202 réponses à ce sujet

[Lapis Lazuli]

Destroy the base. By keeping the base you create two possible worst case scenarios: 1- reaper conquest (though its probability declines a wee bit because TIM has reaper tech) 2- reaper defeat w/ TIM conquest (and the non-naive know that he is out for humanity only up until he comes to power; once he's in power, he'll be out for TIM and he has no morals). By destroying the base you end up with only 1 worst case scenario: reaper conquest.

[Saaziel]

Malanek999 wrote...

The collector base was building a reaper. The knowledge of how that process works would be invaluable. You can study it, look for weaknesses. Aid your understanding of what the reapers really are. Yes, there are risks but there are more risks in not keeping it. I'm just wondering how selective you are going to be with this. Do you some reaper technology and not other technology? How do you make that judgment?

The problem isn't Reaper tech or How it is acquired. It's ; Who keeps it.

Its doubtful that the Illusive man would use the knowledge found inside the base to build orphanages. Pick any of the half dozen failed experiments run by Cerberus and you can be sure it will only pale in comparison once he gets his hands on Reaper tech. A few years after the (presumed) defeat of the Reapers you'll have to do it all over again, it might even be worst.

Now, i don't particularly care for the Paragon line. If i would have been there it might've been something like ; "I don't remember asking you a god damn thing." (Or some other Samuel l. Jackson quote.)

[HealthyGiraffe]

Markinator_123 wrote...

This is the line that needs to be brought to attention. Was anybody else upset that Shepard doesn't give practical reasons for destroying the base? I know that the majority of the people on this forum have their own practical reasons for destroying the base that has little to do with morality. The collector base has no ethical value. Why is that the focus of destroying the base? I am not trying to play as a "good guy" and it hurts the character I'm trying to play as when I sometimes make this decision (it should focus more on the ramifications of giving it to Cerberus or reaper tech not because the base is "tainted").

You are missing the point. The whole point of that Paragon decision (at least for me) wasn't to provide a rational or practical reason for justification. It wasn't to think logically. It was to say "No, there is something wrong with doing this". This is something we do as humans, we get into situations and we don't need practicality to decide. We can throw our hands up and say "not happening. This is wrong".

That is why I loved that line. I thought it compeltely summed up why I wanted to blow that base up. 

[Dean_the_Young]

A few years after the Reapers, EVERYONE will have Reaper technology, and everyone will be studying it.

You'll be running down immoral Cerberus experiments whether you destroy the base or not. You'll be running down Cerberus reaper-tech experiments whether you destroy the base or not, if you run them down at all. As a matter of fact, the most important Reaper experiment yet known, Retribution, happens regardless of Shepard's choice.

You aren't limiting harm. You're only limiting what can come from it.

[Malanek]

Saaziel wrote...
The problem isn't Reaper tech or How it is acquired. It's ; Who keeps it.

We were railroaded into a) destroying the base or b)giving it to TIM. However the normandy is the only ship that can navigate its way there. If Shepard wanted to control the base or who had access to it he/she could.

[Meshakhad2]

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

This is the line that needs to be brought to attention. Was anybody else upset that Shepard doesn't give practical reasons for destroying the base? I know that the majority of the people on this forum have their own practical reasons for destroying the base that has little to do with morality. The collector base has no ethical value. Why is that the focus of destroying the base? I am not trying to play as a "good guy" and it hurts the character I'm trying to play as when I sometimes make this decision (it should focus more on the ramifications of giving it to Cerberus or reaper tech not because the base is "tainted").

You are missing the point. The whole point of that Paragon decision (at least for me) wasn't to provide a rational or practical reason for justification. It wasn't to think logically. It was to say "No, there is something wrong with doing this". This is something we do as humans, we get into situations and we don't need practicality to decide. We can throw our hands up and say "not happening. This is wrong".

That is why I loved that line. I thought it compeltely summed up why I wanted to blow that base up. 

Same.

[1136342t54_]

For those who supported the Illusive Man keeping the base I hope you realize Cerberus projects success rates right? If not note that Shepard, SR2, and a few weapon's projects are there successes.

There failures culminated in zombie husks, invading rachni, zombie thorians killing people, Thresher Maws destroying entire Alliance platoons etc.

Also to those who believe shepard is to high and mighty towards people you may be true. Just remember Shepard has experienced loss and hard ships greater than most .

Sole surivivor has lost a entire squad and had to survive for days or perhaps weeks with no back up all alone with the only company are thresher maws.

Colonial shepard has lost his/her family to slaver attacks.

Hero Shep had to hold off single handedly against a pirate invasion while civilians and soldiers died around him.

