1939 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Reaper tech indoctrinates people. Anyone sent to the base would go under.

Why would they have tech that automatically indoctrinates people stored there, when they didn't even have some kind of security system inside the base? It's obvious they never expected someone to get there, or take it over for that sake.

[upsettingshorts]

Hellbound555 wrote...

so whats your stance on the collector base and for what reason?

What would I do?  I'd probably keep the base because the threat of total galactic extinction would, to me, justify anything to prevent it. 

Worst case scenario I figure Shepard could always kick Cerberus' ass after he defeats the Reapers, they'd be small time by comparison.

Best case scenario keeping the base really pays off with tech and intelligence and what have you and saves lives.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

I don't deal with terrorists. That's why I blew the base up.

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

so whats your stance on the collector base and for what reason?

What would I do?  I can't honestly say.  I'd probably keep the base because the threat of total galactic extinction would, to me, justify anything to prevent it. 

But my Shepard's are their own characters and either keep or destroy the base for their own reasons. 

How is preventing Cerberus from acquiring the base, shortsighted?

[upsettingshorts]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't deal with terrorists. That's why I blew the base up.

Cerberus aren't terrorists.  They're criminals (often of the worst kind), jingoists, and fail a lot (though as I argued, no more than anyone else) but terrorism is a pretty specific thing, and even the most heinous and violent stuff Cerberus does doesn't actually qualify for the label.

Anders in DA2 on the other hand...

Hellbound555 wrote...

How is preventing Cerberus from acquiring the base, shortsighted?

Because the Reapers are coming and they're so much worse than even the worst-case-scenario Cerberus.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:15 .

[Fixers0]

Really is it so hard for you figure it out,

Normal people usally don't put weapons into the hands of terrorrist, simple as that.

[Pulletlamer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't deal with terrorists. That's why I blew the base up.

Cerberus aren't terrorists.  They're criminals (often of the worst kind), jingoists, and fail a lot (though as I argued, no more than anyone else) but terrorism is a pretty specific thing, and even the most heinous and violent stuff Cerberus does doesn't actually qualify for the label.

Anders in DA2 on the other hand...

The attack to the Migrant Fleet to capture Gillian could be perfectly claimed as terrorism.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

How is preventing Cerberus from acquiring the base, shortsighted?

Because the Reapers are coming and they're so much worse than even the worst-case-scenario Cerberus.

Still that doesn't justify giving them the base. Is the same the salarians did. Since Rachni are a problem, we give Krogan big guns. YAY. Total fail.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:18 .

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't deal with terrorists. That's why I blew the base up.

Cerberus aren't terrorists.  They're criminals (often of the worst kind), jingoists, and fail a lot (though as I argued, no more than anyone else) but terrorism is a pretty specific thing, and even the most heinous and violent stuff Cerberus does doesn't actually qualify for the label.

Anders in DA2 on the other hand...

Hellbound555 wrote...

How is preventing Cerberus from acquiring the base, shortsighted?

Because the Reapers are coming and they're so much worse than even the worst-case-scenario Cerberus.

isnt that an assumption?

[dfbdbndn]

I blew it up and i enjoyed it hahaha !!!!!!!! I never trusted Cerberus and I'm not gonna trust them now either !!!!!!!!

[upsettingshorts]

Pulletlamer wrote...

The attack to the Migrant Fleet to capture Gillian could be perfectly claimed as terrorism.

It could be claimed as terrorism, but the bolded part makes it not terrorism by definition.  

The objective of the action is tremendously important to something actually qualifying as terrorism.

Hellbound555 wrote...

isnt that an assumption?

Yup, but I covered the other assumption - that I'm totally wrong.  In that scenario, I figure Shepard could deal with Cerberus gone amok with Collector Base tech should they as you say "cross the line."

However, I don't want to go into a fight against the Reapers with anything less than everything that could have possibly been available to me, given the stakes (extiction).

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:19 .

[The Elder King]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't deal with terrorists. That's why I blew the base up.

Cerberus aren't terrorists.  They're criminals (often of the worst kind), jingoists, and fail a lot (though as I argued, no more than anyone else) but terrorism is a pretty specific thing, and even the most heinous and violent stuff Cerberus does doesn't actually qualify for the label.

Anders in DA2 on the other hand...

lol
Anyway, didn't Jacob said in the first dialogue with Shep on the Normandy that Cerberus is being called terrorist, and for good reason (though I have the Italian version, so maybe they used a different word in the original version). Anyway, they killed the former leader of Terra Firma, to  make Charles Saracino the new leader. Isn't he terrorist.
About keeping the CB, I generally choose to destroy the CB, because I don't trust Cerberus and specifically TIM. But before the ME3 info, I hoped that there will be some problem with that choice. Too bad it seems that the choice isn't meaningful anymore (probably).

[Golden Owl]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If it's a Paragon choice, you know that the game has got you covered... I wouldn't worry about it.

Dang! You really need to let that one go eventually...point has been well and truly made.

