864 réponses à ce sujet

[aeetos21]

Play true to what you think is right, or what your character would think is right. Do that and there is no "bad" idea or decision. BW doesn't give us players the luxury of screwing ourselves over so badly that we'd have to start the game all over again in order to set things right.

Edit: If you keep second guessing yourself as new information becomes available then you're no better than those Council jackasses who talk down to you all the time and criticizing the decisions you made with their benefit of hindsight.

Modifié par aeetos21, 10 avril 2011 - 07:02 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

He built a ship...YAY! As much as I love EDI she really didn't do alot to help the mission,

You mean she didn't get you off the Collector Vessel by hacking platforms and doors to let you escape? She didn't run the ship's combat systems during, well, the combat phase of the assault, at a level no human or alien could match? She didn't control more platforms to get you through the Collector Base, and hack the networks to provide you data?

The hacking that she did could just as easily have been Shepard's hacking to get the platform moving in both the Vessel and the base. Those examples always felt like the Devs were forcing her to do something that only she could do but clearly Shep and team are more than capable of hacking in and out of Collector doors as seen in the SM.

And lets not try and take away from Joker's piloting please. He's the greatest pilot in ME and I think trying to say Joke couldn't have done it without her is insulting to the character that did amazing things in ME1 all by himself. Now if she starts hacking Reapers in ME3 with her reaper tech than yes that's would make her useful but in ME3 the story could have gone by just fine without her.

[Dave of Canada]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

The hacking that she did could just as easily have been Shepard's hacking to get the platform moving in both the Vessel and the base.

Not "easily", EDI was built for anti-Reaper algorithms.

And lets not try and take away from Joker's piloting please.

Except for the bit that he explains he loves not having to do much since EDI is in control.

EDIT: And that he would've been taken by the Collectors and the Normandy would've been destroyed without her.

He's the greatest pilot in ME and I think trying to say Joke couldn't have done it without her is insulting to the character that did amazing things in ME1 all by himself.

And dismissing everything EDI is because you think she's useless is insulting to her character.

Now if she starts hacking Reapers in ME3 with her reaper tech than yes that's would make her useful but in ME3 the story could have gone by just fine without her.

And I disagree.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 avril 2011 - 07:21 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Yet Shepard and his team were able to hack their way through the Collector base without any fancy anti-Reaper algorithms... how strange.As for what Joker said yay he likes the fancy blue crutch that is EDI's auto-pilot. As much as he loves not having to do as much he's perfectly capable of doing everything we see in ME2 without her help because he was able to do it himself in ME1 things that were much harder than just dodging a few lasers and a hunk of space debris

EDI was put in to be 'cool' if she does something that only she could do in ME3 then she's cool and has meaning but until then she was there to be a cool talking blue ball.

[Dave of Canada]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

Yet Shepard and his team were able to hack their way through the Collector base without any fancy anti-Reaper algorithms... how strange.

They hacked a door and it took them around 10-20 seconds while the other team was underfire, wonderful job. And if your team isn't up to snuff, guess who dies?

As for what Joker said yay he likes the fancy blue crutch that is EDI's auto-pilot.

Yep, he likes it and EDI says with the both of them that the Normandy is in better control.

As much as he loves not having to do as much he's perfectly capable of doing everything we see in ME2 without her

... and Joker would've been kidnapped by the Collectors and the Normandy would've been destroyed if it wasn't for EDI being onboard, excluding how EDI assists Shepard on the ground a lot more than Joker ever did while still doing her space flight operations. And how you're speculating on the fact over stuff that's shown ingame.

help because he was able to do it himself in ME1 things that were much harder than just dodging a few lasers and a hunk of space debris

What did he accomplished in Mass Effect 1 that has you in awe? That he'd be able to do split second movements with almost no second of thought process while under heavy fire with debris everywhere in a combat situation?

EDI was put in to be 'cool' if she does something that only she could do in ME3 then she's cool and has meaning but until then she was there to be a cool talking blue ball.

