803 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

At least in the old threads, metagaming was excluded by consensus.

Metagaming, I know I can have my cake and eat it. I know I'll be able to win no matter what. This debate is what is reasonable behaviour on Shepard's part. Roleplaying, you know. You aren't you. You're Shepard. It is your responsibility to save the galaxy. Now imagine yourself in these shoes. You know what others don't, what others deny. Feel the weight of that responsibility. Make yourself feel it. You do not know the future, and possibly nothing of this will matter, but then again, it might - a wrong choice now might doom the galaxy.

Do you destroy the base? Can you afford to, even if you want to?

@Almostfaceman:
No, this is not a decision about retaining our humanity vs. becoming what we have defeated, not unless you implicitly count all humans who aren't principles zealots as inhuman. Yes, some stories like to paint the principles zealots as the good guys, but if ME does that the universe will have lost all credibility. ME is not Star Wars, damn it, and there are no sharp lines between good and bad, however some people want to make it so. Those who keep the base don't want to become tyrants (some might, OK, but the majority doesn't), the decision is a matter of strategic necessity. Human domination or not, Cerberus' atrocities using the base, all that are side issues. Should they come to pass they will be dealt with in time after the Reapers are defeated. Keeping the base is meant to ensure we'll actually have that chance.

[Ieldra]

double post. sorry.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mars 2011 - 02:04 .

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

Why is that?

That's an entirely different debate. You want to invent reasons why it wasn't necessary to focus on Sovereign? Then I can invent reasons why the aliens don't kick humanity out of the Citadel.

I wasn't really defending saving the Council.  But if you want to discuss the human-led council, I made a thread on it a few days ago.  http://social.biowar...3/index/6318799

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

Dean, how am I biased? 

Here's a hint about how everyone knows you're biased: you're maintaining a side in an argument. Which means you've come to believe one side is superior to the other. Which means you're biased towards that position in your current mindset. The nature of making a choice is to bias ones self towards it: people don't make 'worse' choices, even when the reasons for doing so are petty and personal.

The rest flows from there, though the unseemly amounts are more from how you've been acting than the act of making a judgement in and of itself. I'd pose the counterquestion of 'how are you not', but based on your
prior posts to date, the meaning, and the self-insight, would go over
your head.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 mars 2011 - 02:16 .

[Trekfanboy]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 the decision is a matter of strategic necessity. Human domination or not, Cerberus' atrocities using the base, all that are side issues. Should they come to pass they will be dealt with in time after the Reapers are defeated. Keeping the base is meant to ensure we'll actually have that chance.

I don't consider myself to be a zealot or a someone who sees the world in only black and white or good versus evil.

However, your conclusion made me feel sick to my stomach. If there is even the "slightest" chance that I can defeat the Reapers without slaughtering human beings as fodder for the Collector base's Reaper machine, I'd rather risk my own life and the lives of my crew fighting the Reapers than kill a bunch of humans so I can make a Reaper(s) of my own to use against the Reaper fleet.

That's not me being a foolish prude who can't recognize the strategic value of the Collector base, that's me deciding that I can't live with myself if I commit horrible atrocities ... even if my end goal is a good one.

I think that's why the writers of ME2 put your own crew in danger of being "disolved" by the Collector base. The writers want you to understand just how horrible this base is before you decide whether you should keep it.

I'm sure the team at Bioware will come up with good and bad repercussions (or "reapercussions" ... get it) for either choice you make. Saving the base will probably give you a tactical advantage on one hand but cause other problems in the game. Likewise, destroying the base means you've got one less super weapon to use against the Reaper fleet, but you won't have to deal with the negative consequences that come from saving the base.

[Labrev]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
Executor Pallin: "if the cure is worse than the disease, then what's the point?"

So frankly, yes. I much rather get nuked than live under a dictator. Dying on your feet >>>>>>> living on your knees. Freedom is what I'm fighting for, not life. Especially not life under facists. Might as well just join the Reapers like good ole Saren.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that. Which is OK. But nobody has to re-evaluate themself for thinking that way. I'd venture to guess that it's actually you that's in the minority on this one.

