380 réponses à ce sujet

[Bailyn242]

jbblue05 wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...


You say Paragons want to unite the galaxy to stop the Reapers, yet they want to destory the only organization that has been aggressively researching ways to stop the Reapers and have been successful

Again, your personal game story interpretation, not mine.

I see keep on evading the question
If you're going to make a point about Paragons want to unite the galaxy against the Reapers back it up

I don't need a splinter organization to defeat the reapers at the cost of my own humanity. I believe I can unite the galaxy and defeat the reapers without the amoral bastard known as TIM. There are certainly useful and probably, from what I've seen, decent people within the organization but there are also people who I consider criminals in the positions of authority.

Hell yes I want the organization torn apart and put to proper use instead of handing recruits to the reapers for indoctrination with foolish experiments.

They've had 2 successes and a host of failures, its time for new management.

Answered within my personal paragon interpretation.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 11 juin 2011 - 10:41 .

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...


You say Paragons want to unite the galaxy to stop the Reapers, yet they want to destory the only organization that has been aggressively researching ways to stop the Reapers and have been successful

Again, your personal game story interpretation, not mine.

I see keep on evading the question
If you're going to make a point about Paragons want to unite the galaxy against the Reapers back it up

I don't need a splinter organization to defeat the reapers at the cost of my own humanity. I believe I can unite the galaxy and defeat the reapers without the amoral bastard known as TIM. There are certainly useful and probably, from what I've seen, decent people within the organization but there are also people who I consider criminals in the positions of authority.

Hell yes I want the organization torn apart and put to proper use instead of handing recruits to the reapers for indoctrination with foolish experiments.

They've had 2 successes and a host of failures, its time for new management.

Answered within my personal paragon interpretation.

You Paragons are so selfish risking the survival of the galaxy as long as you feel good about yourself.

Proper use?  Cerberus has had many successes, project you consider failures are actually successes or Shepard personally sabotaged.them.

If Cerberus was put to "proper" use they wouldn't accomplish anything because a Paragon won't take risks that go against their morals
.

[Rip504]

"You Paragons are so selfish risking the survival of the galaxy as long as you feel good about yourself."

When does this happen? When we tell TIM to F off,and/or the council choice in ME1?

I disagree with both of these of course. The Reaper will be destroyed one way or another. The choice is about how you are going to attack it and the possible outcomes of saving or killing the council. If it was about galactic safety I think they would have at least mentioned this in ME1 during the choice. It wasn't. It was about Saving or Killing the council,nothing else.
Shepard knew the Reaper would be killed either way As Shepard now is in control of the Citadel,not Saren. He is dead on the ground. There is no chance for the Reapers to use the Citadel as a relay anymore. The galaxy is safe. The choice is about the council.

Edit: for you who b*tch about "metagaming" at this point in the game,you know shepard is in control of the Citadel,Saren is dead. The Reapers can no longer use the Citadel as a Relay. They have failed. The choice is about sacrificing human lives for alien lives. Paragon is willing to sacrifice the renegade is not.

Saren comes back to life only after this choice. So no paragons did not risk the safety of the galaxy. The choice had to do with sacrificing human lives to save aliens. Don't assume casey Hudson was talking about Renegades with that statement.

Modifié par Rip504, 11 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[Bailyn242]

And you Renegades are so selfish that you don't care about what we become in the process of fighting this war.

To me, defeating the reapers at the cost of everything we could be is LOSING the war in the end.

Actually the Cerberus choice is the most practical of them all. TIM has repeatedly placed his personnel into circumstances resulted in their indoctrination and judging from Saren, Benezia and what Virgil told us on Virmire, the indoctrinated spread indoctrination by some means. Perhaps by sneaking some device into a given area to expose more personnel to indoctrination.

TIM is taking unconscionable risks given the risks of an indoctrinated getting away from him, or even getting indoctrinated himself. Do I let it continue unchecked or should I be aware of the personnel he's putting at risk so I can flag them for monitoring by outside security forces?

Again, this is my personal Paragon interpretation, jut as you have yours. Unfortunately you, not I, seem to be demanding that I be "Punished" or forced to adopt your story. We each deserve our own story.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 11 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[jbblue05]

Rip504 wrote...

