864 réponses à ce sujet

[masseffectexpert94]

are we talking about the collecter base in the galactic core

[Valmarn]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not sure we can vanquish the Reapers, with or without the base. I just don't think the base raises our chances as much as you think it does.

Tell me, how much do I think the base raises our chances? I don't think I've ever told anyone that.

Again, and please pay attention because I hate repeating myself: the base contains within it more than just Collector tech. It is a facility for building a Reaper meaning all the machinery and maybe even the data to build Reapers is in there. That kind of tech would put us on equal footing with them and could tip the war in our favor. Assuming we have time to unlock it, anyway.

Regardless, a 1% improvement in our chances is better than nothing.

Since it's been revealed that we'll be on the run from Cerberus in Mass Effect 3, it's fair to say that the base will not improve our chances of defeating the Reapers, at all. Even if we saved it, and the Illusive Man is able to make some use of it, it's likely that some occurance in ME3 will render the base useless.

You see, none of our choices from Mass Effect 1 had any major effect in Mass Effect 2. In actuality, they probably would have, but BioWare doesn't seem to like the idea of our choices affecting the storyline of the game is such a way as to make things easier or tougher, later in the game or in the trilogy.

Modifié par Valmarn, 17 avril 2011 - 01:04 .

[Valmarn]

masseffectexpert94 wrote...

are we talking about the collecter base in the galactic core

Nah. They're talking about their embassy on the Citadel.

[Dean_the_Young]

Valmarn wrote...

Since it's been revealed that we'll be on the run from Cerberus in Mass Effect 3, it's fair to say that the base will not improve our chances of defeating the Reapers, at all.

How in the least are the two mutually incompatible?

You see, none of our choices from Mass Effect 1 had any major effect in Mass Effect 2. In actuality, they probably would have, but BioWare doesn't seem to like the idea of our choices affecting the storyline of the game is such a way as to make things easier or tougher, later in the game or in the trilogy.

Or, alternatively, they wanted an easier time writing the third game and so passed on making the second game have to many exponential-increasing factors.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Well if Cerberus is trying to kill Shepard and they're using the Reaper tech to do it than clearly the tech isn't being used to combat the Reapers and if its not being used to combat the reapers than keeping the base only served to make Cerberus a stronger enemy.

That being said I have a feeling Cerberus has a semi-valid reason for chasing Shepard and it isn't to kill him because that just wouldn't make any sense but if they are using the tech to attack other ships on their way to finding Shepard than they're doing more harm than good with it and at the end of the day I'd rather have a fleet at full strength without Reaper tech than a weakened fleet with whatever Tech we can salvage from Cerberus.

[Almostfaceman]

omgmahbrain wrote...

Nietzsche also wasn't in the unfortunate position of not just defending their own species, but galactic civilisation from complete and utter extermination.

What's ironic is that Nietzsche was a moral nihilist. For some reason I don't think a lot of Paragons would be comfortable with that.

The study of reaper tech has usualy not given anything at all except indoctrination in the past.

That's a fairly gross misrepresentation of the study of Reaper tech. Study of Reaper tech has provided vital weapons and information in our war against the Reapers: EDI, the Thanix Cannon, Reaper IFF, Object Rho (if it was never studied it'd be game over right now), and it's pretty obvious that post-resurrection Shepard is part Reaper tech.

It's not really ironic at all.  Quoting someone is by no means ascribing to that persons total viewpoint on life.  It's simply agreeing with something they said.  No more, no less.

[Almostfaceman]

Arijharn wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.
-Nietzsche

A quote at the beginning of a Baldur's Gate game by the way. 

Nietzsche also wasn't in the unfortunate position of not just defending their own species, but galactic civilisation from complete and utter extermination.

Let me leave you with an even better quote:
"Game over man, game over!" -- From that Corporal guy in Aliens.

Doesn't really negate the point that if you become the monster you defeat, you've lost. 

Cool quote from Hudson in Aliens, though, Paxton certainly did play a whiny biotch perfectly. 

[Nathan Redgrave]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or, alternatively, they wanted an easier time writing the third game and so passed on making the second game have to many exponential-increasing factors.

In the GI article, this is what they pretty much admitted--the first and second games couldn't get too complex because they always had to keep the sequel in mind, but the third won't have to worry about that, so they claim the choices you've made so far will have more of an impact.