Besides which, so much of that post is unfounded and speculative. Cerberus may not even be a lesser foe than the Reapers after they get the base. "What's the worst that can happen?" Maybe it's worse than the worst you can possibly imagine. Vigil would tell you to keep it? LOL, right.

So yeah, *you* might rather get nuked. But you're not making that decision for yourself, but for all intelligent species in the galaxy. As history has shown, dictatorships are temporary, but extinction is pretty much permanent. You're sacrificing your species - and the rest of them - for the sake of a principle. 

You're making a dangerous assumption that you will be able to fight for your freedom successfully. A dictator, potentially armed with a Reaper. Uh, good luck with that.

Hey, maybe you will. But odds are high it won't come without the loss of lots of lives, the thing you hoped not to need when you saved it in the first place.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 08 mars 2011 - 03:38 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Executor Pallin: "if the cure is worse than the disease, then what's the point?"

So frankly, yes. I much rather get nuked than live under a dictator. Dying on your feet >>>>>>> living on your knees. Freedom is what I'm fighting for, not life. Especially not life under facists. Might as well just join the Reapers like good ole Saren.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that. Which is OK. But nobody has to re-evaluate themself for thinking that way. I'd venture to guess that it's actually you that's in the minority on this one.

Besides which, so much of that post is unfounded and speculative. Cerberus may not even be a lesser foe than the Reapers after they get the base. "What's the worst that can happen?" Maybe it's worse than the worst you can possibly imagine. Vigil would tell you to keep it? LOL, right.

So yeah, *you* might rather get nuked. But you're not making that decision for yourself, but for all intelligent species in the galaxy. As history has shown, dictatorships are temporary, but extinction is pretty much permanent. You're sacrificing your species - and the rest of them - for the sake of a principle. 

You're making a dangerous assumption that you will be able to fight for your freedom successfully. A dictator, potentially armed with a Reaper. Uh, good luck with that.

It doesn't matter. Cerberus' dictatorship is preferable to total extinction.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 03:41 .

[Labrev]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Executor Pallin: "if the cure is worse than the disease, then what's the point?"

So frankly, yes. I much rather get nuked than live under a dictator. Dying on your feet >>>>>>> living on your knees. Freedom is what I'm fighting for, not life. Especially not life under facists. Might as well just join the Reapers like good ole Saren.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that. Which is OK. But nobody has to re-evaluate themself for thinking that way. I'd venture to guess that it's actually you that's in the minority on this one.

Besides which, so much of that post is unfounded and speculative. Cerberus may not even be a lesser foe than the Reapers after they get the base. "What's the worst that can happen?" Maybe it's worse than the worst you can possibly imagine. Vigil would tell you to keep it? LOL, right.

So yeah, *you* might rather get nuked. But you're not making that decision for yourself, but for all intelligent species in the galaxy. As history has shown, dictatorships are temporary, but extinction is pretty much permanent. You're sacrificing your species - and the rest of them - for the sake of a principle. 

You're making a dangerous assumption that you will be able to fight for your freedom successfully. A dictator, potentially armed with a Reaper. Uh, good luck with that.

It doesn't matter. Cerberus' dictatorship is preferable to total extinction.

?

If you KNOW what the outcome will be, then it's not even a choice. Even I would save the base in that scenario.

Saving the base doesn't ensure that you'll beat the Reapers or even have a better chance than if you don't.

[Smeelia]

Here's an interesting thought, if the survival of Humanity is all that matters then what's wrong with letting the Reapers win? Humanity will still survive in Reaper form, it's just a rather extreme case of cybernetics.

[seniorcanardo]

You have to destroy it. Can you imagine how high are taxes on this thing?
Shepard can't afford that!

[Zulu_DFA]

Smeelia wrote...

Here's an interesting thought, if the survival of Humanity is all that matters then what's wrong with letting the Reapers win? Humanity will still survive in Reaper form, it's just a rather extreme case of cybernetics.