"You Paragons are so selfish risking the survival of the galaxy as long as you feel good about yourself."

When does this happen? When we tell TIM to F off,and/or the council choice in ME1?

I disagree with both of these of course. The Reaper will be destroyed one way or another. The choice is about how you are going to attack it and the possible outcomes of saving or killing the council. If it was about galactic safety I think they would have at least mentioned this in ME1 during the choice. It wasn't. It was about Saving or Killing the council,nothing else.
Shepard knew the Reaper would be killed either way As Shepard now is in control of the Citadel,not Saren. He is dead on the ground. There is no chance for the Reapers to use the Citadel as a relay anymore. The galaxy is safe. The choice is about the council.

Edit: for you who b*tch about "metagaming" at this point in the game,you know shepard is in control of the Citadel,Saren is dead. The Reapers can no longer use the Citadel as a Relay. They have failed. The choice is about sacrificing human lives for alien lives. Paragon is willing to sacrifice the renegade is not.

Saren comes back to life only after this choice. So no paragons did not risk the safety of the galaxy. The choice had to do with sacrificing human lives to save aliens. Don't assume casey Hudson was talking about Renegades with that statement.

Lies!
Shepard didn't know Sovereign was going to be killed.
All Shepard knew was that Sovereign was ripping the 5th fleet a new one and they couldn't take down his shields it was all a leap of faith and it was a convienent miracle that defeating Saren allowed Sovereign to lose his shields.

ONLY the gamer knew Shepard was going to win no matter what

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

And you Renegades are so selfish that you don't care about what we become in the process of fighting this war.

To me, defeating the reapers at the cost of everything we could be is LOSING the war in the end.

Actually the Cerberus choice is the most practical of them all. TIM has repeatedly placed his personnel into circumstances resulted in their indoctrination and judging from Saren, Benezia and what Virgil told us on Virmire, the indoctrinated spread indoctrination by some means. Perhaps by sneaking some device into a given area to expose more personnel to indoctrination.

TIM is taking unconscionable risks given the risks of an indoctrinated getting away from him, or even getting indoctrinated himself. Do I let it continue unchecked or should I be aware of the personnel he's putting at risk so I can flag them for monitoring by outside security forces?

Again, this is my personal Paragon interpretation, jut as you have yours. Unfortunately you, not I, seem to be demanding that I be "Punished" or forced to adopt your story. We each deserve our own story.

Reapers are the real enemy not Cerberus. ro our morality.

I rather sacrifice my morals to bolster our chances of victory against the Reaapers  than let my idealism increase our chances of defeat.

Victory over Reapers>>>>>>> feeling good about yourself

[Bailyn242]

You're still projecting your personal gameplay on others and ignoring what is inconvenient to you. Heck, as far as the thread you've contributed little to nothing productive other than increasing the the length of the thread.

You're harping on Cerberus like this is the heart of the issue here and it flat isn't.

It's about the "missing content" and whether there would be consequences for our choices, paragon or renegade. It is about the perception that renegades missed content, they really didn't. They got the renegade playthrough. The content is still on the disk but to get that branch of content you import/play a paragon. Want the renegade content? Import and play that one through. Geesh, how hard is that? Mix and match, enjoy one of the best game franchises in history (as far as I'm concerned).

Why do you need to FORCE me to embrace your moral construct? Are you that insecure?

[Bailyn242]

BTW jbblue, who says the STG, Turians and other groups aren't doing something out there? The Turians obviously know something's up with their development of the Thanix even if they aren't acknowledging anything publicly.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 12 juin 2011 - 12:02 .

[Seboist]

jbblue05 wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

And you Renegades are so selfish that you don't care about what we become in the process of fighting this war.

To me, defeating the reapers at the cost of everything we could be is LOSING the war in the end.

Actually the Cerberus choice is the most practical of them all. TIM has repeatedly placed his personnel into circumstances resulted in their indoctrination and judging from Saren, Benezia and what Virgil told us on Virmire, the indoctrinated spread indoctrination by some means. Perhaps by sneaking some device into a given area to expose more personnel to indoctrination.

