks" argue is that frome the in-universe perspective, it's not an equally valid choice at all, Because Shepard can't know that "it's just a game".

Keepeing the base is a valid choice from both perspectives: we'll get our share of teh lulz in ME3 as players playin "just a game", and we have our Shepards acting like a Saviour of the Galaxy, who is doing his part and acquiring a potentially vital resource to have a chance against the Reapers, as opposed to a pshycho-moron Shepard saying "I'd rather see the Galaxy burning than my race dominating it!!!"

Or Shep just feels like he is an idiot when Reapers take it back.

Safe bet is just to keep ruining Reapers plans and study wrecks, that is left behind. Reapers can´t just kill everyone, becouse they need building material and slaves to keep cycle going. And destroying that base give us more time while Reapers try to figure out new plan and build new factory.

[Doctor Solus]

Or we could unite all races and f*ck the entire galaxy up, destroying every garden-planet, killing all life-forms. Sort of like the Forerunners did in Halo; starving an unbeatable opponent. Problem solved.

[Zulu_DFA]

jeweledleah wrote...

Dean, how am I biased?  you mean seeing validity in variety of methods is bias?  as opposed to thinking that one way is the only good way and everything else, regadless of prior results - is wrong and stupid?  interesting

Sometimes trying to play "unbiased" is very biased. Like in this case, when the situation itself is heavily biased and imposing. And the results of my poll clearly show that, that without the hypothetical "other way" to save the Galaxy, this is a "no-choice" choice.

But yeah, probably I should stop responding to you, because at this point I feel inclined indeed to post things just to spite you. Too bad. I liked how you handled that Val Seleznyov guy in the HELMETS discussion.

So, is it IGNORE each other from now on? Does that suit you?

[Almostfaceman]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Doctor Solus wrote...

Keeping/destroying is sort of the equilant to saving/killing the Council; it won't mather!

This is exactly the main reason people feel that destroying the Base is an "equally valid choice".

What we, the "pro Base folks" argue is that frome the in-universe perspective, it's not an equally valid choice at all, Because Shepard can't know that "it's just a game".

Keepeing the base is a valid choice from both perspectives: we'll get our share of teh lulz in ME3 as players playin "just a game", and we have our Shepards acting like a Saviour of the Galaxy, who is doing his part and acquiring a potentially vital resource to have a chance against the Reapers, as opposed to a pshycho-moron Shepard saying "I'd rather see the Galaxy burning than my race dominating it!!!"

Oh boy where do I start?

This debate, without keeping in mind that is a game, is pointless.  We can argue back and forth about what would be good "in real life" and it will never apply to the strict confines of this game.  Never.  When ME3 comes out and people who have both blown up the base and kept it still win the game, you still won't shut up and you'll still argue about something that can never be proved or disproved.

Second, you are, once again, setting up a false choice.  Even within the limiting confines of the game choices, it is not IF you will win but HOW you win.  All the classic storytelling elments are at play here.  It's a classic setup - will we win retaining what makes us human, or will we win and become what we defeated.  Keep in mind this has been a theme for Bioware for a long time - one of the quotes from the early games (I believe one of the Baldur's Gate games) is "When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you."

[Zulu_DFA]

Kekkis wrote...
Or Shep just feels like he is an idiot when Reapers take it back. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

If the Reapers take it back, it'll mean that we've already lost by then.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 02:17 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Oh boy where do I start?

You shouldn't have at all.

Almostfaceman wrote...

This debate, without keeping in mind that is a game, is pointless.

Because there is no debate, if we all meta-game. This is what it'd be like, if the both choices were valid:

I kept it.

I blew it

I kept it.

I blew it

I blew it

I blew it

I kept it.

I blew it

I blew it

I blew it

I blew it

I kept it.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 12:46 .

[Almostfaceman]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Oh boy where do I start?

You shouldn't have at all.

Almostfaceman wrote...

This debate, without keeping in mind that is a game, is pointless.

Because there is no debate, if we all meta-game. This is what it'd be like, if the both choices were valid:

I kept it.

I blew it

I kept it.

I blew it

I blew it

I blew it

I kept it.

I blew it

I blew it

I blew it

I blew it

I kept it.

Of course I should have, and the debate would of course be more involved than that, since, as I mentioned before, there is more than one way to win the game.  I kept it, and became overlord of the galaxy and the new Darth Vader, or I blew it, and became the new Luke Skywalker.  Then we get to see how right or wrong we were when they actually finish the game, and thus have a debate where I or you can make fun of each other for being right or wrong.  Unlike a debate about what would be right in "real life" - because that's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

[Doctor Solus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Of course I should have, and the debate would of course be more involved than that, since, as I mentioned before, there is more than one way to win the game.  I kept it, and became overlord of the galaxy and the new Darth Vader, or I blew it, and became the new Luke Skywalker.  Then we get to see how right or wrong we were when they actually finish the game, and thus have a debate where I or you can make fun of each other for being right or wrong.  Unlike a debate about what would be right in "real life" - because that's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

wow..  


CB ≠ Deathstar. <_<