"Survive in Reaper form" = death.

[jeweledleah]

my biased self (get it, thinking that neither choice is superior to another and trying to show that the other has just AS much merit as the first - its biased nowadays) is going to laugh so hard when all of you "my way, or you lose you stupid person who think its a good idea to prevent torture deaths" are going to be proven wrong. I'm going to laugh even harder if destroying the base is a default choice for new players. I'm going to laugh so hard when you'd have to swallow your words as players who destroyed the base - who could be either paragon or renegade (what, did you think that one decision determines the entire alignment? you poor misguided souls..) will have no problems defeating the reapers whatsoever.

[Ieldra]

Trekfanboy wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
 the decision is a matter of strategic necessity. Human domination or not, Cerberus' atrocities using the base, all that are side issues. Should they come to pass they will be dealt with in time after the Reapers are defeated. Keeping the base is meant to ensure we'll actually have that chance.

I don't consider myself to be a zealot or a someone who sees the world in only black and white or good versus evil.

However, your conclusion made me feel sick to my stomach. If there is even the "slightest" chance that I can defeat the Reapers without slaughtering human beings as fodder for the Collector base's Reaper machine, I'd rather risk my own life and the lives of my crew fighting the Reapers than kill a bunch of humans so I can make a Reaper(s) of my own to use against the Reaper fleet.

That's not me being a foolish prude who can't recognize the strategic value of the Collector base, that's me deciding that I can't live with myself if I commit horrible atrocities ... even if my end goal is a good one.

I think that's why the writers of ME2 put your own crew in danger of being "disolved" by the Collector base. The writers want you to understand just how horrible this base is before you decide whether you should keep it.

Not quite. They wanted you to *feel* how horrible it is. And they did succeed, mostly. I've always said that it's the power of the images pitted against the power of clear thinking. What could be more horrible, in the end, than the Reapers indoctrinating, killing or forcibly transforming all organic beings in the galaxy? The sheer scale of it is unimaginable, and so - we don't, and get muddle-headed because the images of the base are so much more powerful, even though what's happened there and what Cerberus will do is a pittance compared to what the Reapers will inflict on the galaxy. So it is time to put "It's horrible" behind ourselves and think of what is most useful for the coming conflict.

(1) To think that TIM will sacrifice humans on the same scale as the Collectors would have is preposterous. He'd destroy much of what is his stated purpose to empower, and apart from that he hasn't got the resources. The only big ship at the base has been destroyed and if any Collector ships remain in the galaxy, they've fled elsewhere. I wouldn't discount that he may use up some humans for experimentation, which is bad enough, but not enough to justify destroying the whole thing, as distasteful as that may be.

(2) You are telling me you can't bring yourself to keep the base and that you could not live with yourself if you did. I say if you rationally accept that keeping it might be necessary, then you should overcome that emotion. If you cannot do that, then the heroic thing is to do what's necessary now and throw your life away against a Reaper in atonement later.

(3) The base is not horrible, what was done there is. Has been. In the end it is just machines. Technology. Tools. Understanding. All that can be adapted to different purposes.

(4) You say if there's the slightest chance that you can succeed without the base you'll take it. The plain fact is, you don't know if you can succeed at all, with or without the base. The Reapers have been doing this for at least 37 million years, and they are powerful enough that the term "techno-gods" seems appropriate. So, anything that helps you understand them, even in the smallest way, might tip the balance in your favor. Which might not be so much compared to the horrors on the base if this were your usual war for dominance, were it not about the survival of intelligent organic life in the known galaxy. While you don't know what you'll find will be useful, there is no other place with an remotely equal chance of increasing your understanding of your main enemy.

I'm sure the team at Bioware will come up with good and bad repercussions (or "reapercussions" ... get it) for either choice you make. Saving the base will probably give you a tactical advantage on one hand but cause other problems in the game. Likewise, destroying the base means you've got one less super weapon to use against the Reaper fleet, but you won't have to deal with the negative consequences that come from saving the base.