[upsettingshorts]

hhh89 wrote...
lol
Anyway, didn't Jacob said in the first dialogue with Shep on the Normandy that Cerberus is being called terrorist, and for good reason

Jacob did say that, and they certainly are deserving of a bogeyman-type label.  I just don't think its technically accurate, at least not the extent that in discussions like these "Well they're terrorists duh" really holds up to scrutiny, because they haven't committed any terrorist acts.

That said, "They're amoral criminals" would be accurate and serve those arguments just as well.

It's semantics, really.  "Terrorism" as a term has meaning, but the Systems Alliance in appyling it to Cerberus is doing it mainly for propaganda purposes.  They're still, like I said, amoral criminals who are in many ways reprehensible.  My issue with it is its just wrong, like calling a serial rapist a serial murderer.  They're different things.  Well, unless you're Jeffrey Dahmer.  

hhh89 wrote...

Anyway, they killed the former leader of Terra Firma, to  make Charles Saracino the new leader.

Political assassination is difficult to distinguish from terrorism, but it's pretty close.  That's probly the only thing I've heard of them doing that's even in the ballpark.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:24 .

[Pulletlamer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

The attack to the Migrant Fleet to capture Gillian could be perfectly claimed as terrorism.

It could be claimed as terrorism, but the bolded part makes it not terrorism by definition.  

The objective of the action is tremendously important to something actually qualifying as terrorism.

So the ends justify the means? That's not terrorism? Or being "evil"?

Since the action is very important, doesn't matter right?.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

isnt that an assumption?

Yup, but I covered the other assumption - that I'm totally wrong.  In that scenario, I figure Shepard could deal with Cerberus gone amok with Collector Base tech should they as you say "cross the line."

However, I don't want to go into a fight against the Reapers with anything less than everything that could have possibly been available to me, given the stakes (extiction).

You assume that Cerberus will help you. The base it's not available to you. It's for Cerberus. That's the problem.

You don't have the base.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:24 .

[DrNavi]

tobynator89 wrote...

DrNavi wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

DrNavi wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

This thread just goes to show you that Paragon players have a pathological need to kiss Bioware's butt.

renegade preferrer here and still think it's logical to destroy the base.

not for my renegade, she does what she feels can benefits her best, whether it be choosing Morinth and ash because they are less moral or letting doctor archer continue his experiments 

Agreed with the renegade attitude. Shep knows perfectly well from cerberus actions however that she is a puppet to be tricked used and spent untill she ceases to be usefull.

And any shep with survival instincts KNOWS that will only be a temporary thing. Next time, being sent out on false pretenses will get her killed. And my shep is not ok with that.

you have good reasons, mines just willing to take risks to stop the reapers and cerberus is a good resource.....for the time being 

Here is a good hint for any good strategist. If you KNOW an ally is a temporary one, then don't help him any more than you have to. He'll be using those resources against you.

Or said simpler, a temporary ally is no ally at all.

we need all the help we can get against the reapers, also this is only the mindset of my renegade, paragon would destroy it

[Merci357]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

So why dont you agree with blowing up the base?

Who says I don't?  Maybe I just think most of the reasons for blowing it up are shortsighted and/or metagamey.

Isn't it part of the fun in playing ME2 multiple times to do - at least once - most things different compared to your "canon" playthrough?

Yes, I blow the base, more often then not. Reasons could be any you like, distrusting Cerberus, fear of indoctination, whatever. And for the record, I don't think those are shortsighted reasons. But I kept the thing at least once, since I'm just curious about it.

And, honestly, I think that is all there is about it.  Both ME and ME2 have a few choices with no black or white answer. And I'm curious about the consequences for those in ME3 - if there are any. And about that I'm not so sure, since after all, you'll be able to win ME3 regardless of any past choice. But, at the very least, it could add some interesting flavor.

[Someone With Mass]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't deal with terrorists. That's why I blew the base up.

Cerberus aren't terrorists.  They're criminals (often of the worst kind), jingoists, and fail a lot (though as I argued, no more than anyone else) but terrorism is a pretty specific thing, and even the most heinous and violent stuff Cerberus does doesn't actually qualify for the label.

Anders in DA2 on the other hand...

The Alliance and the Council would say that they are, and I'd trust the word of the government more than the word of the terrorists which are saying that they're torturing kids for the greater good.

[Golden Owl]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Let it never be said I can't be offended on the behalf of Paragons everywhere. If there's one choice which seems to be a non-choice for the Paragons, a significant choice which makes no apparent difference... the Collector Base may well be that choice. Given all the post-ME2 side material, it's increasingly hard to justify destroying the base as anything but a petty 'stick it to TIM' gesture... and believe it or not, I want people to have other reasons avaiable for taking actions.



Was it to destroy the corrupt knowledge and secrets, to 'preserve the soul of our species'? 