Incidentally, I say again--Cerberus hunting for Shepard and Cerberus using the Collector Base against the Reapers are two different issues. Cerberus turning on Shepard doesn't automatically mean Cerberus isn't fighting the Reapers anymore. That said, TIM very clearly voices the intention of using the Base for more than just stopping the Reapers, so yes, it's a rather bad idea. Unless you endorse Cerberus, in which case, shame on you, and it's still a bad idea.

[Dean_the_Young]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

Well if Cerberus is trying to kill Shepard and they're using the Reaper tech to do it than clearly the tech isn't being used to combat the Reapers and if its not being used to combat the reapers than keeping the base only served to make Cerberus a stronger enemy.

Uh, in what logical universe would all the tech only be used to kill Shepard?

Why can't they use some of the tech they develop against Shepard, and the rest of it for other means? Why is this mutually exclusive?

Just because NATO forces are using precision bombs in Libya doesn't mean they are only using precion bombs in Libya, and that they can't/aren't using them elsewhere.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

In what logical universe would any of it be used to kill Shepard? Its called a domino effect if they use the tech to try and kill Shepard than that means they have to use more to fight the allies that Shepard is going to be making during the course of the game.

Also its Cerberus I would have thought it would be obvious that what resorces aren't being used to kill Shepard will ultimately be used against themselves or go completely wrong. Like we've talked about before Cerberus has a fine record of cells either going 'rogue' or being complete and utter failures. Now if TIM was focused soley on fighting the Reapers than I'd say he'd have a better chance of that not happening but its proven that he sucks at multi-tasking.

[Dean_the_Young]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

In what logical universe would any of it be used to kill Shepard? Its called a domino effect if they use the tech to try and kill Shepard than that means they have to use more to fight the allies that Shepard is going to be making during the course of the game.

That really isn't domino effect, nor is it what I asked.

Also its Cerberus I would have thought it would be obvious that what resorces aren't being used to kill Shepard will ultimately be used against themselves or go completely wrong. Like we've talked about before Cerberus has a fine record of cells either going 'rogue' or being complete and utter failures. Now if TIM was focused soley on fighting the Reapers than I'd say he'd have a better chance of that not happening but its proven that he sucks at multi-tasking.

And the silly comes back.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

It actually does, even though he probably isn't using all the tech at first to try and kill Shepard he will be forced to use more and more of it as the game goes on. So he ends up having much less technology and much less resources than he would have if he had stayed focused on the Reapers.

Historical evidence is silly? Every Cerberus cell we've ever seen has either gone behind TIM's back and has gone 'rogue' or has completely failed. It fails because he never pays close attention to any of the cells. Like Jack's cell if you believe him that he had no idea what was going on had he taken any time to look he would have seen what was going on... alas he's didn't because he's inept. By all means though if you want evidence that shows a patern of epic failures to be 'silly' than by all means do some finger quotations and dismiss my claim.

Modifié par ISpeakTheTruth, 17 avril 2011 - 06:22 .

[Valmarn]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Valmarn wrote...

Since it's been revealed that we'll be on the run from Cerberus in Mass Effect 3, it's fair to say that the base will not improve our chances of defeating the Reapers, at all.

How in the least are the two mutually incompatible?

It's not complicated.

If we saved the base, who is in possession of it?

Cerberus.

Who will have scientists and armed personnel at the base?

Cerberus.

Who will be too busy rallying the various races to battle the Reapers to bother dicking with the Collector base?

Shepard.

You see, none of our choices from Mass Effect 1 had any major effect in Mass Effect 2. In actuality, they probably would have, but BioWare doesn't seem to like the idea of our choices affecting the storyline of the game is such a way as to make things easier or tougher, later in the game or in the trilogy.

Or, alternatively, they wanted an easier time writing the third game and so passed on making the second game have to many exponential-increasing factors.

Do you honestly think that BioWare will allow our choice in saving/destroying the Collector base to have such a major affect on the way the story unfolds in Mass Effect 3?

Don't get me wrong, I would be delighted if the status of the Collector bases had a major affect in Mass Effect 3, but I just don't see it happening.

