175 réponses à ce sujet

[Aggie Punbot]

Where's My Paragon?

Have you checked in between the couch cushions?

[Dave of Canada]

Goneaviking wrote...

There's no reason for Shepherd to have assumed that it was an either/or decision; it was never presented as a choice to throw away the galaxy for the sake of the council or throw away the council for the sake of the galaxy.

Except you're told that Sovereign is trying to regain control of the station, and one of your companions will -always- say "Quick, open the stations arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!".

You're also told that saving the Council will cost reinforcements, that you should keep them back until the Citadel's arms are open so they can all focus on Sovereign. The "Concentrate on Sovereign" choice also has Shepard say that you need every single reinforcement for Sovereign.

So yes, saving the Council potentially was risking Sovereign regaining control of the station and bringing in the entire Reaper fleet.

[Dave of Canada]

Massadonious1 wrote...

And why would you necessairly need validation anyway? If you think it's the right decision, then make the right decision. I certainly didn't let the opinions of my crew or ship determine whether I should sell Legion or "birth" Grunt.

Because then...

I fail to see how the game tells you it's a "wrong" decision unless it literally flashes "WRONG" on the screen or gives you a game over screen.

... happens, I'll always save the Collector Base because I don't see the logic in destroying it and I always see it as the "right" decision but the game telling me this isn't something enjoyable when Paragons get patted on the back. And then threads asking for consequences to Paragons and benefits for Renegades are made, mentioning everything from ME1 and ME2.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juin 2011 - 09:30 .

[Undertone]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Such as what? Give an example why saving the Ascension is more important then saving the galaxy - within the context and the small time you have to stop Sovereign.

It has a gigantic cannon?

And besides, the fleet already in orbit wasn't doing squat against Sovereign anyway. I doubt that more ships with virtually the same level of firepower taking however long it would of realistically taken to escort the Ascension away from the primary battlefiled would of made much of a difference in terms of "galaxy saving".

And you see it use it where exactly? DA is about to bite the dust from some small geth ships and you think it's going to attack Sovereign? With the Council on board Suuure.

[Dave of Canada]

Undertone wrote...

And you see it use it where exactly? DA is about to bite the dust from some small geth ships and you think it's going to attack Sovereign? With the Council on board Suuure.

It's also described as being in an almost useless condition from all the damage it sustained.

[Massadonious1]

Just because it has never been used doesn't mean it isn't there. Ashley and Kaidan both make mention of it when they arrive on the Citadel for the first time. It's not unrealistic to assume that a player could make that specific choice based on that very assumption.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 22 juin 2011 - 10:05 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Goneaviking wrote...

If Shepherd wins but the council dies, it's inviting a lot of potential chaos and unrest and right at the time when he knows that the Reapers are on the way to destroy all high-order forms of organic life.

If Shepherd loses, but the council survives then they're still around to co-ordinate and inspire resistance against the oncoming invasion. It took a century to crush the Protheans after their leadership was eliminated; if their leaders had survived to rally the troops and coordinate efforts then it would have been a much harder fought campaign.

In other words, Paragon=correct and Renegade=stupid?

[Goneaviking]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

There's no reason for Shepherd to have assumed that it was an either/or decision; it was never presented as a choice to throw away the galaxy for the sake of the council or throw away the council for the sake of the galaxy.

Shepard assumed the decision in Arrival was an either/or (and he was right). So why shouldn't he have done that at the Battle of the Citadel? The stakes were the same. Exactly the same.

If the Councilors were worth saving, even if it meant risking the galaxy, then so were those colonists.

If those colonists died would it have left a hole at the top of the chain of command of the citadel forces? The consequences of sacrificing one group over the other for the 'greater good' don't track equally between the two situations, nor do the risks involved in not sacrificing them.

At the Battle of the Citadel Shepherd may well have assumed that the fight was winnable if they took Saren out in time. If he made that assumption, he was also right.

[Goneaviking]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

There's no reason for Shepherd to have assumed that it was an either/or decision; it was never presented as a choice to throw away the galaxy for the sake of the council or throw away the council for the sake of the galaxy.

Except you're told that Sovereign is trying to regain control of the station, and one of your companions will -always- say "Quick, open the stations arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!".