Rrrriiiiggghhhttt.

Dismissing everything she does because you revere Joker doesn't mean she's useless.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 avril 2011 - 07:37 .

[StarGateGod]

why is it bad to keep the base?
saying this i did destroy it half of the time

[aimlessgun]

Wow, someone's really ragging on EDI as an argument against keeping the base?

[Nathan Redgrave]

Joker did exactly the same thing in ME1 that EDI did in ME2: sat on his ass and his creditials until the one moment when his mythical skills actually mattered, which was the Ilos landing. And he blew up a disabled Reaper, which is the equivalent of putting a pistol up to a dead man's temple and pulling the trigger.

EDI didn't do a whole lot, but did no less than Joker. EDI's ability to data-mine does come into play, and EDI was largely responsible for saving the Normandy. Trying to hand-wave that away by saying "but we can hack DOORS!" is just petty.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

And there aren't multiple times where EDI takes plenty of time to hack a door while you're under fire? Guess what having a team mate go off to the side and hack the door while you defend the position would have made for a much more challenging and fun mission where you'd have to fight with one less teammate for that situation. Again the world can go on without EDI.

Thank you for bringing up the infiltration of the Normandy. Why did that happen? Because EDI didn't scrub the IFF before installing it. The reason Joker didn't do it was because he had gotten use to EDi being a crutch and making his job 'easier'. He and the rest of the team dropped the ball because they assumed she did it. Wrex said it best "What isn't constanly challenged grows weak."

Joker's pin-point dropping of the Mako onto Ilos is to me far more impressive than a short dog fight and manuvering through some debris... things that he did when he was fighting the Geth during the battle for the Citadel by the way without any hand holding.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

aimlessgun wrote...

Wow, someone's really ragging on EDI as an argument against keeping the base?

I'm not 'ragging on EDI'

This started when I said that Cerberus has been a massive failure at almost everything that they've ever tried to do and what they manage to do isn't all that impressive. Someone listed EDI as an amazing accomplishment of Cerberus, though she is useful to a point she hasn't showed anything amazingly exceptional that no one else could do. However this has gotten off the topic at hand.

Cerberus blows and that's the end of the debate

[Jonatron2010]

Kagura_Hakubi wrote...
There's no way the base won't have indoctrinators aboard.

Sovereign was never designed to be piloted by little aliens, either, and he was full of Indoctrination.

Actually, if you look at the Derelict Reaper, all those walkways, corridors and pressure doors seem to have been built before Cerberus got in there. Enslaving sentient races is what the Reapers are all about, why wouldn't it make sense for their back up plan Vanguard to have room for their allies?

[Drake_Hound]

Eh why are people angry ? , honestly I don´t know the reason , isn´t part of story that things don´t go your way .
If they decided that keeping the base was the correct answer , fine I would have been suprised but not in outrage . And given the choice to blow it up or keep it in ME3 , I would still blow it up .
Cause it like a concentration camp for me , no matter how much good the tech will do .
It wasn´t worth the sacrifice of the people there . Anyway Cerebus probaly going to build a new base there , the relics and junk floating around , are worth the rebuild .

[Saaziel]

Drake_Hound wrote...

Eh why are people angry ? , honestly I don´t know the reason , isn´t part of story that things don´t go your way .

I'm guessing people had this notion that  Paragon or Renegade choices were equal yet different. There are some variables; Some might believe that (P) choices were good at the time , but would come and bite you in the arse later, while ® choices were bad at the time but would pan out better in the end.

Ultimately its confusing Good/ bad/ best/ worst and how it fits in the P/R system.

Edit: Add some morality & nerd rage and you got a recipe for disaster. Frankly I'm surprised at how civil it stayed so far.

Modifié par Saaziel, 10 avril 2011 - 10:09 .

[Saaziel]

oops , double post sorry.

Modifié par Saaziel, 10 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[GreenDragon37]

hawat333 wrote...