Modifié par Valmarn, 17 avril 2011 - 06:21 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Valmarn wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Valmarn wrote...

Since it's been revealed that we'll be on the run from Cerberus in Mass Effect 3, it's fair to say that the base will not improve our chances of defeating the Reapers, at all.

How in the least are the two mutually incompatible?

It's not complicated.

If we saved the base, who is in possession of it?

Cerberus.

Who will have scientists and armed personnel at the base?

Cerberus.

Who will be too busy rallying the various races to battle the Reapers to bother dicking with the Collector base?

Shepard.

This site needs a good eye roll smilie, since someone doesn't have a good understanding of 'mutually exclusive.'

Do you honestly think that BioWare will allow our choice in saving/destroying the Collector base to have such a major affect on the way the story unfolds in Mass Effect 3?

Story? Yes. Gameplay? No. More gameplay affect on ME3 than the Council question had on the gameplay of 2? Easily.

Don't get me wrong, I would be delighted if the status of the Collector bases had a major affect in Mass Effect 3, but I just don't see it happening.

You don't see it happening in 3 because you didn't see it happening in 2, while disregarding the different context that was a big consideration for why making huge gameplay changes in 2 was never feasible.

[ExtremeOne]

Valmarn wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Valmarn wrote...

Since it's been revealed that we'll be on the run from Cerberus in Mass Effect 3, it's fair to say that the base will not improve our chances of defeating the Reapers, at all.

How in the least are the two mutually incompatible?

It's not complicated.

If we saved the base, who is in possession of it?

Cerberus.

Who will have scientists and armed personnel at the base?

Cerberus.

Who will be too busy rallying the various races to battle the Reapers to bother dicking with the Collector base?

Shepard.

You see, none of our choices from Mass Effect 1 had any major effect in Mass Effect 2. In actuality, they probably would have, but BioWare doesn't seem to like the idea of our choices affecting the storyline of the game is such a way as to make things easier or tougher, later in the game or in the trilogy.

Or, alternatively, they wanted an easier time writing the third game and so passed on making the second game have to many exponential-increasing factors.

Do you honestly think that BioWare will allow our choice in saving/destroying the Collector base to have such a major affect on the way the story unfolds in Mass Effect 3?

Don't get me wrong, I would be delighted if the status of the Collector bases had a major affect in Mass Effect 3, but I just don't see it happening.

  



Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

Modifié par ExtremeOne, 17 avril 2011 - 08:24 .

[The BS Police]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

[Seboist]

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

Both endings imply some sort of continued cooperation with TIM/Cerberus and one of the dialogue options is "we need each other"  (or something similiar) in the CB saved ending.

[The BS Police]

Seboist wrote...

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

Both endings imply some sort of continued cooperation with TIM/Cerberus and one of the dialogue options is "we need each other"  (or something similiar) in the CB saved ending.

That may be true, however the exchange between Shepard and The Illusive man is More confrontational than actual co-operation. If you destroy the base TIM is pissed off, if you kept the base he goes on a power trip and may think he no longer needs Shepard.

[ExtremeOne]

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

 


So what was the point of Mass Effect 2. 

[ExtremeOne]

Seboist wrote...

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

Both endings imply some sort of continued cooperation with TIM/Cerberus and one of the dialogue options is "we need each other"  (or something similiar) in the CB saved ending.

  


so if that is true then why can't we cooperate with Cerberus in 3. 

[PnXMarcin1PL]

ExtremeOne wrote...

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

 


So what was the point of Mass Effect 2. 

To stop harvest of humanity by Collectors so they could create Human Reaper and launch 2nd attack on the Citadel.
Also you get many allies and things, like genophage cure data, geth rewritten or destroyed, etc...

[ExtremeOne]

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Bioware clearly has no understanding of the idea of real player choice and its impact. If Mass Effect 3 was base solely on the Base choice at the end of 2 then Mass Effect 3 would not start off with a stupid trail. It would start off with either being aligned with Cerberus or the Alliance. So they have already basically told us our choice at the end of 2 means nothing and that is bull Sh*t.  

You never aligned yourself with Cerberus in either ending of the game.

 


So what was the point of Mass Effect 2. 

To stop harvest of humanity by Collectors so they could create Human Reaper and launch 2nd attack on the Citadel.
Also you get many allies and things, like genophage cure data, geth rewritten or destroyed, etc...

