82210 réponses à ce sujet

[Filuto]

I was wondering do you plan play ME3 for your canon import from ME2 as first playthrough or you plan do first pt. for other character just learn how game will play out and then import your canon.

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

Yet, Legion is absolutely correct in its second sentence. The bad consequences may outweigh the good ones, but keeping the base as such has no inherent ethical value. Studying the technology has no ethical value. This is a conclusion I find unescapable, and if you think otherwise I would want to know why?

I'm not sure that any of the above is true, given what we know about the technology in question. (I'm not sure it's false either, for the record, but there is plenty of room for doubt.)

Keep in mind what we know about this tech: a dead husk of a Reaper drove the scientists studying it insane, corrupted them completely, resulting in their deaths. Keeping the base with the intention of studying it and using it could very well be seen as unethical with that in mind. (Not to mention rather stupid.) TIM presumably has all the specs for the Reaper IFF, so it is not out of the question that he could access the base on his own. Many ships have traveled through the relay over the course of history.

I could make a similar point and say that exactly because the technology is dangerous it must be studied. To understand is to gain control. Morality only comes in when you use things. To say otherwise would be like saying that studying a gun is wrong because once you understand it, you can kill people with it. 

I think that the discussion about this is influenced quite a but by the perceived "unnaturalness" of the technology. The SF equivalent of necromancy, so to speak, where you also can't make a convincing argument that animating dead bodies is wrong.

Yet, Miranda acts as if it does.
You point out reasons to destroy the base. Let's say I agree with them. Let's even say Miranda would agree with them - if she brought them up. But she doesn't reason.

How do you know this? I would certainly be open to hearing more about her thought process, but nothing about the content or the tone of what she says suggests that she hasn't given the choice plenty of thought.

As I said before: "there is no evidence that X didn't happen" has zero weight as an argument if there are no hints that X actually did happen. This is doubly true for fictional characters you can't ask afterwards why they made a decision. Had Miranda thought about this, there would be positive evidence that she had in form of a real argument.

If anything, the decision to destroy the base is about refusing to be dominated by one of the most powerful emotions: fear. Shepard states this plainly. But it's plausible that this is part of what Miranda means as well, when she says that keeping the base would feel like a betrayal.

I don't buy that. In fact, I am completely opposed to this line of reasoning and think Shepard is so stupid when he says this that I can't find words for it. The opposite is true: those who destroy the base do so out of fear of a technology they don't understand, instead having the expectation that there will be another way to defeat the Reapers, which is, given the experience we had with them, completely irrational. Refer to this thread for my account of the strategic situation.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2011 - 08:06 .

[flemm]

In any one playthrough, yes. But as soon as you play the SM several times with a different squad, you'll notice that they all do. That influences how you perceive the characters.

I think each play through is best viewed as an individual story in and of itself, though. If you take all of the possible playthroughs and clump them together as one story, then obviously there will be less coherence.

One of the things I enjoy about the game is that multiple playthroughs can be like exploring multiple different futures, with different decisions pushing the characters in different directions.

Where Miranda is concerned, obviously that statement is an important character moment, and I think it works perfectly as part of the Paragon version of the story. If a player did everything Renegade up to that point, then maybe less so.

Modifié par flemm, 19 août 2011 - 08:03 .

[Ieldra]

Spanky Magoo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The problem here is that Miranda doesn't refer to what TIM might do with the base. She acts as if keeping the base as such is wrong. "using anything from this base seems like a betrayal." Which - as Legion says - it isn't. "This facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.".
At least if you think it through and don't follow your intuitions without reflection. And Miranda is not the person who wouldn't think things through - after all this might be the most important decision she was ever involved in. Recall what she says at her LM: "For once, I haven't planned that far ahead". She's a planner and thinker, and if she came to the conclusion that the base must be destroyed, she would have a good reason for it, not a flimsy sentiment.

Her sudden switch of opinion as such is already jarring, but the betrayal line pushes things over the edge into the OOC.

I really don't want to continue with this, but I think that needed clearing up.

Yeah, I almost always destroy the base but ive nerver agreed with the "its an abomination" sentiment. I would have liked a option along the lines of " The reapers built this place to create more of themselves! You brought me back to stop them, and thats exactly what im going to do. With or with out you." idk just not a holier than thou approach.

