864 réponses à ce sujet

[allankles]

Saphra Deden wrote...

allankles wrote...

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.

What are YOU talking about? None of this has any relation to what I said.

Years ago, the rachni tracked down the Mu relay. If Sovereign had indoctrinated them then he should have already known where it was. Thus Benezia wouldn't have needed to ressurect the rachni queen in the first place or mind-meld the location of the relay from her.

Sovereign would have already known.

Well they're not interelated. The Rachni Queen was young during the Rachni war, she wasn't indoctrinated. Reasonable to assume not every Rachni was indoctrinated. So far as we can tell, there's no cure for that - remember? The fully indoctrinated can remain sleeper cells for years.

Since she was free and her mother and her family were free, it is reasonable to assume those Rachni would have escaped indoctrination. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

allankles wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

allankles wrote...

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.

What are YOU talking about? None of this has any relation to what I said.

Years ago, the rachni tracked down the Mu relay. If Sovereign had indoctrinated them then he should have already known where it was. Thus Benezia wouldn't have needed to ressurect the rachni queen in the first place or mind-meld the location of the relay from her.

Sovereign would have already known.

Well they're not interelated. The Rachni Queen was young during the Rachni war, she wasn't indoctrinated. Reasonable to assume not every Rachni was indoctrinated. So far as we can tell, there's no cure for that - remember? The fully indoctrinated can remain sleeper cells for years.

Since she was free and her mother and her family were free, it is reasonable to assume those Rachni would have escaped indoctrination. 

Indeed. It's also possible that there was a situation somewhat similar to the Geth... where the Rachni who started it were all indoctrinated, and then we just got carried away and started killing every one we could see.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nyoka wrote...

It's starting to sound a little too convenient that every bad guy in the galaxy is indoctrinated. Can't people be bad by themselves?

The Krogan and the Batarians were! Are? Will Be?!

The Rachni queen thing is also influenced by Ender's Game, for me. Same kind of story - we encounter an insect race, they kill a lot of us due partially to a misunderstanding, at the end you're left with the choice of what to do about 'em.

[Iakus]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

It was a bad idea in the first place.

This is my opinion. It came with a risk.

Indeed.  Keeping the base to me seemed like setting Morinth up on a blind date:  You can't really be sure what will come of it.  But chances are it's not gonna be anything good

[Arijharn]

And yet, handing the galaxy to the Reapers is hardly a better choice

[ErebUs890]

IMO, keeping the bas was always a bad idea. I think TIM had his own plans with it anyways.

[Icinix]

TIM just wanted to base to make himself a reaper fembot...

..poor guy just lonely.

[Dean_the_Young]

Unless someone has already been to Virmire, why would they actually buy into the Indoctrination Excuse?

'Oh, Space Cop! It wasn't my fault, we were all forced to do horrible things, like attacking and razing your species on behalf of a genocidal madman whom we voluntarily joined. I'm innocent, let me go!'

or

'Hey, heir of the people my entire race tried to destroy! I, like, totally had nothing to do with it, and we were forced to wage centuries of warfare on you against our will. So, like, please spare me. I promise to be good.'


Would you ever expect anyone to admit to their guilt?

[Ausstig]

Icinix wrote...

TIM just wanted to base to make himself a reaper fembot...

..poor guy just lonely.

Did you read his Shadow Broker dossier?

That has better luck with the  Ladies then Barney form How I meet Your Mother

Modifié par Ausstig, 11 avril 2011 - 10:51 .

[Icinix]

Ausstig wrote...

Icinix wrote...

TIM just wanted to base to make himself a reaper fembot...

..poor guy just lonely.

Did you read his Shadow Broker dossier?

That has better luck with the  Ladies then Barney form How I meet Your Mother

Yeah..but he paid for them.

He just wants to be loved for who he is.

[Xaijin]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Keeping the Base is a GOOD idea, always has been and always will.

Form the story angle at the moment of the decision it is the only sount decision to keep the Base.

Everything else is meta gaming.