You're also told that saving the Council will cost reinforcements, that you should keep them back until the Citadel's arms are open so they can all focus on Sovereign. The "Concentrate on Sovereign" choice also has Shepard say that you need every single reinforcement for Sovereign.

So yes, saving the Council potentially was risking Sovereign regaining control of the station and bringing in the entire Reaper fleet.

Except it is never said that saving the council will, definitively, lose them the fight. Nor is it claimed explicitly that sacrificing them will absolutely win them the fight.

From Shepherd's perspective it was a battle against an unknown force, it would have been impossible to know for certain how the Alliance's navy would stack up against Sovereign in a standup battle, let alone in a fight where Sovereign had surrendered its advantage in mobility by latching on to the Citadel. Up until then Saren's wins had all been surprise attacks, and Sovereign had never come up against a prepared enemy.

It isn't a black and white decision, because the character was operating with too little information.

[Smeelia]

Dave of Canada wrote...

*aside from Shepard, actual ingame dialogue*

That's interesting, I don't really like the whole "changing their view" thing but after reading it laid out like that it doesn't seem as bad as I thought.  Pretty much everyone who thought keeping the base was a good idea doesn't actually say it wasn't, they just have an issue with giving it to Cerberus (which you're not given a choice about, unfortunately) and say to be careful (which is fair enough).  The only exception is Legion, who is more concerned about how the information will be used rather than it's existence (he doesn't want you to become Reapers but doesn't mention anything wrong with using the tech to survive).

[Skirata129]

yeah, that decision didn't make much sense. they do have telephones right? what stopped shepard from dialing his old friend anderson and saying "hey buddy! Merry Christmas!". The game designers put you in a very awkward situation where we had to pick the lesser of wo evils and then immediatley got out crew to **** slap us for the lesser one, one after the other.

[Dean_the_Young]

Goneaviking wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

There's no reason for Shepherd to have assumed that it was an either/or decision; it was never presented as a choice to throw away the galaxy for the sake of the council or throw away the council for the sake of the galaxy.

Except you're told that Sovereign is trying to regain control of the station, and one of your companions will -always- say "Quick, open the stations arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!".

You're also told that saving the Council will cost reinforcements, that you should keep them back until the Citadel's arms are open so they can all focus on Sovereign. The "Concentrate on Sovereign" choice also has Shepard say that you need every single reinforcement for Sovereign.

So yes, saving the Council potentially was risking Sovereign regaining control of the station and bringing in the entire Reaper fleet.

Except it is never said that saving the council will, definitively, lose them the fight. Nor is it claimed explicitly that sacrificing them will absolutely win them the fight.

From Shepherd's perspective it was a battle against an unknown force, it would have been impossible to know for certain how the Alliance's navy would stack up against Sovereign in a standup battle, let alone in a fight where Sovereign had surrendered its advantage in mobility by latching on to the Citadel. Up until then Saren's wins had all been surprise attacks, and Sovereign had never come up against a prepared enemy.

It isn't a black and white decision, because the character was operating with too little information.

You're moving the goal posts. First there was no reason to assume, now absolutes are required? Make up your mind. Either the narrative makes a case that not focusing on Sovereign risks seeing Sovereign win, or it doesn't. No absolutes required.

[Skirata129]

^ he's trying to say he knew the game designers wouldn't let him lose for making that decision while trying to make it seem like a decision based on in game logic.

[In Exile]

Skirata129 wrote...
why do you want to see renegades punished for making the most logical decisions?

It's not the most logical decision at all. It's worse wishful thinking than the paragon decision to save the Council. To keep the base, you have to assume:

1) It won't indoctrinate you.
2) It has useful technology beside turning people into reaper goo.
3) It is possible to understand and decode the technology.
4) TIM is trustworthy.

[In Exile]

Undertone wrote...
Why hope for something useful? It's facts - You have the entire process of how to Reaper-ify something, a Reaper corpse to examine as well as the Collectors and god knows how much tech and data (where did EDI get readings an conclusions from?).