Ruthless shep sacrificed a quarter of his/her entire squad to take down a Batarian base.

Shepard in some ways has the right to be a little high and mighty when trying to convince of others of there failures. Paragon shep was out of line when insulting Mordin but most others shep was pretty much in the right or has experienced something similar.

Shepard's dialogue with TIM didn't necessarily need to be to descriptive. Bioware went for the epic paragon not distrustful Renegade operative.

[Peer of the Empire]

Markinator_123 wrote...

This is the line that needs to be brought to attention. Was anybody else upset that Shepard doesn't give practical reasons for destroying the base? I know that the majority of the people on this forum have their own practical reasons for destroying the base that has little to do with morality. The collector base has no ethical value. Why is that the focus of destroying the base? I am not trying to play as a "good guy" and it hurts the character I'm trying to play as when I sometimes make this decision (it should focus more on the ramifications of giving it to Cerberus or reaper tech not because the base is "tainted").

It was very effeminate coming from Shephard.

Fear is the prelude to action, challenge, and combat, the realm of the masculine.

[1136342t54_]

Malanek999 wrote...

Saaziel wrote...
The problem isn't Reaper tech or How it is acquired. It's ; Who keeps it.

We were railroaded into a) destroying the base or b)giving it to TIM. However the normandy is the only ship that can navigate its way there. If Shepard wanted to control the base or who had access to it he/she could.

Giving the base to anyone is too dangerous. Its Reaper tech and it likely have a lot of indoctrination devices and other mysterious tech that could harm its caretakers. The Alliance is almost just as bad as Cerberus when it comes to screwing **** up.

The Council may end up debating to long on how to use the base who gets what tech instead of studying the tech and fighting the Reapers.

[Saaziel]

I wasn't trying to imply that one was preferable to another.

As for Retribution , i have no idea what went on there. I only go by what's in the game , however if Reaper tech is already this available , keeping or destroying the base seems like a none issue now. That said I'd doubt Shepard could play the Collector base bouncer for very long ; Either it will impair research ,defeating the purpose of keeping the base. Alternatively ,  He/she will get killed or the IFF tech will get replicated. No way a control freak like the Illusive man will let something like that slide.

Modifié par Saaziel, 29 avril 2011 - 02:04 .

[Dave of Canada]

 Better to have the base and not need it than not having it and need it.

[AdamNW]

Way to take the statement out of context.

[didymos1120]

Malanek999 wrote...

Saaziel wrote...
The problem isn't Reaper tech or How it is acquired. It's ; Who keeps it.

We were railroaded into a) destroying the base or b)giving it to TIM. However the normandy is the only ship that can navigate its way there. If Shepard wanted to control the base or who had access to it he/she could.

Seen the "Shep dies" ending?  TIM had already duplicated the IFF and had ships ready to go in.

[Malanek]

didymos1120 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Saaziel wrote...
The problem isn't Reaper tech or How it is acquired. It's ; Who keeps it.

We were railroaded into a) destroying the base or b)giving it to TIM. However the normandy is the only ship that can navigate its way there. If Shepard wanted to control the base or who had access to it he/she could.

Seen the "Shep dies" ending?  TIM had already duplicated the IFF and had ships ready to go in.

No I haven't. Interesting. Wonder where he got the data from.

[Seboist]

Malanek999 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Saaziel wrote...
The problem isn't Reaper tech or How it is acquired. It's ; Who keeps it.

We were railroaded into a) destroying the base or b)giving it to TIM. However the normandy is the only ship that can navigate its way there. If Shepard wanted to control the base or who had access to it he/she could.

Seen the "Shep dies" ending?  TIM had already duplicated the IFF and had ships ready to go in.

No I haven't. Interesting. Wonder where he got the data from.

EDI

and here's a link to the bad ending + CB saved -> www.youtube.com/watch

[Markinator_123]

Stay on topic people! This isn't about rather destroying the base or keeping it was the better option. This is about the apparent reasoning Shepard gave for destroying it.

[PARAGON87]

Fearing the Reapers is one step closer to becoming them.

That's what I think Paragon-Shepard was thinking when he said that.

[yfullman]

I thought the line was epic....but lacked substance or reason. Just like when speaking to the VS on horizon or tela about being in cerberus. Each time Shep gives a "meh no one else is doing anything" or "screw your reasonable justification, I need paragon points!" answer. Would have be nice is Shep mentioned 9/10 times someone screws with reaper tech you'll be fighting husks on that level. The other 1/10 you'll be fighting indoctrinated.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

What made the "I won't let fear" statement one of the worst lines in the game is that it's a complete contradiction to the premise and actions that took place in the game.