Besides, Cerberus hunting you still doesn't mean they become the bad guys. Maybe you're the bad guy. Shepard is Saren v2.0, remember?

BioWare has rather handily proven the only metagamer here is you, as Cerberus is evil, and always has been, and the fact you're arguing with the provider of the plot on what said plot meansm as if it's somehow up to interpreation is pretty much the sole purview of a metagamer.

[Sajuro]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The rachni have ancestral memory. If one of them knows where the mu relay is then all of them know.

When the Rachni wars rolled around Sovereign didn't give a damn about Illos, he didn't  bother to ask and by the time he knew he abouted the conduit and Illos he was like "Damn, where's the Mu relay? I knew I should have asked the Rachni!" Like finding out you didn't prepare for the test properly.

[Sajuro]

Ausstig wrote...

Icinix wrote...

TIM just wanted to base to make himself a reaper fembot...

..poor guy just lonely.

Did you read his Shadow Broker dossier?

That has better luck with the  Ladies then Barney form How I meet Your Mother

which is odd for someone who gave up his family "for humanity" to bring women to his secret pent house or secret space station to boink.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a ruse to screw with the shadowbroker so they wouldn't pay attention to what TIM was really doing.

[Big I]

Whether or not you think/originally thought keeping the base was a good idea, the fact that it's now in the possession (again) of someone who wants to kill you seems to make it a bad idea.


That said, they're going need a pretty good reason for why TIM turns on Shepard. Even if Shepard destroyed the base, TIM's focus has always seemed to be on the Reapers. To divert resources to kill Shepard during a Reaper invasion seems...odd.

[Costin_Razvan]

Not odd...idiotic.

Destroying the base is still a waste, even if one needs to kill TIM.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 11 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

The way I see it if TIM has the base than his efforts to find and kill Shepard will do alot more damage to everyone else. If he attacks the Alliance or the Citadel fleet with his Reaper tech and ends up weakening them than clearly whatever potential benifit saving the base had is negated by the damage of the allied army.

[Arijharn]

Xaijin wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Keeping the Base is a GOOD idea, always has been and always will.

Form the story angle at the moment of the decision it is the only sount decision to keep the Base.

Everything else is meta gaming.

Besides, Cerberus hunting you still doesn't mean they become the bad guys. Maybe you're the bad guy. Shepard is Saren v2.0, remember?

BioWare has rather handily proven the only metagamer here is you, as Cerberus is evil, and always has been, and the fact you're arguing with the provider of the plot on what said plot meansm as if it's somehow up to interpreation is pretty much the sole purview of a metagamer.

You realise that BioWare has came out and said that they intend the Illusive Man (and thus; Cerberus -- because they've functionally become the same entity really) to be morally ambiguous. That's hardly 'evil' to the degree you're espousing.

Whether BioWare has successfully portrayed that is the issue that is under contention. I don't know about you, but arbritrarilly saying that something is either 'good' or 'evil' is damn simplistic, and not something I'd expect to see outside a children's cartoon (or a Star Wars film...), let me work it out for myself damnit!

If you prefer to think that Cerberus is evil and will only ever be evil, then more power to you, but it's your opinion and is as 'flawed' as Zulu's when it comes down to it.

[Drake_Hound]

Arijharn wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Keeping the Base is a GOOD idea, always has been and always will.

Form the story angle at the moment of the decision it is the only sount decision to keep the Base.

Everything else is meta gaming.

Besides, Cerberus hunting you still doesn't mean they become the bad guys. Maybe you're the bad guy. Shepard is Saren v2.0, remember?

BioWare has rather handily proven the only metagamer here is you, as Cerberus is evil, and always has been, and the fact you're arguing with the provider of the plot on what said plot meansm as if it's somehow up to interpreation is pretty much the sole purview of a metagamer.

You realise that BioWare has came out and said that they intend the Illusive Man (and thus; Cerberus -- because they've functionally become the same entity really) to be morally ambiguous. That's hardly 'evil' to the degree you're espousing.