The pulse kills everything organic. Reaper goo is organic. You might not have anything reaper-ish left. And a reaper corse did indoctrinate a Cerberus team - you saw it happen! More importantly, you don't even know if it's possible to even begin decoding the technology the Collectors have, and much of it is based on a mix of organic and machine, technology the Council races aren't even close to having.

Otherwise is Dr. Chakwas and the rest not indoctrinated or Shepard and team. Even if there is indoctrination then it's even better you can study it's effects.You would think with all the Cerberus experience and the Alliance Project Rho people have learned how to deal with such thing.

Alliance Project Rho failed completely! If it wasn't for Shepard they would have let the reapers come in. And Cerberus has such a long list of FAIL with anything remotely dangerous that giving them anything is the equivalent of wishing for things to go wrong.

The war with the Reapers supercedes all other conflicts, petty vendettas, whether you like Cerberus or not. I don't like Cerberus myself (even if I'm pro-human, would try to take control over them if such option is presented in ME3) nor do I like the TIM. If presented with a choice I would hand the base to someone else. I don't have such option but I'm not going to blow up a potential chance increaser vs. the Reapers just cause I don't like Cerberus.

It has nothing to do with liking Cerberus. It has everything to do with getting the job done. Keeping the base isn't logical.

As for the Council choice - it would have made choice if Shepard is more popular with the aliens and less popular with the humans. Whereas focusing on Sovereing would lead to big popularity among humanity who see Shepard as their hero always looking after them and being unpopular among the aliens. That would have made sense.

What happened in ME2 did make sense. The Council died and humanity rose to power - but the old powers (especially the turians) aren't going to take that lying down.

[Dave of Canada]

In Exile wrote...

1) It won't indoctrinate you.

The Collector Base has shown no signs of indocrination, none of the individuals ever met in the Collector Base are demonstrated as suffering signs of indoctrination, in addition to this having indoctrination would be counter intuitive to the purpose of the Collector Base as indocrination effects constantly being active will force the slave to eventually becoming incapable of operating by themselves.

Though should there actually be anything for indocrination, the potential threats from indocrinated Cerberus staff isn't too great for multiple reasons:

• Cerberus cells are seperated and don't know of each other's existance, an indocrinated cell would consist of around 20-50 individuals with most of them consisting of scientists. Without much in terms of firepower, they'd pose little threat in the larger scheme of the Reaper invasion.
• The Illusive Man doesn't involve himself personally in these experiments, meaning he'd always be far away from the experiments that risk indocrination. Meaning at worst, the staff from a facility is at risk of indocrination instead of him.
•  A fully indoctrinated Cerberus (using EDI's numbers) wouldn't be enough individuals to restart the Collector Base's experiments, nor would they suddenly find themselves capable of using the tech if they haven't researched it completely (indocrination doesn't have people magically find themselves with new knowledge).

2) It has useful technology beside turning people into reaper goo.

Collector Tech demonstrated in the game:

• Collector Seeker Swarms.
• Particle weaponry.
• Regenerative plating.
• Plagues that target certain individuals.
• Dragon's Teeth (Husks, Scions and Praetorians)
• Tech that shuts down entire colonies.
• ect

This is excluding possible research into Reaper technology, research into indocrination and research into possibly countering everything the Reapers have used in the past to decimate "rebelling" species.

3) It is possible to understand and decode the technology.

Considering everything Reaper has already been reverse engineered, I don't see why it would suddenly stop now. Cerberus have already reverse engineered from limited Collector technology, the turians have reverse engineered Sovereign's remains and EDI had already "decoded" the Collector Base.

[Before somebody jumps down my throat for this, might as well mention it now] Reaper tech understanding has been the main reasons why the Reapers are failing, nobody understood the technology and it suddenly backfired when they were trapped without the Relays or the weaponry to fight.

The Prothean's understanding of the Relays led to the creation of the Conduit which allowed Prothean scientists to tamper with the Keepers, allowing humanity and the Council races enough time to take down Sovereign.

Sovereign's remains were reverse engineered from there, creating EDI and the Thannix Cannon which led to the Collector's downfall as EDI was capable of defending Shepard  multiple times using her Reaper algorithms and the Thannix cannon led to the destruction of the Collector Ship.