Everyone's Shepard (Everyone's Shepard... Paragons too) chose to work with Cerberus and share intel and resources to stop the Collectors from taking Earth.

For some reason, something made some of the Shepards afraid to continue this relationship. The reason for that decision is derived from fear... hence... Fear compromising who they were beforehand.

Shepard recruited some of the most vile, dangerous, psychotic, and powerful people in the galaxy to stop the Collectors from attacking humans. But yet for some strange reason, doing that to save the entire galaxy is too much because the people they're working with are dangerous (despite their demonstrated ability to be smarter than putting the Reapers below priority 1).

No one needs evidence or another reason to hunt Cerberus should/when the time comes. But if the goal is unity, make of it what you will

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Here's a good case and point:

"Garrus: Damn it, Kaidan/Williams. You're so focused on Cerberus that you're ignoring the real threat!

Jack: I hate these guys too, but they're not the only threat out there. (adds a "Jeez" at the beginning for Kaidan)

Jacob: Typical Alliance attitude. So hung up Cerberus that you can't see the real threat.

Kasumi: Wow. You're so hung up on Cerberus you're ignoring the real threat.

Miranda: Typical Alliance attitude. You're so focused on Cerberus that you're blind to the real threat.

Mordin: Too hung up on Cerberus. Ignoring the real threat.

Tali: Ash/Kaidan, can't you see what's happened? You're so focused on Cerberus that you're ignoring the real threat.

Zaeed: Typical Alliance. Can't take your eyes off Cerberus long enough to see the real threat."

[Marta Rio]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Stay on topic people! This isn't about rather destroying the base or keeping it was the better option. This is about the apparent reasoning Shepard gave for destroying it.

After reading your original post, I think that the Paragon response doesn't list "practical" reasons because Paragon Shep is seldom practical.  The line is pure idealism - Shep views the human Reaper project as an abomination and thus doesn't want to profit in any way from the technology, even if it could be useful.

I would have liked a line that was for pragmatic Sheps who don't trust TIM to use the technology properly.  Alas, we can't have everything.  But I don't think the "fear compromise" line is any "stupider" than any of the other uber-idealistic things Paragon Shep says throughout the two games. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

haynoats wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

For some reason, something made some of the Shepards afraid to continue this relationship. The reason for that decision is derived from fear... hence... Fear compromising who they were beforehand.

Something did cause Shepherd to rethink the relationship - Wisdom.

lol, perhaps... still fear nonetheless

[Bluko]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A few years after the Reapers, EVERYONE will have Reaper technology, and everyone will be studying it.

And then everyone becomes Reapers again! As the subtle indoctrination from the remaining parts effect people's minds and convinces them to rebuild the Reapers! You also have the nanomachines to still  turn people into good ol' Husks!


If it comes from the Reapers it has got to go! Even the Citadel and Relays should be replaced, just to be safe. I will save everyone by destroying everything possibly bad! That's the true Paragon way!

Raidan Shepard


Have a nice day!

Modifié par Bluko, 29 avril 2011 - 05:19 .

[Bluko]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Read some of the pages bro and there are some alternatives that have already been given. By the way, things don't have ethical value (meaning objects). You can't help the dead. What you should consider is make their sacrifices mean something and to not make sure that the lives lost were not in vain.

Mmm sorry, sometimes I get carried away with the funny business. (Though I kind of feel this nitpicking a bit much.) And I did read the previous posts. True yes I sort of reiterated someone's early post I believe, to an extent.

You sure objects don't have ethical value? I'd say there are objects out there that have ethical value attached to them. True it's just an object, and ultimately it's how it's used that determines how it is regarded. But I can think of several things that are regarded as "good/right/pure" and other things regarded as "bad/wrong/evil". Even though ethics is really only something that can be applied to sapient things, since only they understand the concepts.

I still haven't seen a better allternative given. Only one I saw was from Akizora:"And end up like the science team on the derelict reaper? I don't think so, I won't have us toying with technology that may cost us the war."

I suppose "No we don't need it." would have been fine, but lots of folks complain how Shepard's an emotional brick with no personality. They had him (Paragon Shepard)  show some breif emotion. I don't think that's a bad thing. Remember you are assuming a role, that's mean you won't always have the ability to have Shepard react like you might react. Just how it is, that said I think most Paragon players find nothing wrong with the line since then it leaves it entirely to the individual themselves for why Shepard destroyed the Base. Besides Shepard said what they said more as a retort to T.I.M. anyways.

Modifié par Bluko, 29 avril 2011 - 05:53 .