Whether BioWare has successfully portrayed that is the issue that is under contention. I don't know about you, but arbritrarilly saying that something is either 'good' or 'evil' is damn simplistic, and not something I'd expect to see outside a children's cartoon (or a Star Wars film...), let me work it out for myself damnit!

If you prefer to think that Cerberus is evil and will only ever be evil, then more power to you, but it's your opinion and is as 'flawed' as Zulu's when it comes down to it.

His opnion and isn´t flawed but proven by Bioware , and even martin sheen the voice actor .
Isn´t loved by the minority , then its the minority job to learn to deal with it .
Honestly we see 2 extreme side , just one extreme side has WON , the other just have to deal wit it .

Sorry Cerebus is a awesome organisation , with the right time and impulse such organisation can lead to world domination , like proven in all of human history .
But it doesn´t mean such organisation will stay in power forever , since end deal it is a ONE man organisation.
That has bunch of people following the ideology for beter or worst , doesn´t mean it isn´t evil .
When a organisation has 1 leader only , in this modern times IT IS NOT ACCEPTED !! .
Thus the revolts in the middle east , thus the problems around the globe .
Sorry how much you wish to see Cerebus in a different light , the ones who are awake know what kind of organisation it is .
Anyway Shepard choose the right conclusion , whatever he does when he gave the base or blow it up .
Shepard went solo . And if giving the base proofed to be the wrong idea , he has to go back and deal with TIM .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Keeping the Base is a GOOD idea, always has been and always will.

Form the story angle at the moment of the decision it is the only sount decision to keep the Base.

Everything else is meta gaming.

Besides, Cerberus hunting you still doesn't mean they become the bad guys. Maybe you're the bad guy. Shepard is Saren v2.0, remember?

BioWare has rather handily proven the only metagamer here is you, as Cerberus is evil, and always has been, and the fact you're arguing with the provider of the plot on what said plot meansm as if it's somehow up to interpreation is pretty much the sole purview of a metagamer.

You realise that BioWare has came out and said that they intend the Illusive Man (and thus; Cerberus -- because they've functionally become the same entity really) to be morally ambiguous. That's hardly 'evil' to the degree you're espousing.

Whether BioWare has successfully portrayed that is the issue that is under contention. I don't know about you, but arbritrarilly saying that something is either 'good' or 'evil' is damn simplistic, and not something I'd expect to see outside a children's cartoon (or a Star Wars film...), let me work it out for myself damnit!

If you prefer to think that Cerberus is evil and will only ever be evil, then more power to you, but it's your opinion and is as 'flawed' as Zulu's when it comes down to it.

See, I think Bioware intentionally made it so that certain kinds of people would find each decision "obvious" while providing no clear evidence either way, so that neither side should have been able to feel confident they were objectively "correct." It's the people who were unreasonably sure they were correct before who are upset now, when I think everyone should have rationally been thinking "We don't have enough information, so I'm making a conclusion based on my default assumptions."

In my opinion, keeping the base is somewhat hubristic - caught up in the belief that we can conquer anything and bend it to our will, with minimal thought given to the consequences.

Also in my opinion, blowing the base is somewhat paranoid, willing to assume that the chances of something backfiring are high enough to make it too much of a risk.

Whenever anyone destroyed or saved the base, they should have been at least a little uneasy, should have been thinking "Well, I hope that doesn't come back to bite me in the butt, since I will admit I did what I did based largely on unconfirmed assumptions."

I have that thought after everything I do, and I'm mostly a Paragon. Whenever I free the Rachni Queen, I think "Well, I hope Ender Wiggins didn't just doom the entire galaxy." 

"Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for. I won't be righteous again - I'm not that sure anymore."

[aimlessgun]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
In my opinion, keeping the base is somewhat hubristic - caught up in the belief that we can conquer anything and bend it to our will, with minimal thought given to the consequences.

Hubris is what cowards label progress!

[Drake_Hound]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...