Even the catastrophic failure/success that was Project Rho in Arrival was due to the Reapers placing down their tech and people stumbling upon it to study it, without the Project then Shepard wouldn't have been capable of stopping the Reapers from arriving into the galaxy. Had the tech not existed, nobody would've known they were sitting right there on the border of the universe.

The Collector Base is something similar, it's a treasure trove of Reaper technology that nobody was supposed to ever have access too. What could be learned from the Reapers in a factory that exists to construct them and all their applications (shields, indocrination tech, weaponry)? Enough to possibly turn the tables against the Reapers?

4) TIM is trustworthy.

He's the only man who's shown to trust Shepard's word (and tried to do something about it) and has fully devoted his organization (of the past 30~ years) and himself to stopping the Reaper threat, no matter the cost. The very least I can do is trust him to keep those goals, as he's brought back Shepard to lead the universe against the Reapers.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juin 2011 - 06:55 .

[Skirata129]

^ completely agree.

[Goneaviking]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

There's no reason for Shepherd to have assumed that it was an either/or decision; it was never presented as a choice to throw away the galaxy for the sake of the council or throw away the council for the sake of the galaxy.

Except you're told that Sovereign is trying to regain control of the station, and one of your companions will -always- say "Quick, open the stations arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!".

You're also told that saving the Council will cost reinforcements, that you should keep them back until the Citadel's arms are open so they can all focus on Sovereign. The "Concentrate on Sovereign" choice also has Shepard say that you need every single reinforcement for Sovereign.

So yes, saving the Council potentially was risking Sovereign regaining control of the station and bringing in the entire Reaper fleet.

Except it is never said that saving the council will, definitively, lose them the fight. Nor is it claimed explicitly that sacrificing them will absolutely win them the fight.

From Shepherd's perspective it was a battle against an unknown force, it would have been impossible to know for certain how the Alliance's navy would stack up against Sovereign in a standup battle, let alone in a fight where Sovereign had surrendered its advantage in mobility by latching on to the Citadel. Up until then Saren's wins had all been surprise attacks, and Sovereign had never come up against a prepared enemy.

It isn't a black and white decision, because the character was operating with too little information.

You're moving the goal posts. First there was no reason to assume, now absolutes are required? Make up your mind. Either the narrative makes a case that not focusing on Sovereign risks seeing Sovereign win, or it doesn't. No absolutes required.

Not so. In the narrative there was nothing that said "If you save the council, the galaxy dies" nor was there anything that made it the only rational assumption going into the fight. There wasn't enough information presented for the character to know if he was throwing away the world or saving it.

[Dave of Canada]

Goneaviking wrote...

Not so. In the narrative there was nothing that said "If you save the council, the galaxy dies" nor was there anything that made it the only rational assumption going into the fight. There wasn't enough information presented for the character to know if he was throwing away the world or saving it.

Except what's said after defeating Saren.

[Skirata129]

I just watched a youtube viedo for this decision. it's weird, you get different information depending on who you have with you. I had wrex and garrus and they made it seem like a "risk the galaxy" or "save the council decision". tali and ashley makes it seem like "save the council" or "be an ahole"

Modifié par Skirata129, 22 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...
The Collector Base has shown no signs of indocrination, none of the individuals ever met in the Collector Base are demonstrated as suffering signs of indoctrination, in addition to this having indoctrination would be counter intuitive to the purpose of the Collector Base as indocrination effects constantly being active will force the slave to eventually becoming incapable of operating by themselves.[/quote]

We have no idea how indoctrination works. To say that the collector base showed no signs of indoctrination is a meaningless statement. We have no idea what it means for something to show signs of indoctrination.

More importantly, individuals who are indoctrinated do not neccesarily show signs of indoctrination at first. The best example being Saren (who, aside from actively working with the reapers, didn't show mental incapacitation) or Amanda Kenson.

The collector base could have indoctrination tools as a safeguard; the collectors themselves may have been breed to be immune to the effects, or otherwise breed to only respond to the indoctrination signal. They were shock troops whose lives had no value.

So, no, we don't know any of these things.

