202 réponses à ce sujet

[ExtremeOne]

I think the writing in ME 2 is not very good but that line does reek of stupidity.

[lolwut666]

Not really.

It's Reaper tech, which makes it dangerous by default.

We don't even know it would have been of any use, anyway.

And regardless of what he sounded like, his point remains.

We're not walking flesh bags. We have thoughts and emotions which can be easily swayed.

So yeah, if a point of view is accepted today, sooner or later it'll be considered perfectly normal, even the most controversial ones.

If saving that base could compromise the social integrity of the galactic civilization, all for technology we don't know if will be useful or not, and that could very well be schmuck bait, I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 10:52 .

[ExtremeOne]

lolwut666 wrote...

Not really.

It's Reaper tech, which makes it dangerous by default.

We don't even know it would have been of any use, anyway.

And regardless of what he sounded like, his point remains.

We're not walking flesh bags. We have thoughts and emotions which can be easily swayed.

So yeah, if a point of view is accepted today, sooner or later it'll be considered perfectly normal, even the most controversial ones.

If saving that base could compromise the social integrity of the galactic civilization, all for technology we don't know if will be useful or not, and that could very well be schmuck bait, I'm not sure if it's worth it.

   



Oh please if the reapers were as deadly as you and others say they are then . why not show it in game and I am not talking about stupid indocunation crap .  The line is stupid and makes no sense . 

[Ieldra]

Nyoka wrote...
As for "The collector base has no ethical value", well, I'd say a machine that is explicitly designed to use people as raw material really has ethical value. It's practically the same thing the Lotus Assasins used to do in Jade Empire. They would kill peasants (colonists) and collect their souls (DNA) in order to animate jade golems (Reapers).

That's saying a gun has ethical value because its made to kill people. Things itself never have an ethical value, only actions taken by intelligent entities.  The farthest I'd go is to say that *building* such a machine might be questionable.

In this case I could make the opposite point more convincingly: keeping the base is a moral obligation because it furthers understanding of an enemy with a goal of galaxy-wise extinction. Destroying it before you have milked it for all the information it contains is irresponsible.

As for the line in question: Yes, I find it incredibly stupid. Fortunately my Shepard never needs to use it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 mai 2011 - 11:24 .

[lolwut666]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
As for "The collector base has no ethical value", well, I'd say a machine that is explicitly designed to use people as raw material really has ethical value. It's practically the same thing the Lotus Assasins used to do in Jade Empire. They would kill peasants (colonists) and collect their souls (DNA) in order to animate jade golems (Reapers).

That's saying a gun has ethical value because its made to kill people. Things itself never have an ethical value, only actions taken by intelligent entities.  The farthest I'd go is to say that *building* such a machine might be questionable.

In this case I could make the opposite point more convincingly: keeping the base is a moral obligation because it furthers understanding of an enemy with a goal of galaxy-wise extinction. Destroying it before you have milked it for all the information it contains is irresponsible.

As for the line in question: Yes, I find it incredibly stupid. Fortunately my Shepard never needs to use it.

That's true to a point.

Taking what you can for the base sounds like a reasonable decision, but you are overlooking the fact that you are giving the base to Cerberus; and if you know anything about Cerberus (and you should), then you shouldn't expect them to stop at studying it.

If the option to give the base to the Alliance existed, I might agree with you, but as it stands, destroying the base seems like the better option.

[The BS Police]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh please if the reapers were as deadly as you and others say they are then . why not show it in game and I am not talking about stupid indocunation crap .  

Have you even played the first game? 

[Arijharn]

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh please if the reapers were as deadly as you and others say they are then . why not show it in game and I am not talking about stupid indocunation crap .  

Have you even played the first game? 

Wrong response imho, I'd rather just point out that the entire ME3 game is going to entail us finding allies to stop the Reapers. I think that qualifies them as being pretty 'deadly'.

[GodWood]

lolwut666 wrote...
Not really.

It's Reaper tech, which makes it dangerous by default.

Which is not even the reasoning Shepard has when he uses this line.

Hence this thread.

[Katamariguy]

That's why I saved the base.

[Labrev]

I think that line is perfectly fine.

When you reason that it's a good idea to give dangerous technology to a black-ops group with a history of betrayal and unethical experiments, just because you're afraid of the Reapers, then you are making an irrational decision out of fear for the Reapers.

Same mistake the salarians made, uplifting the Krogan to fight the Rachni. They were better off trying to fight the Rachni without them.

The war against the Reapers is not even related to the base, and it should have no bearing on the decision being made there. The benefits and consequences of keeping it vs. destroying it are the same: with or without Reapers.

So no, I'm not going to keep the base because "AAAAHHH!!!!!! WE CAN'T BEAT THE REAPERS AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!"

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 03 mai 2011 - 01:22 .

[lolwut666]

Most players' reason for keeping the base:

[Seboist]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

I think that line is perfectly fine.

When you reason that it's a good idea to give dangerous technology to a black-ops group with a history of betrayal and unethical experiments, just because you're afraid of the Reapers, then you are making an irrational decision out of fear for the Reapers.

Same mistake the salarians made, uplifting the Krogan to fight the Rachni. They were better off trying to fight the Rachni without them.

The war against the Reapers is not even related to the base, and it should have no bearing on the decision being made there. The benefits and consequences of keeping it vs. destroying it are the same: with or without Reapers.