TIM is taking unconscionable risks given the risks of an indoctrinated getting away from him, or even getting indoctrinated himself. Do I let it continue unchecked or should I be aware of the personnel he's putting at risk so I can flag them for monitoring by outside security forces?

Again, this is my personal Paragon interpretation, jut as you have yours. Unfortunately you, not I, seem to be demanding that I be "Punished" or forced to adopt your story. We each deserve our own story.

Reapers are the real enemy not Cerberus. ro our morality.

I rather sacrifice my morals to bolster our chances of victory against the Reaapers  than let my idealism increase our chances of defeat.

Victory over Reapers>>>>>>> feeling good about yourself

True, I won't let fear make me sacrifice the soul of our species by destroying valuable technology and intel like the Collector base.

Modifié par Seboist, 12 juin 2011 - 12:04 .

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

You're still projecting your personal gameplay on others and ignoring what is inconvenient to you. Heck, as far as the thread you've contributed little to nothing productive other than increasing the the length of the thread.

You're harping on Cerberus like this is the heart of the issue here and it flat isn't.

It's about the "missing content" and whether there would be consequences for our choices, paragon or renegade. It is about the perception that renegades missed content, they really didn't. They got the renegade playthrough. The content is still on the disk but to get that branch of content you import/play a paragon. Want the renegade content? Import and play that one through. Geesh, how hard is that? Mix and match, enjoy one of the best game franchises in history (as far as I'm concerned).

Why do you need to FORCE me to embrace your moral construct? Are you that insecure?

Its funny you are easily describing yourself as well as me

I'm not forcing nothing on you, you made a comment in this thread I disagreed with, so I can easily say you're FORCING me to embrace you'rre moral construct.

My argument is on topic Cerberus and Shepard's choices throughout the trilogy will have consequences in ME3.

[Bailyn242]

Which actually supports my argument that the complaints about lack of content/consequence. You are harping on this issue that has yet to be resolved. There will be consequences, and the really funny thing is that Cerberus has certainly born out all of the Paragon's concerns from all the reveals so far.

Of course the Cerberus Renegades (not all Renegades by any means) are screaming retcon over E3's reveal that they are indoctrinated now.

Of course there are still other things that we have yet to see resolution on that haven't been revealed or even hinted at yet.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 12 juin 2011 - 12:20 .

[Bailyn242]

jbblue05 wrote...

Its funny you are easily describing yourself as well as me

I'm not forcing nothing on you, you made a comment in this thread I disagreed with, so I can easily say you're FORCING me to embrace you'rre moral construct.

My argument is on topic Cerberus and Shepard's choices throughout the trilogy will have consequences in ME3.

How am I forcing you to accept my moral values? You demanded a response to a question I answered and now I'm forcing my interpretation on you? Get a grip.

You asked for an answer and I even put at the end of the post "this is my personal Paragon interpretation of this event". Where did I demand that you accept my interpretation? You asked how I saw it and I answered.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

"It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.'  It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end." -Casey Hudson
______________________________________________________________________________


Just putting this quote back here to break it down further (regarding how I interpret this)...

"It gets into grey areas"... meaning areas that aren't morally black and white.  Paragon decisions have always been based on the morally black and white of the moment.

"we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong"  In other words, they want to try and make what's ultimately right and wrong unclear (ie, no longer just the Paragon decisions winning out).

"because" This means now we're going to hear a reason for this.

"ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.' "  Renegade is obviously what Casey's referring to when mentioning 'Evil.'  And now we have 2 attributes to both sides, 'Good/Right" and 'Evil/Wrong.' This means that consequently, Casey is standing up for Renegades a bit here...

"It's a little bit different where it's a question of  'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end" 

Keep in mind that both Paragon and Renegade are heroes.  So what we have here are the two sides being illustrated (Paragon and Renegade).  One will sacrifice for the greater good and the other is unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end (ie: victory).  The Paragons have the dominant choices where they're unwilling to give things up just to accomplish the mission.  Renegades, on the other hands, have consistently been the ones willing to sacrifice in order to accomplish their objective.