As long as the consequences aren't one-sided in favor of destroying the base, I'll be able to live with it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mars 2011 - 04:22 .

[Pwener2313]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Executor Pallin: "if the cure is worse than the disease, then what's the point?"

So frankly, yes. I much rather get nuked than live under a dictator. Dying on your feet >>>>>>> living on your knees. Freedom is what I'm fighting for, not life. Especially not life under facists. Might as well just join the Reapers like good ole Saren.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on that. Which is OK. But nobody has to re-evaluate themself for thinking that way. I'd venture to guess that it's actually you that's in the minority on this one.

Besides which, so much of that post is unfounded and speculative. Cerberus may not even be a lesser foe than the Reapers after they get the base. "What's the worst that can happen?" Maybe it's worse than the worst you can possibly imagine. Vigil would tell you to keep it? LOL, right.

So yeah, *you* might rather get nuked. But you're not making that decision for yourself, but for all intelligent species in the galaxy. As history has shown, dictatorships are temporary, but extinction is pretty much permanent. You're sacrificing your species - and the rest of them - for the sake of a principle. 

You're making a dangerous assumption that you will be able to fight for your freedom successfully. A dictator, potentially armed with a Reaper. Uh, good luck with that.

It doesn't matter. Cerberus' dictatorship is preferable to total extinction.

?

If you KNOW what the outcome will be, then it's not even a choice. Even I would save the base in that scenario.

Saving the base doesn't ensure that you'll beat the Reapers or even have a better chance than if you don't.

A lot of intelligent people can preceive the future before it happens. This case is prettey obvious too. Take Alving Toffler for example, who predicted over 40 years ago that the world would be right now plunged into a reverance of technology faster then we could control. He wrote a book detailing the use and manufacturinmg of genetic modification. Genetics in the 70s? No such thing back then, but he knew it was coming. It doesn't really take a genius to know what would happen. No offense Zulu.

[Zulu_DFA]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

If you KNOW what the outcome will be, then it's not even a choice. Even I would save the base in that scenario.

Good.

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Saving the base doesn't ensure that you'll beat the Reapers or even have a better chance than if you don't.

Nothing so far ensures that. So you have to take your chances with the Base, even if you know for sure that it'll lead to Cerberus' dictatorship in the aftermath.

Even an assured Cerberus' dictatorship is a matter of no concern next to the assured Galaxy-wide extinction.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 04:26 .

[Almostfaceman]

Ieldra2 wrote...

At least in the old threads, metagaming was excluded by consensus.

Metagaming, I know I can have my cake and eat it. I know I'll be able to win no matter what. This debate is what is reasonable behaviour on Shepard's part. Roleplaying, you know. You aren't you. You're Shepard. It is your responsibility to save the galaxy. Now imagine yourself in these shoes. You know what others don't, what others deny. Feel the weight of that responsibility. Make yourself feel it. You do not know the future, and possibly nothing of this will matter, but then again, it might - a wrong choice now might doom the galaxy.

Do you destroy the base? Can you afford to, even if you want to?

@Almostfaceman:
No, this is not a decision about retaining our humanity vs. becoming what we have defeated, not unless you implicitly count all humans who aren't principles zealots as inhuman. Yes, some stories like to paint the principles zealots as the good guys, but if ME does that the universe will have lost all credibility. ME is not Star Wars, damn it, and there are no sharp lines between good and bad, however some people want to make it so. Those who keep the base don't want to become tyrants (some might, OK, but the majority doesn't), the decision is a matter of strategic necessity. Human domination or not, Cerberus' atrocities using the base, all that are side issues. Should they come to pass they will be dealt with in time after the Reapers are defeated. Keeping the base is meant to ensure we'll actually have that chance.