 


Then Mass Effect 2 had a point  

[Arijharn]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Doesn't really negate the point that if you become the monster you defeat, you've lost. 

Cool quote from Hudson in Aliens, though, Paxton certainly did play a whiny biotch perfectly. 

The problem is though is that you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions on what TIM will do with the base that seems to be distracting you from the real issue; aka, what to do against the Reapers. Even if the Collector Base provides the fruits necessary to destroy the Reapers, then chances are then that every species will have access to those fruits because otherwise Cerberus/Alliance would be spread to thin to the point it would be impossible to defeat them imo.

Your assumptions may be correct, they may not be. But honestly, if the Reapers aren't dealt with, then any issue with TIM and Cerberus becomes irrelevant, because no one will live through to see the day.

If your argument is that TIM himself could be Indoctrinated, then that could be true with any person with the position of authority, I mean Harbinger says that our leaders will beg to join them.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Like I've said before, we're all just making guestimates based on factors we can't know. Certain people think certain things were implied more heavily, etc. I think that it's implied everywhere in Mass Effect that Collector and Reaper tech have a significant chance of causing anyone who uses them too extensively to become monsters. You didn't come to this conclusion. It's fine, different minds pick out different pices of information as important, when reading a book or consuming media.

But let me explain my thinking one last time, in a new format. Imagine you have this conversation with Mordin. In this scenario, rather than having 20 seconds to decide whether or not to blow up the base, you have 20 days - enough time for Mordin to run some simulations (these simulations are run from outside the Omega 4 relay, before the IFF is activated).

"Ok, Shepard. Base contains collector tech - based on past experiences with collectors, previous advances from collector tech, current galactic scientific forecasts, collector base increases chance of victory over reapers by five percent." 

"Ok. Um... what's the baseline, there?" 

"Baseline: twenty percent. Collector tech infusion raises it to twenty-five"

"OK."

"Sidenote: did sociological study based on stated Reaper goals, heretic geth development, Krogan uplift fallout... troubling implications."

"What did you find?"

"Keeping collector base increases humanity's likelihood of becoming amoral warlike race significantly. In ten percent of simulations, humans make a new reaper within a century. Forty percent if timeline is extended to a millenium. Troubling. Other, non-Reaper-creation corruption possible too, of course. In general, increases Humanity's chance of becoming a danger to galactic life by fifty percent." 

"I hate to ask this but... from what baseline?" 

"Current chances, 20%. Less than Krogans, Turians. Significantly higher than Salarians and Asari, with Hanar providing theoretical low point." 

"So let me get this straight - we'll trade a 5% increase in our chances of beating the reapers for a 50% chance of becoming a monster race who wipes out all of galactic life ourselves?'

"A bit of an oversimplifcation, but yes."

"You're not making this any easier, Mordin."

"My apologies, Commander."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 18 avril 2011 - 04:18 .

[Almostfaceman]

Arijharn wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Doesn't really negate the point that if you become the monster you defeat, you've lost. 

Cool quote from Hudson in Aliens, though, Paxton certainly did play a whiny biotch perfectly. 

The problem is though is that you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions on what TIM will do with the base that seems to be distracting you from the real issue; aka, what to do against the Reapers. Even if the Collector Base provides the fruits necessary to destroy the Reapers, then chances are then that every species will have access to those fruits because otherwise Cerberus/Alliance would be spread to thin to the point it would be impossible to defeat them imo.

Your assumptions may be correct, they may not be. But honestly, if the Reapers aren't dealt with, then any issue with TIM and Cerberus becomes irrelevant, because no one will live through to see the day.

If your argument is that TIM himself could be Indoctrinated, then that could be true with any person with the position of authority, I mean Harbinger says that our leaders will beg to join them.

I don't make any assumptions about what TiM will do with the base, I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Me personally, I don't know the creepy bastard well enough to give him my Timex watch let alone Collector Tech.  I have no idea what the unaccountable ruthless recluse will do with the place. This makes him a Wildcard.  I don't want to be dealing with both the Reapers and a Wildcard. If I could give the technology to the Alliance, Citadel, Quarians, Krogans, etc. all at the same time I'd keep the base probably.