Take Zaeed and the human lives he put in danger.  A Paragon is unwilling to sacrifice those people just to justify Zaeed's loyalty and catch Vido.  A Renegade is willing to make that sacrifice.

A Renegade is willing to let the Council die in order to ensure victory over Sovereign.  Paragons are not willing to sacrifice the Council for that chance. etc. etc.

Adding all of those up, Casey's intention seems pretty clear.  It seems that Renegade choices may finally be justified in the game for Mass Effect 3...  (still possible that it won't happen, but now I feel better about it)

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 juin 2011 - 12:46 .

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Its funny you are easily describing yourself as well as me

I'm not forcing nothing on you, you made a comment in this thread I disagreed with, so I can easily say you're FORCING me to embrace you'rre moral construct.

My argument is on topic Cerberus and Shepard's choices throughout the trilogy will have consequences in ME3.

How am I forcing you to accept my moral values? You demanded a response to a question I answered and now I'm forcing my interpretation on you? Get a grip.

You asked for an answer and I even put at the end of the post "this is my personal Paragon interpretation of this event". Where did I demand that you accept my interpretation? You asked how I saw it and I answered.

You're not and nor am I to you we are both defending our arguments. So stop acting like I'm forcing anything on you because we are both just defending our arguments
.

.

[Rip504]

I'm glad you have finally admitted that you are making an assumption based off of this and that.
I need more then one example of Zaeed,in order for you to even slightly concrete what you are saying.

"A Renegade is willing to let the Council die in order to ensure victory over Sovereign. Paragons are not willing to sacrifice the Council for that chance. etc. etc."

This statement could be seen as being wrong. The choice is about Sacrificing Humans for Aliens,not Sovereign,As both will eventually concentrate on Sovereign.
Renegade is sacrificing the council for human dominance. As hinted by one of Shepard's responses. Something to the effect I seen the opportunity and took it. Implying Shepard killed the council to ensure human dominance,not concentrating on Sovereign. When does Shepard state he killed the council to take down Sovereign? Focus on Sovereign doesn't mean that is the reason Shepard is letting the council die. There is many interpretations for why one Shepard is doing something,there is no cannon or this one is right. As many different people make their choices based off of this reason or that reason. There are many ways to interpret what happen. So saying one of them is they only way this could be seen is wrong IMO.

Your task at the end of the game (Renegade or Paragon) is to stop Saren and Sovereign. That is your first priority for both playthroughs. Paragons during this mission decide saving the DA to be a secondary priority . Stating save the DA no matter the cost. The cost is human lives nothing else. One of your teamates state human losses would be great,and what has the council done for humanity. The other states this is bigger then humanity. The cost was never the safety of the galaxy. It was understood & implied the cost was human lives. So when Shepards states no matter the cost.Shepard means no matter how many human lives are lost. The battle against Sovereign never stops,it doesn't pause while you save the DA. No it is still your top priority. Seen differently.

Edit: Also a little more on the Citadel.
Ok we still knew we would win. As the Citadel is now safe and communications are back up. We knew the Citadel would no longer be used to send the signal out to wake up the Reaper.Keepers,and turn the Citadel into the doomsday relay.The Galaxy is safe.

The fleets seemed to make quick work of the Heritic ships also. So It was the DA,Turians,Humans,and the Citadel against one Reaper vessel. I felt confident in sacrificing Human lives for the greater good.

Even if Sovereign destroyed all of our ships,we can assume Shepard,DA,& Citadel control would radio for more back up. If this were the case I doubt saving 8 human ships would have made the difference. Sovereign wasn't trying to destroy the citadel. So without Saren it's plan has failed. How long could it possibly sit there and fight before getting destroyed? If it could have sent the signal itself, it would have. there would have been no need for Saren either. = Shepard knowing the Reaper WILL fall.

So Paragons never risked the Galaxy's safety,and the choice was about if you were willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens or not. And as I have already said Paragons were willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens,and Renegades were not willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens. Leading to an Alliance with united Alien races,instead of pushing for humanity to take over,for your selfish reasons. renegade=humanity is right,aliens are wrong. Paragon=The first steps to a united & peaceful galaxy.