Phew! At last someone who understands where I'm coming from. I disagree with destroying the base, but I respect the choice if it's made with arguments that have weight.

[flemm]

I could make a similar point and say that exactly because the technology is dangerous it must be studied. To understand is to gain control. Morality only comes in when you use things. To say otherwise would be like saying that studying a gun is wrong because once you understand it, you can kill people with it.

That's not a good analogy, though. We know that studying and even just being around Reaper tech is lethal. So, allowing others to study and to be around the technology becomes a moral issue, as well as a pretty important tactical issue. The same cannot be said of a gun (or really any technology in the real world). The game goes to great lengths to establish this aspect of Reaper tech just prior to the final mission. (The Cerberus scientists think they can study the husk of the reaper in safety, but their minds are destroyed by its presence.)

A better analogy might be allowing scientists to study a material or technology that emits lethal radiation when you have no means to protect them from that radiation.

Modifié par flemm, 19 août 2011 - 08:16 .

[Ieldra]

Filuto wrote...
I was wondering do you plan play ME3 for your canon import from ME2 as first playthrough or you plan do first pt. for other character just learn how game will play out and then import your canon.

I will play with another character first.

For my main Shepards, I want to play the game as if I was writing their stories. Thus, I will need control over the situations and know which decisions have which consequences. I will not go for "the best" outcome, but one that fits my characters.

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

I could make a similar point and say that exactly because the technology is dangerous it must be studied. To understand is to gain control. Morality only comes in when you use things. To say otherwise would be like saying that studying a gun is wrong because once you understand it, you can kill people with it.

That's not a good analogy, though. We know that studying and even just being around Reaper tech is lethal. So, allowing others to study and to be around the technology becomes a moral issue, as well as a pretty important tactical issue. The same cannot be said of a gun (or really any technology in the real world). The game goes to great lengths to establish this aspect of Reaper tech just prior to the final mission.

A better analogy might be allowing scientists to study a material or technology that emits lethal radiation when you have no means to protect them from that radiation.

That's their choice, however. It is not my moral responsibility to prevent them from harming themselves. Only to make them aware of the danger. It would be the science team's responsibility to see that they minimize exposure until they've found a way to protect themselves. And btw, the Cerberus scientists were stupid to set up camp in the derelict Reaper. It is not my moral responsibility to protect people from their own mistakes if I can reasonably expect them to know better.

Apart from that, there is this danger of galaxy-wide extinction in the background. That justifies taking some risks. A great deal of risks, in fact. Even more, a point could be made that it is your moral responsibility to do everything to avoid that outcome. Having an enemy HQ and Reaper factory to study is a prize beyond measure inj this scenario.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2011 - 08:19 .

[flemm]

Apart from that, there is this danger of galaxy-wide extinction in the background. That justifies taking some risks. A great deal of risks, in fact. Even more, a point could be made that it is your moral responsibility to do everything to avoid that outcome. Having an enemy HQ and Reaper factory to study is a prize beyond measure inj this scenario.

Some pretty big risks are taken either way. However, they don't "have" the base in any meaningful sense. Shepard's team can't effectively guard it. TIM knows where it is and how to get there. Even more importantly, there is the possibility (or even the probability) that the Reapers themselves could retake the base or send other minions to do so.

An appropriate analogy here might be capturing a horrific weapon that you can't take with you, can't prevent others from using irresponsibly and can't prevent your enemy from potentially recapturing and continuing to use. So you take what data you have, then destroy the weapon, because you have a chance to do so and might not have that chance again. Now you are at least sure it can't be used against you in the future.

Obviously, this is fiction, and fiction of a fantastical sort. Either choice could turn out to be the right and, in point of fact, both will turn out to be right, since both will lead to the defeat of the Reapers. But there are plenty of strong reasons to support the destruction of the base as the most ethical and tactically sound choice. 

Modifié par flemm, 19 août 2011 - 08:34 .

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

In any one playthrough, yes. But as soon as you play the SM several times with a different squad, you'll notice that they all do. That influences how you perceive the characters.

I think each play through is best viewed as an individual story in and of itself, though. If you take all of the possible playthroughs and clump them together as one story, then obviously there will be less coherence.