See, I think Bioware intentionally made it so that certain kinds of people would find each decision "obvious" while providing no clear evidence either way, so that neither side should have been able to feel confident they were objectively "correct." It's the people who were unreasonably sure they were correct before who are upset now, when I think everyone should have rationally been thinking "We don't have enough information, so I'm making a conclusion based on my default assumptions."

In my opinion, keeping the base is somewhat hubristic - caught up in the belief that we can conquer anything and bend it to our will, with minimal thought given to the consequences.

Also in my opinion, blowing the base is somewhat paranoid, willing to assume that the chances of something backfiring are high enough to make it too much of a risk.

Whenever anyone destroyed or saved the base, they should have been at least a little uneasy, should have been thinking "Well, I hope that doesn't come back to bite me in the butt, since I will admit I did what I did based largely on unconfirmed assumptions."

I have that thought after everything I do, and I'm mostly a Paragon. Whenever I free the Rachni Queen, I think "Well, I hope Ender Wiggins didn't just doom the entire galaxy." 

"Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for. I won't be righteous again - I'm not that sure anymore."

Good post and very good opnion .

Especially with rachini queen , I seriously expected her to bite me into my behind .
When I let her live , but killing her was so obvious that I didn´t feel like it .

Same story for the base , if the base blowing it up was wrong , infact instead of crying fould or murder .
I would be surprised and delighted , Infact means my plot or story thinking wasn´t  on par with what i expected.
I live for those kind of moment , one of the reasons I loved Battle Star Galactica , when you think it couldn´t get worst , it did get worst
About the base , The decision to blow it up everytime , and in the end even as renegade (nobody tells me what to do TIM ) I still blew it up <_< yes yes I know I play renegade a bit extreme , thank you for bringing me back to live SUCKER !! .now shut up !!

But true reason is maybe real life decisions , if a human reaper larva take 2 whole colony to create .
And if you were late part of your crew , you don´t want to see that base functioning .
It wasn´t paranoid decision , more a logical eye for a eye conclusion .

But yup in the end its everybody own decision , that lead us to love this game .

Modifié par Drake_Hound, 12 avril 2011 - 12:29 .

[GodWood]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
In my opinion, keeping the base is somewhat hubristic - caught up in the belief that we can conquer anything and bend it to our will, with minimal thought given to the consequences.

In my opinion, blowing up the base is incredibly hubristic - Risking the entire galaxy to satisfy your own moral code/Tossing aside valuable technology believing you can defeat the undefeated without it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

GodWood wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
In my opinion, keeping the base is somewhat hubristic - caught up in the belief that we can conquer anything and bend it to our will, with minimal thought given to the consequences.

In my opinion, blowing up the base is incredibly hubristic - Risking the entire galaxy to satisfy your own moral code/Tossing aside valuable technology believing you can defeat the undefeated without it.

I've seen more of the people who actually made that choice cite paranoia as to why, though. Just as I've seen more people who kept the base express strong confidence that it will help more than it hurts... just as you did in that post. That post directly implies that it will help more than it hurts, which is a common assumption from one particular side - an assumption for which we have no evidence. We have a similar amount of evidence that it is a trap. Thus I'd say that assuming the best when it comes to alien tech is hubris, while assuming the worst is paranoia.

Edit: I also think this is notable because it is the opposite of what happens in a lot of other situations - saving the Rachni queen is hubristic, while killing her is paranoid.

I was basing my summary of the gestalt reasonings behind keeping or blowing the base on the arguments I most often see put foreword by either side. I haven't seen anyone who strongly advocates keeping the base acknowledge that it has a significant chance of backfiring and doing more harm than good, so I assume they are all operating under the assumption that it won't backfire. That seems to express a confidence in overcoming all risks. Am I incorrect? Do you assume a high chance of the base backfiring when you save it?

I've only seen a handful of people say "Right or wrong, I'd rather die than violate my morals," compared to the dozens who I've seen say "it's a trap" or "it'll backfire!" 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 02:24 .