Really?  I think you're ignoring Bioware's past games when you say this.  Take Baldur's Gate 2 - you can play evil or good.  You still win.  But... you can win with everybody loving you or you can win with everyone hating you (to put it uber-simply).  It's the same Bioware story-telling principle here.  All they've done is replace alignment with Paragon or Renegade.  It's a tried and true rpg story telling technique used over and over again.  I can't think of one roleplaying game I've played that doesn't stick to this formula - all the Fable's and Fallout 2 just off the top of my head, also Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Planescape Torment...  It's such a familiar formula that Bioware has had to warn people that you can actually kill your saved character off in Mass Effect 2 - but even then all that means is you start Mass Effect 3 with a new Shepard character who still more than likely defeats the Reapers.  The entertaining part isn't IF you'll do it, it's HOW. 

Now you can talk all you want about the merits of discussing immersing yourself totally and not taking into consideration any of the gamer aspects of what you're doing - but that's not very realistic.  Most people playing will know in the back of their mind they can pretty much safely play either Paragon or Renegade and still overall succeed at the game.  It HAS to be designed that way or they'll ****** off everyone who played Renegade or ****** off everyone who played Paragon - and Bioware isn't in the business of pissing people off.

So you can't totally separate the two aspects imho.

Otherwise you get in these pointless debates that no one can ever prove they're right on - because the Mass Effect future doesn't really exist.  And that's all this thread has been is a dogmatic back and forth with no end ever.  And no one will win, no matter what happens in Mass Effect 3, because one side or the other will say "yeah but in REALITY... This would happen."  And then the pointless debate would start all over again.

So, I say that blowing up the base in the game universe helps more than hinders Shepard in fighting the Reapers.  When Mass Effect 3 comes out, that claim can be put to the test and debated citing actual game data.  What a concept.

[Pwener2313]

@Almostfaceman: Cry all you want! I don't care about being loved, I only care to stop the Collectors, and in my canon ME story, it means taking out the Council so that Sovereign can be stopped and keeping the Collector Base. Each to it's own.

[Almostfaceman]

Pwener2313 wrote...

@Almostfaceman: Cry all you want! I don't care about being loved, I only care to stop the Collectors, and in my canon ME story, it means taking out the Council so that Sovereign can be stopped and keeping the Collector Base. Each to it's own.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  When did I ever cry about anyone doing something Renegade?  I could care less how you play the game - it's your game play it how you want.

Myself I've done a lot of runthroughs - Paragon, Renegade, Mixed, to analyze the story and enjoy it for as much as it has to offer.

Drugs are bad mmkay?

[Zulu_DFA]

jeweledleah wrote...

my biased self (get it, thinking that neither choice is superior to another and trying to show that the other has just AS much merit as the first - its biased nowadays) is going to laugh so hard when all of you "my way, or you lose you stupid person who think its a good idea to prevent torture deaths" are going to be proven wrong. I'm going to laugh even harder if destroying the base is a default choice for new players. I'm going to laugh so hard when you'd have to swallow your words as players who destroyed the base - who could be either paragon or renegade (what, did you think that one decision determines the entire alignment? you poor misguided souls..) will have no problems defeating the reapers whatsoever.

That'd be just a case of bad writing, and keeping the Base would remain the right choice regardelss. Because only the info available (to Shepard, in-game) at the moment of the choice matters. And at the moment of the C-Base decision, no info is available that would make blowing it up a remotely reasonable choice.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2011 - 04:46 .

[Pwener2313]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

@Almostfaceman: Cry all you want! I don't care about being loved, I only care to stop the Collectors, and in my canon ME story, it means taking out the Council so that Sovereign can be stopped and keeping the Collector Base. Each to it's own.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  When did I ever cry about anyone doing something Renegade?  I could care less how you play the game - it's your game play it how you want.

Myself I've done a lot of runthroughs - Paragon, Renegade, Mixed, to analyze the story and enjoy it for as much as it has to offer.

Drugs are bad mmkay?

I was being metaphorical, nevermind. I thought you were another underdog trying to tell us how to lay the game. Sorry....