So no, I'm not going to keep the base because "AAAAHHH!!!!!! WE CAN'T BEAT THE REAPERS AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!"

When it comes to dealing with machines that have been exterminating people for millions of years I'd work with the freakin devil if i had to.

[Labrev]

lolwut666 wrote...

Most players' reason for keeping the base:

OMG! Was that scene always that corny?

I never noticed

[Labrev]

Seboist wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

I think that line is perfectly fine.

When you reason that it's a good idea to give dangerous technology to a black-ops group with a history of betrayal and unethical experiments, just because you're afraid of the Reapers, then you are making an irrational decision out of fear for the Reapers.

Same mistake the salarians made, uplifting the Krogan to fight the Rachni. They were better off trying to fight the Rachni without them.

The war against the Reapers is not even related to the base, and it should have no bearing on the decision being made there. The benefits and consequences of keeping it vs. destroying it are the same: with or without Reapers.

So no, I'm not going to keep the base because "AAAAHHH!!!!!! WE CAN'T BEAT THE REAPERS AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!"

When it comes to dealing with machines that have been exterminating people for millions of years I'd work with the freakin devil if i had to.

But see, that's the point. Only fear of the Reapers makes you think that's a good idea. It's an illogical conclusion made by emotions.

[ExtremeOne]

The BS Police wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh please if the reapers were as deadly as you and others say they are then . why not show it in game and I am not talking about stupid indocunation crap .  

Have you even played the first game? 

  


Yes I have but even in that game the reapers do not seem like a deadly threat . I would have liked to see them attack planets and things like that .  I hate that they have invaded Earth but hey at least in 3 they are some what of a serious threat 

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I would have liked to see them attack planets and things like that .

Which was never going to happen until ME3.  One was simply about learning that the threat exists.

[ExtremeOne]

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I would have liked to see them attack planets and things like that .

Which was never going to happen until ME3.  One was simply about learning that the threat exists.

   


Then the reaper threat really is not much of one if it takes a 3rd game to bring it . 

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Then the reaper threat really is not much of one if it takes a 3rd game to bring it . 

Could you at least try talking sense?

[lolwut666]

ExtremeOne wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I would have liked to see them attack planets and things like that .

Which was never going to happen until ME3.  One was simply about learning that the threat exists.

   


Then the reaper threat really is not much of one if it takes a 3rd game to bring it . 

We won't know how threatening they are until they reach the galaxy.

[Dave666]

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Then the reaper threat really is not much of one if it takes a 3rd game to bring it . 

Could you at least try talking sense?

Didymos?  Why do you even bother bud?

[didymos1120]

Dave666 wrote...

Didymos?  Why do you even bother bud?

I honestly don't know. 

[ReallyRue]

ExtremeOne wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I would have liked to see them attack planets and things like that .

Which was never going to happen until ME3.  One was simply about learning that the threat exists.

   


Then the reaper threat really is not much of one if it takes a 3rd game to bring it . 

I like the build-up. The Reaper issue would not have impressed me as much if they suddenly invaded in ME1, whereas I like the drawn out approach - discovering their existence, trying to foil their plans, and then fighting off an invasion, instead of trying to fight one from the get-go.

[Ieldra]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

I think that line is perfectly fine.

When you reason that it's a good idea to give dangerous technology to a black-ops group with a history of betrayal and unethical experiments, just because you're afraid of the Reapers, then you are making an irrational decision out of fear for the Reapers.

Same mistake the salarians made, uplifting the Krogan to fight the Rachni. They were better off trying to fight the Rachni without them.

The war against the Reapers is not even related to the base, and it should have no bearing on the decision being made there. The benefits and consequences of keeping it vs. destroying it are the same: with or without Reapers.

So no, I'm not going to keep the base because "AAAAHHH!!!!!! WE CAN'T BEAT THE REAPERS AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!"

When it comes to dealing with machines that have been exterminating people for millions of years I'd work with the freakin devil if i had to.

But see, that's the point. Only fear of the Reapers makes you think that's a good idea. It's an illogical conclusion made by emotions.

That's exactly NOT the point. That the Reapers have the means for a galactic extinction is a very reasonable assumption - they've done it countless times. That they are beyond Citadel Civilization in technology is a fact. All experience and history shows that it is all but impossible to beat them. No, we won't cower in fear, but having to use all means at our disposal is a very reasonable assumption.

The assumption that we can beat the Reapers *without* a tech upgrade, *that* is irrational - no one of the countless civilizations before has managed it. People's elevating Cerberus to the supreme evil, before which concerns about the Reapers become irrelevant, that is irrational. It's moral indignation at Cerberus overriding strategic reasoning.

Thus, Shepard's line is the embodiment of the  idiotic kind of Paragon's stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-for-the-best mentality. There are other kind of Paragons I'd like to play, but that version is unbearable.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 mai 2011 - 03:15 .

[Reapinger]

lolwut666 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I would have liked to see them attack planets and things like that .

Which was never going to happen until ME3.  One was simply about learning that the threat exists.

   


Then the reaper threat really is not much of one if it takes a 3rd game to bring it . 

We won't know how threatening they are until they reach the galaxy.

We saw what the vanguard did, so multiply that by around 500. Reapers were not in Mass Effect 2 because even the strongest evil has its minions that need to be dealt with and they were already trying to make a human reaper. Kind of a big deal.

On another note ExtremeOne, I would love to see you take down a 2 km ship with your aura of stupidity.