Even the Shadow Broker intended to cross the relay and learn as much as possible... and the Reapers arrival will mean Reaper tech for everyone (if we survive). Paragon Shepard wasn't keeping the technology from people, just delaying it.



Was it to deny Cerberus any Reaper technology? 

Regardless of the decision, enough Reaper and Collector technology exists for Cerberus to craft its own Reaper-technology experiment: the effects of Retribution, and the Grayson experiments.



Was it to stop Cerberus from hurting other species with and for the technology inside? 

The upcoming comic Invasion features Cerberus unleashing a new creation from beyond the Omega 4 relay into the streets of Omega, a creation that may wipe out Aria herself.



Was it to stop Cerberus from indoctrinating itself?

Well, Mass Effect 3's E3 demos rather addressed how well that worked.



Was it because blown up Reaper technology is safe Reaper technology?

Well, given all of the above...



I'm annoyed, and I didn't even make this choice. You may be annoyed as well. And together, we'll be pair annoyed.

If the best justifications for destroying the Collector Base were to protect people from what was inside, and destroying it does not do that... was there still good reason to do so?

No, I'm not really annoyed Dean....My Shep blew the base, he did it because he really cannot trust Cerberus to have the wisdom or the integrity to use it as it could be used, TIM would definitley become a great threat with it....But my Shep doesn't know what the future holds, he doesn't know Cerberus will get it anyway, etc... He can only base his decisions on what he knows in the here and now....what the future holds is to be seen.....Nope, not annoyed....just another twist in the story.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:27 .

[Dave of Canada]

Pulletlamer wrote...

You assume that Cerberus will help you. The base it's not avaibable to you. It's for Cerberus. That's the problem.

You don't have the base.

Except Cerberus is your ally, has been providing you with technology / resources and intel. They've been the only people supporting you through all of Mass Effect 2. They've been reverse engineering left over Collector technology and sending it's results to you.

Why would Shepard suddenly assume this would stop?

[upsettingshorts]

Pulletlamer wrote...

So the ends justify the means? That's not terrorism? Or being "evil"?

Since the action is very important, doesn't matter right?.

No, you misunderstand.

Terrorism is asymmetric warfare used to elicit or promote a particular political agenda. 

They violated the sovereignty of the Migrant fleet to kidnap somebody.  That's not a political action, it's still a crime though.

Hellbound555 wrote...

You assume that Cerberus will help you. The base it's not avaibable to you. It's for Cerberus. That's the problem.

You don't have the base.

Without the knowledge of Cerberus being indoctrinated in Mass Effect 3 promos, there is absolutely no reason to expect that Cerberus would side for galactic extinction.

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Alliance and the Council
would say that they are, and I'd trust the word of the government more
than the word of the terrorists which are saying that they're torturing
kids for the greater good.

I'm trusting what the word actually means. 

I'm also not sure why people think my saying "Cerberus aren't terrorists" means I'm defending the ethics of their actions.  I'm not.  I'm saying it's the wrong bloody word for their particular brand of ****tery.

But it gets people to think of evil, so it's useful for the Alliance to call them that.  Ensures no one actually takes their actual motivations seriously.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:28 .

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

The attack to the Migrant Fleet to capture Gillian could be perfectly claimed as terrorism.

It could be claimed as terrorism, but the bolded part makes it not terrorism by definition.  

The objective of the action is tremendously important to something actually qualifying as terrorism.

Hellbound555 wrote...

isnt that an assumption?

Yup, but I covered the other assumption - that I'm totally wrong.  In that scenario, I figure Shepard could deal with Cerberus gone amok with Collector Base tech should they as you say "cross the line."

However, I don't want to go into a fight against the Reapers with anything less than everything that could have possibly been available to me, given the stakes (extiction).

For the first post, the fact remains, they attacked the migrant fleet.

as for the collector base, my Shepard has allies.

[Someone With Mass]

Pulletlamer wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

The attack to the Migrant Fleet to capture Gillian could be perfectly claimed as terrorism.

It could be claimed as terrorism, but the bolded part makes it not terrorism by definition.  

The objective of the action is tremendously important to something actually qualifying as terrorism.

So the ends justify the means? That's not terrorism? Or being "evil"?

Since the action is very important, doesn't matter right?.

ter·ror·ism
"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

I'd say that fits rather nicely with what Cerberus is doing.

[upsettingshorts]

Hellbound555 wrote...

For the first post, the fact remains, they attacked the migrant fleet.

Not denying that in the slightest. 

Someone With Mass wrote...

ter·ror·ism
"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

I'd say that fits rather nicely with what Cerberus is doing.

They have political aims, but their use of violence is rarely - essentially never, save possibly the example of assassination - used directly to achieve it.  Jack's story is violent, but it was also a secret project.  Terrorism can't exist in secret because it needs a population to intimidate.

To be terrorists one has to commit terrorism.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:30 .

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ter·ror·ism
"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

I'd say that fits rather nicely with what Cerberus is doing.

With that definition, almost every group in ME is a terrorist.