It was a bad idea in the first place.

This is my opinion. It came with a risk.

[HunterX6]

Only way to find out is to wait for mass effect 3. I think keeping the base might help you in something but with a consequence. I am sure renegade will be able to be the leader or cerberus and who knows maybe even the galaxy but with a consequence I guess.

[Ausstig]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

It was a bad idea in the first place.

This is my opinion. It came with a risk.

And letting the Rachni go didn't have risk?

Or what about the end game? the Paragon option was all risk, risking the galaxy to save a few hundred thousand, beings?

Why do Paragons risks pay  off, yet renegade risk blow up in their face. 

For the record, I knew that saving the base was  the bad choice, it was renegade, despite what Bioware said Paragon=good/better, renegade=bad/worse. I figured this out after Mass effect 1<_<  

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I honestly think that the Rachni will not pay off... well not "technically." I'm starting to think that saving the Rachni means having to deal with more, tougher enemies for a long period of time, until/unless you can figure out a way to find the home planet and save them again. Basically, it gives you more work, and probably gets some humans killed who otherwise wouldn't have died.

I also think rewriting the Geth is likely to bite us HARD. I could barely make that decision.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 10 avril 2011 - 11:24 .

[Kamikaze 738]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I honestly think that the Rachni will not pay off... well not "technically." I'm starting to think that saving the Rachni means having to deal with more, tougher enemies for a long period of time, until/unless you can figure out a way to find the home planet and save them again. Basically, it gives you more work, and probably gets some humans killed who otherwise wouldn't have died.

Yea, I agree somewhat. Considering that there now are Rachni husks... it'll give us more enemies to fight. But in regard to the game and storyline, atleast it'll give us more missions to do if thats the case. Overall in the story though, they'll definitely be an integral part of the alliance against the Reapers no matter if we have to save them or not. Just like Wrex's united Korgans and Legion's Geth.

[allankles]

Ausstig wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

It was a bad idea in the first place.

This is my opinion. It came with a risk.

And letting the Rachni go didn't have risk?

Or what about the end game? the Paragon option was all risk, risking the galaxy to save a few hundred thousand, beings?

Why do Paragons risks pay  off, yet renegade risk blow up in their face. 

For the record, I knew that saving the base was  the bad choice, it was renegade, despite what Bioware said Paragon=good/better, renegade=bad/worse. I figured this out after Mass effect 1<_<  

Pfft! The Rachni are an organic species, a sapient species at that. It would be like wiping out the Krogan after the Krogan Wars or wiping out the Batarians after you've had a war with them. A sapient being was telling you that her people were wronged and asking you to give them a second chance.

The Collector Base is a weapon, a weapon with the potential to turn on organics. They were both risks but different levels of risk.

Initially I thought it was a pragmatic and sound idea to keep the base. But the fact that it is Cerberus that control it, increases the risks by an unknowable factor.

[Dean_the_Young]

Given the nature of the Rachni Wars, anyone who argues the Rachni were the injured party has more than a little coherence gap to make up. The Rachni extinction was unfortunate, but not unexpected in the nature of their war.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Given the nature of the Rachni Wars, anyone who argues the Rachni were the injured party has more than a little coherence gap to make up. The Rachni extinction was unfortunate, but not unexpected in the nature of their war.

Well the thing is, we're lead to suspect that they were indoctrinated when they were doing all of that, it wasn't simple aggression. I don't know if that's definitely true, but it's possible.

I mean, would the Batarians be justified in blowing up all of OUR Mass Relays? Just because we "started it?" We claim that we did it to stop the Reapers, just like the Rachni queen claims she did it because she was indoctrinated.

[allankles]

What are you talking about? The aggressive Rachni in ME 1 were young Rachni's whose connection to their mother was interrupted. Basically, the were feral. The Queen explains that they were separated from her, and she was unable to teach and civilize them before they got out.

Indoctrination is suggested as being what drove the Rachni to war with the galaxy.