[Almostfaceman]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

my biased self (get it, thinking that neither choice is superior to another and trying to show that the other has just AS much merit as the first - its biased nowadays) is going to laugh so hard when all of you "my way, or you lose you stupid person who think its a good idea to prevent torture deaths" are going to be proven wrong. I'm going to laugh even harder if destroying the base is a default choice for new players. I'm going to laugh so hard when you'd have to swallow your words as players who destroyed the base - who could be either paragon or renegade (what, did you think that one decision determines the entire alignment? you poor misguided souls..) will have no problems defeating the reapers whatsoever.

That'd be just a case of bad writing, and keeping the Base would remain the right choice regardelss. Because only the info available at the moment of the choice matters. And at the moment of the C-Base decision, no info is available that would make blowing it up a remotely reasonable choice.

Wow, judging the writing (of the 3rd game) before you've even seen it eh?  Dogmatic often? 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 08 mars 2011 - 04:50 .

[Almostfaceman]

Pwener2313 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

@Almostfaceman: Cry all you want! I don't care about being loved, I only care to stop the Collectors, and in my canon ME story, it means taking out the Council so that Sovereign can be stopped and keeping the Collector Base. Each to it's own.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  When did I ever cry about anyone doing something Renegade?  I could care less how you play the game - it's your game play it how you want.

Myself I've done a lot of runthroughs - Paragon, Renegade, Mixed, to analyze the story and enjoy it for as much as it has to offer.

Drugs are bad mmkay?

I was being metaphorical, nevermind. I thought you were another underdog trying to tell us how to lay the game. Sorry....

Roger that 10-4 no worries. :happy:

[Smeelia]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That'd be just a case of bad writing, and keeping the Base would remain the right choice regardelss. Because only the info available (to Shepard, in-game) at the moment of the choice matters. And at the moment of the C-Base decision, no info is available that would make blowing it up a remotely reasonable choice.

That's not really true, Shepard has seen evidence of the dangers of messing about with Reaper tech and the way that Reapers have a tendency not to just leave perfectly safe things behind, as well as experience of Cerberus' reckless research techniques that rarely produce worthwhile results and certainly at a needlessly high cost (a dead scientist produces no more results, a living one can keep working on their next project).  There are plenty of practical reasons that blowing up the base could be a reasonable decision, it just depends on which aspects you prefer to focus on.

[Zulu_DFA]

The myth about Cerberus' ineptitude is defeated by the sheer fact that they've had you reach the point of making the C-Base choice.

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

my biased self (get it, thinking that neither choice is superior to another and trying to show that the other has just AS much merit as the first - its biased nowadays)

Actually, you're biggest bias at this point is your belief that you are unbiased.

Which, amusingly enough, is why you don't see it.

QED, irony.

is going to laugh so hard when all of you "my way, or you lose you stupid person who think its a good idea to prevent torture deaths" are going to be proven wrong. I'm going to laugh even harder if destroying the base is a default choice for new players. I'm going to laugh so hard when you'd have to swallow your words as players who destroyed the base - who could be either paragon or renegade (what, did you think that one decision determines the entire alignment? you poor misguided souls..) will have no problems defeating the reapers whatsoever.

Is it possible for you to be less coherent?

Being the default choice in ME3 doesn't mitigate the choice. Being possible to succede otherwise in ME3 doesn't mitigate the weight of the choice. Overall alignment doesn't change the relevance and propriety of the choice. No one's saying that if you destroy the base, you will lose ME3.

What people are saying is that you shouldn't be thinking in terms of 'ME2 and ME3' in the first place, and you can't justify confidence for beating the Reapers at all on the basis of knowledge of a sequel that, quite frankly, does not exist in-universe. Shepard is the deciding viewpoint. Shepard does not know that he can make just about any choice he/she wants and still end up alright in the end via authorial fiat. Therefore, Shepard's decisions, and decision making processes, are completely open for evaluation and criticism.

Results alone do not pardon decision making processes from criticism. Someone who gets a good result from a flawed decision still made a flawed decision.