One of the things I enjoy about the game is that multiple playthroughs can be like exploring multiple different futures, with different decisions pushing the characters in different directions.

As I've posted on one of the previous pages, having different versions of characters depending on your choices would be fine with me. Like Miranda shows different aspects of her personality depending on how you proceed through the romance. Only that isn't the case here....

Where Miranda is concerned, obviously that statement is an important character moment, and I think it works perfectly as part of the Paragon version of the story. If a player did everything Renegade up to that point, then maybe less so.

I would challenge that estimation. Ironically, you do exactly *not* get that statement if you play as a Paragon. You only get it if you choose the Renegade response in the first exchange with TIM (one step before making the final decision). It's almost tailor-made to make a Renegade lose respect for Miranda while adding nothing to a Paragon playthrough. For the same reaon I also disagree with the notion that this is an important character moment. The great majority of players - those who are inclinded towards the Paragon decision *and* those who choose the neutral one - never get to see it. Compare "The only things I can take credit for are my mistakes". That is "canonical" Miranda.

Edit:
As for your last post: except that Miranda doesn't give any reasons. Since this is fiction, we have to assume that what she says is more or less the end of it unless proven otherwise. Anything else would be interpreting things *into* her. Just like I can rationalize that Miranda's reason to resign is a pragmatic one (she can't expect to go against Shepard and win), and that's OK for my playthroughs, but all the while I can clearly see it's not meant to be taken that way so it doesn't have weight as an argument when debating with others. Miranda's statement is clearly not meant to be taken as well reasoned. It's a feeling. That's it. And that's why I think it's out of character. Since we were all about acknowledging different aspects of Miranda yesterday, perhaps my impression is understandable - that those who deny that Miranda would *also* think about the situation before giving a recommendation are denying Miranda's pragmatic aspect.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2011 - 08:45 .

[100k]

 

[Shotokanguy]

Hmm. Your repeated mentions of Legion's view on this makes me wonder if maybe you do have a slightly off understanding of Miranda, Ieldra.

She isn't a machine.

[Ieldra]

Shotokanguy wrote...
Hmm. Your repeated mentions of Legion's view on this makes me wonder if maybe you do have a slightly off understanding of Miranda, Ieldra.

She isn't a machine.

*Sigh*. As if only a machine could come to that perfectly valid conclusion. But if you want: assume I said Mordin's view on the situation then. Apart from that, I think my posts are indication enough that I do not think so. Need I repeat the relevant points yet again, really?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2011 - 09:15 .

[Melra]

This thread is really boring today.

[Ieldra]

Remind me to repeat that when next a few pages of a topic I don't care for come up.

[ladyvader]

Filuto wrote...

I was wondering do you plan play ME3 for your canon import from ME2 as first playthrough or you plan do first pt. for other character just learn how game will play out and then import your canon.

I plan on importing my first save file from ME2.  Which is my canon femShep, but I lost Tali and Mordin during the SM.  That is the Opps, I messed up file and that import from ME didn't have everything I wanted anyway and I had to redo ME to fix ME2.  

[Melra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Remind me to repeat that when next a few pages of a topic I don't care for come up.

Nah, I don't care if you find something boring. Your endless rambling about the same subject is starting to get really tiresome, especially when you try to force those things down someone's throat like worst kind of catholic priest.

[Ieldra]

You and I can only agree to disagree, Melrache. Obviously, flemm and I hadn't reached that point yet. If you think this is excessive, look at other threads about controversial topics.

But to get back to something else:

Does anyone think it likely that Miranda will be slightly different depending on decisions you have made. Not just in her trust (or lack of it) in Shepard, but in personality traits?



@100k:
Thanks for that picture, and sorry for ignoring you.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2011 - 09:50 .

[Shotokanguy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

She isn't a machine.

*Sigh*. As if only a machine could come to that perfectly valid conclusion. But if you want: assume I said Mordin's view on the situation then. Apart from that, I think my posts are indication enough that I do not think so. Need I repeat the relevant points yet again, really?

Legion saying it is not an ethical issue does not make it true for Miranda though. That's what you seemed to be saying there: "Why doesn't Miranda think like Legion?"

Hell, I could say the same for Mordin. She's not him.