[quote]Though should there actually be anything for indocrination, the potential threats from indocrinated Cerberus staff isn't too great for multiple reasons:

• Cerberus cells are seperated and don't know of each other's existance, an indocrinated cell would consist of around 20-50 individuals with most of them consisting of scientists. Without much in terms of firepower, they'd pose little threat in the larger scheme of the Reaper invasion.

[/quote]

That's irrelevant. Indoctrinated reaper cells could lie about the technology they are uncovering, or otherwise provide plans to weapons that would backfire or actively help the reapers. Given that this science team would eb the only lifeline toward the discovers from the collector base, anything that compromises them compromises the validity of the entire project.

[quote]

• The Illusive Man doesn't involve himself personally in these experiments, meaning he'd always be far away from the experiments that risk indocrination. Meaning at worst, the staff from a facility is at risk of indocrination instead of him.

[/quote]

The Illusive Man's presence or absence is irrelevant. What matters is his attitude toward technology, which is generally to conduct research with insufficient safeguards and a focus on outcomes without regard for the cost in producing, which when dealing with reaper technology is highly dangerous to say the least.

[quote]

•  A fully indoctrinated Cerberus (using EDI's numbers) wouldn't be enough individuals to restart the Collector Base's experiments, nor would they suddenly find themselves capable of using the tech if they haven't researched it completely (indocrination doesn't have people magically find themselves with new knowledge).

[/quote]

Restarting the experiments isn't relevant - relaying important information on human affairs, and offering useless (or even worse) trapped or otherwise dangerous technology.

More importantly, we don't know the extent of control that a reaper has over the indoctrinated, and whether or not they could be controlled to the extent to which they would modify each other for a reaper (like Harbinger) to ''direct control'' them.

[quote]Collector Tech demonstrated in the game:

• Collector Seeker Swarms.
• Particle weaponry.
• Regenerative plating.
• Plagues that target certain individuals.
• Dragon's Teeth (Husks, Scions and Praetorians)
• Tech that shuts down entire colonies.
• ect

This is excluding possible research into Reaper technology, research into indocrination and research into possibly countering everything the Reapers have used in the past to decimate "rebelling" species.

[*]
[*]
[*]
[quote]3) It is possible to understand and decode the technology.[/quote][/quote]

The forum melts when I try to handle the bullet points, so I have to keep this quote here, though I will respond to it below.

The seeker swarms are anti-organic (and anti-human) weaponry. We've already analyzed the swarms (they were captured by Cereberus) and Mordin already developed counter-measures. Whether or not futher advances are possible, it's clear that the illusive man has a stockpile.

The Dragon's Teeth littered all of Eden Prime. This is already technology the Alliance has captured.

We already have samples of the plague (Mordin collected them and even cured them) and there are no gaurantees that any other biological weapons exist on the base.

Moreoever, in-game it's clear that particles weapons and armour sampels have already been captured.

So, no, none of these technologies require the Collector base at all. The best you could do is argue that we'd have more samples of each, but it's not clear at all that that's even needed.

[quote]Considering everything Reaper has already been reverse engineered, I don't see why it would suddenly stop now. Cerberus have already reverse engineered from limited Collector technology, the turians have reverse engineered Sovereign's remains and EDI had already "decoded" the Collector Base.[/quote]

Let's use the Tali Loyalty Mission example; small caches of deactivated technology collected from the battlefield is not the same as an active base. The exploded pieces of Sovereign may or may not be dangerous. For all we know, the reason why Cerberus is an antagonist in ME3 is due to the use of reaper tech (and a 'Project' like indoctrination). The Thanix cannons seem to be excellent technology, but there may be a divide between reaper military technoogy and reaper indoctrination technology, and we don't know the difference.

We absolutely need to research the reaper's to defeat them; but researching the Mass Relays does not equal researching the Collector base. Each endeavour has to be judged on its own merits.

[quote]The Prothean's understanding of the Relays led to the creation of the Conduit which allowed Prothean scientists to tamper with the Keepers, allowing humanity and the Council races enough time to take down Sovereign. [/quote]

The Mass Relays are not the Collector base. For one, the Mass Relays aren't used to create husks, scions, praetorians and an enitire reaper.

Just because it's a good idea to understand reaper technology does not justify every attempt to do so.