Yes if you take this situation out of context I guess you could find a reason for the Renegade to be considered sacrificing something for the greater good. But in context I doubt this highly.

The Collector base is a non-issue for me. Destroying it doesn't risk the galaxy's safety any more then saving it helps protect the galaxy. The safety of the galaxy is in question in ME3 no matter what. As Reapers are attacking anyway. And we all know Shepard can win this war with or without it. That's the plot in ME3.Stopping the Reapers and Saving Earth. So in no way can destroying the Collector base be considered as the Paragon risking the safety of the galaxy. It's at risk no matter the case.

Modifié par Rip504, 12 juin 2011 - 01:20 .

[jbblue05]

Rip504 wrote...


This statement could be seen as being wrong. The choice is about Sacrificing Humans for Aliens,not Sovereign,As both will eventually concentrate on Sovereign.
Renegade is sacrificing the council for human dominance. As hinted by one of Shepard's responses. Something to the effect I seen the opportunity and took it. Implying Shepard killed the council to ensure human dominance,not concentrating on Sovereign. When does Shepard state he killed the council to take down Sovereign? Focus on Sovereign doesn't mean that is the reason Shepard is letting the council die. There is many interpretations for why one Shepard is doing something,there is no cannon or this one is right. As many different people make their choices based off of this reason or that reason. There are many ways to interpret what happen. So saying one of them is they only way this could be seen is wrong IMO.

Your task at the end of the game (Renegade or Paragon) is to stop Saren and Sovereign. That is your first priority for both playthroughs. Paragons during this mission decide saving the DA to be a secondary priority . Stating save the DA no matter the cost. The cost is human lives nothing else. One of your teamates state human losses would be great,and what has the council done for humanity. The other states this is bigger then humanity. The cost was never the safety of the galaxy. It was understood & implied the cost was human lives. So when Shepards states no matter the cost.Shepard means no matter how many human lives are lost. The battle against Sovereign never stops,it doesn't pause while you save the DA. No it is still your top priority. Seen differently.

Edit: Also a little more on the Citadel.
Ok we still knew we would win. As the Citadel is now safe and communications are back up. We knew the Citadel would no longer be used to send the signal out to wake up the Reaper.Keepers,and turn the Citadel into the doomsday relay.The Galaxy is safe.

The fleets seemed to make quick work of the Heritic ships also. So It was the DA,Turians,Humans,and the Citadel against one Reaper vessel. I felt confident in sacrificing Human lives for the greater good.

Even if Sovereign destroyed all of our ships,we can assume Shepard,DA,& Citadel control would radio for more back up. If this were the case I doubt saving 8 human ships would have made the difference. Sovereign wasn't trying to destroy the citadel. So without Saren it's plan has failed. How long could it possibly sit there and fight before getting destroyed? If it could have sent the signal itself, it would have. there would have been no need for Saren either. = Shepard knowing the Reaper WILL fall.

So Paragons never risked the Galaxy's safety,and the choice was about if you were willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens or not. And as I have already said Paragons were willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens,and Renegades were not willing to sacrifice human lives for aliens. Leading to an Alliance with united Alien races,instead of pushing for humanity to take over,for your selfish reasons. renegade=humanity is right,aliens are wrong. Paragon=The first steps to a united & peaceful galaxy.

Yes if you take this situation out of context I guess you could find a reason for the Renegade to be considered sacrificing something for the greater good. But in context I doubt this highly.

The Collector base is a non-issue for me. Destroying it doesn't risk the galaxy's safety any more then saving it helps protect the galaxy. The safety of the galaxy is in question in ME3 no matter what. As Reapers are attacking anyway. And we all know Shepard can win this war with or without it. That's the plot in ME3.Stopping the Reapers and Saving Earth. So in no way can destroying the Collector base be considered as the Paragon risking the safety of the galaxy. It's at risk no matter the case.

I believe the choice is sacrificing the council to bolster your chances against Sovereign or Sacrrificing humans to save the Council and hoping you have enough manpower to defeat Sovereign.