I'll just say it - I think the issue here is we may not know Miranda as well as we'd like to think. I really believe we don't. I've mentioned multiple times that I don't feel as if I spent much time with any of the characters in ME2, and I was very let down by how much I got to know about Miranda.

I'd rather wait for ME3 to come along, see what actions she takes during the war, and make a true judgment of her character at the end. Complaining that it's out of character at this point feels premature.

By the way, what was that about Miranda not saying her "betrayal" line if you pick the Paragon response? About 2 minutes into this...you can see what happens.



Not like I care - because even though we're arguing, I can agree that saving the base would've felt like a much stronger plot development if there was ANY inkling that Shepard had an idea for an alternate way to stop the Reapers. I'll pick one of the other two responses then.

Modifié par Shotokanguy, 19 août 2011 - 09:59 .

[Sebby]

It doesn't make sense for a woman that does things like coldly call the Lazarus personnel "expendable", call Veetor a "babbling idiot", does deadpan humor right after gunning down Wilson/Niket and justifies experiments on husks on the basis of "they were already dead" to be against keeping the base.

We already had Jacob who's character fits with arguing against it, so it's lame they had to do it with Miranda for no good reason.

edit: It also doesn't make sense for a Cerberus operative like her who's been serving in the organization for so long and has risen up to the point where TIM trusts her enough to be permitted into personal space station(an honor VERY few get) to be against it either. She should be at the very least TIM lite with her strongly held beliefs.

Modifié par Seboist, 19 août 2011 - 10:15 .

[Ieldra]

Oops....It appears I am wrong in this. It's been so long since I saw that exchange that I might have recalled it the wrong way. I'll go and check in the game again.

As for the other thing, Seboist has said it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2011 - 10:23 .

[Spanky Magoo]

Ieldra2 wrote...
*snip*

Does anyone think it likely that Miranda will be slightly different depending on decisions you have made. Not just in her trust (or lack of it) in Shepard, but in personality traits?


.

Honestly, Yes but the only decisions I see making a difference are loyalty and CB.

But I agree, we need something to spruce up this thread lol.

I actually wish they (meaning bioware) would give up some Miri info sooner rather than later because to be honest onse the games start coming out like Deus Ex next week Ill probably go ahead and enter lackout mode until next year.

ohh and I guess Ill just leave this here

[enayasoul]

Or just maybe she doesn't want to be some a "tool" that is expendable because of it. Like her father wanting to eliminate her because he thought of her as nothing but that. Tim calls Shepard a valuable "asset" much like Miranda tries to avoid being used like one. She says it plainly... "Or what you'll replace me next?" Tim doesn't care who lives or dies as long as he finds the answer to defeating the Reapers. The cost is too high in my opinion. You've seen it with arrival and studying any Reaper artifact. Indoctrination ALWAYS happens... Tim doesn't care about who he loses in the process.

Modifié par enayasoul, 19 août 2011 - 10:41 .

[Shotokanguy]

Seboist wrote...

It doesn't make sense for a woman that does things like coldly call the Lazarus personnel "expendable", call Veetor a "babbling idiot", does deadpan humor right after gunning down Wilson/Niket and justifies experiments on husks on the basis of "they were already dead" to be against keeping the base.

We know Miranda is on the Renegade side of the spectrum, though. 

Funnily enough, I would be a Paragon through and through if we had those labels, and I find those examples of cold logic fairly tame. 

I doubt Miranda would think of or outright call the Lazarus personnel expendable while they were still alive. After they were dead, she simpy admitted the truth - they were all there to bring back Shepard. If they had to die...oh well. At least they accomplished their goal.

Calling someone a babbling idiot is just a flash of personality. It doesn't mean much, in the grand scheme of things.

Her deadpan humor doesn't really pop up except in those situations. I assume it was just her way of reacting to an unpleasant situation.

Lastly, I see nothing wrong with doing some research on Husks...as long as it's for the right reasons, of course. They ARE already dead.

[Ieldra]

Heh...Miranda *does* appear to break the pattern of comments at the CB - I just checked. All others I tried made their comments if you choose the option opposite to their opinion in the first exchange with TIM. Only Miranda comments when you choose the option she agrees with.

[Clayless]

I'm not really following but are people complaining about Miranda being almost purely logical? That's what I love about her.

Her and Legion are my favourite characters because of it. Then Liara, due to her being somewhat logical too.