[quote]Sovereign's remains were reverse engineered from there, creating EDI and the Thannix Cannon which led to the Collector's downfall as EDI was capable of defending Shepard  multiple times using her Reaper algorithms and the Thannix cannon led to the destruction of the Collector Ship.[/quote]

It's not clear that Sovereign survived being killed by Shepard - at that point, Sovereign the ship shut down in entirety. Certainly, that technology seems safe. But exploded chunks of Sovereign are not the same thing as the collector base.

[quote]Even the catastrophic failure/success that was Project Rho in Arrival was due to the Reapers placing down their tech and people stumbling upon it to study it, without the Project then Shepard wouldn't have been capable of stopping the Reapers from arriving into the galaxy. Had the tech not existed, nobody would've known they were sitting right there on the border of the universe.[/quote]

The entire team was indoctrinated. Let's say that instead of being an isolated cell, the Rho team had to bring back technology. What makes you thinkt hey wouldn't just had out portable indoctrination units? The whole point of the Collector base is to develop technology to stop the reapers. If there are absolutely no concrete safeguards in place to guarantee that the technology isn't a trap, usign it is beyond stupid.

[quote]The Collector Base is something similar, it's a treasure trove of Reaper technology that nobody was supposed to ever have access too. What could be learned from the Reapers in a factory that exists to construct them and all their applications (shields, indocrination tech, weaponry)? Enough to possibly turn the tables against the Reapers?[/quote]

Or it has absolutely nothing of the sort there, and a reaper can only grow when the organic goo is telepathically guided via long-range from another reaper, with all of the physical construction plans kept safe on the parent reaper.

Maybe it has everything needed to build portable indoctrination devices, and it automatically starts to indoctrinate any exposed, so that any technology that escapes the base converts organics to the cause of the reapers, making any mass produced technology the worst kind of trap that leads to the victory of the reapers over all organic life.

Like I said: all of this is wishful thinking on your part.

[quote]He's the only man who's shown to trust Shepard's word (and tried to do something about it) and has fully devoted his organization (of the past 30~ years) and himself to stopping the Reaper threat, no matter the cost. The very least I can do is trust him to keep those goals, as he's brought back Shepard to lead the universe against the Reapers.[/quote]

That's a special kind of irresponsible reasoning. TIM's actively betrayed Shepard twice. Once with Watson. The second time with the Collector Ship. Not to mention TIM repeatedly lying to Shepard about what he knows about the reapers (role of collectors, leaking info about him to the Alliance, etc.).

Not to mention evertyhing TIM did turned into a nightmare. Jack's project failed miserably and Jack escaped. Overlord backfired. Shepard was nearly done in by Watson and the Shadow Broker. The science team at the derelict reaper was indocrrinated. The rachni spun out of his control. The thorian creepers murdered his troops.

That kind of special incompetence is reason enough not to let Cerberus within 50 feet of the base.

[Dave of Canada]

Can't post a tl;dr post on my mobile but using Cerberus failures isn't really great to measure the organization, of course you're going to see all the failures because Shepard is the clean up crew. They won't call Shepard and tell him about their successes.

It's like the Alliance and Council in ME1 having a ton of failures in order to open side-quests, though nobody questions their competence.

[Hatchetman77]

Even if you choose the Paragon ending by blowing up the Reaper base in ME2 pick all Renegade options when you talk to TIM afterwards.  It's the best ending ever.

I laugh my ass off every time TIM is yelling at you and Shepard taps his ear and says "I'm sorry, I can't hear you.  I'm getting a lot of bull**** on this line."

[HTTP 404]

it isn't consistent. What I would want to see is that Paragon and Renegade should be a whole lot less about choices.





Yes you heard right, Renegade and Paragon should be allotted the same choices, how you go about the choice should be based on Renegade and Paragon type or responses. I

For example. n Me1, you are given a choice to save the council or go after Sovereign. It should not be just renegade to go after Sovereign and it shouldn't just be paragon to save the council. Now say I decide to save the council for CYA (cover your ass) so that when I save the day and can have them as a resource to use in the future. To me, that sounds exactly what a selfish renegade would do. However, a paragon choice to save the council would be out of kindness and it is the right thing to do.