Paragons risk the chance of Sovereign escaping and rallying more Geth to attack a severely weakened Council in the future

Besides letting Paragons have their cake and eat it too.  Bioware should've done something like let the Council  die and defeat Sovereign or save the Council and Sovereign escapes

Keeping the CB is all about do you want to keep a potential asset against the Reaper or you believe you can win without it.
If the CB holds secrets to Reaper Indoctrination and Reaper blueprints its a risk that can increase our chances against the Reapers

[jbblue05]

double post.

Modifié par jbblue05, 12 juin 2011 - 01:42 .

[Rip504]

I agree about the CB,but the Citadel thing could be seen in many different ways. Even more so since Renegade Shepard can state they did it to ensure human dominance.!.

There are some decent points in here. I say add content for both playthroughs. I do hope for a Bioware twist in ME3 to be alot better then it was in ME2...

Modifié par Rip504, 12 juin 2011 - 01:49 .

[jbblue05]

Rip504 wrote...

I agree about the CB,but the Citadel thing could be seen in many different ways. Even more so since Renegade Shepard can state they did it to ensure human dominance.!.

There are some decent points in here. I say add content for both playthroughs. I do hope for a Bioware twist in ME3 to be alot better then it was in ME2...

 intentionally sacrificing the council coincides with bolstering your chances against Soverign

[Seboist]

jbblue05 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I agree about the CB,but the Citadel thing could be seen in many different ways. Even more so since Renegade Shepard can state they did it to ensure human dominance.!.

There are some decent points in here. I say add content for both playthroughs. I do hope for a Bioware twist in ME3 to be alot better then it was in ME2...

 intentionally sacrificing the council coincides with bolstering your chances against Soverign

It's a win-win!

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504, if you're referring to me, please use quotes. The other reason you should quote me is because hopefully upon looking at the points I brought up there will be less things you try to state after I address it previously. Here's a passage from the game you can think about:

"Quick! Open the station's arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!"

"This is bigger than humanity. Sovereign is a threat to every species in the Galaxy."

"Exactly, we can't throw away reinforcements trying to save the Council."

Sovereign could've retaken the station (and summoned the Reapers, ending all life in the galaxy... including the Council) while the reinforcements were sent to save the DA.

It's never assumed that Sovereign can be stopped... the rush is to stop him as soon as possible before all life is destroyed. So the "sacrifice" was of the Council. The Paragon option put the entire galaxy at risk for the lives of the Council because it was "the right thing to do" and not to be sacrificed "just" to win against Sovereign and save galactic life.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 juin 2011 - 03:57 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Seboist wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I agree about the CB,but the Citadel thing could be seen in many different ways. Even more so since Renegade Shepard can state they did it to ensure human dominance.!.

There are some decent points in here. I say add content for both playthroughs. I do hope for a Bioware twist in ME3 to be alot better then it was in ME2...

 intentionally sacrificing the council coincides with bolstering your chances against Soverign

It's a win-win!

The greater good?

But seriously, his personal reasoning for concentrating on Sovereign doesn't make any difference to the galactic community unless he went around preaching it to the galaxy.

It's like saying the Paragon reasoning for saving the Council is because Shepard saw the Council as his eternal master and galactic life was not worth living if those 3 people died.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 juin 2011 - 04:10 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Bailyn242 wrote...

And you Renegades are so selfish that you don't care about what we become in the process of fighting this war.

"I'll stop the Reapers, but I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it... Remember that."

Something you can tell TIM if you keep the base.

Rip504 wrote...

I'm glad you have finally admitted that you are making an assumption based off of this and that.

This is why quoting me is a good idea... like the very first post of this thread...

"So there may be a reason to role-play for the best outcome afterall"

If I wasn't assuming, then I would've said:

"There's finally a reason to role-play for the best outcome again instead of just hitting the blue button!"

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 juin 2011 - 04:26 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

"I'll stop the Reapers, but I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it... Remember that."

Something you can tell TIM if you keep the base.

  As though Shepard is somehow in control/possession of the soul of the entire human race.  I wish there was the option to pretty much say "hell yeah, lets go kick some reaper ass" to the TIM after keeping the base.  Instead, its just crap about the soul of humanity or telling TIM to shut up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised that TIM would throw Shepard under the bus (though I am curious as to why in the hell he'd be helping the reapers), but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.