1939 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Because it's the safer thing to do.

In truth, destroying the base should have been a "renegade" option. If you save it, it is with the intent to save lives. If you destroy it, you have reneged your alliance with Cerberus and stuck to the mission.

That makes no sense.

Modifié par Mesina2, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:07 .

[PrinceLionheart]

leggywillow wrote...

What was the point in destroying the Collector Base?!  My Shep's motivation to do anything, of course:

BLOW UP ALL THE THINGS!

We all know Michael Bay is Shepard's ancestor.

But seriously, after Overlord, Jack's backstory, and every other cell that went "rogue" under TIM's watch, how the hell am I suppose to trust Cerberus with Reaper Technology that also has the possibility of indoctrinating them? I'm not destroying the base because of my ethics or I'm trying to save the morals of the human race. I'm destroying it because Cerberus is full of idiots who's experiments constantly blow up in their face, and with the Reaper Invasion coming up, I have no time to clean up after more of Cerberus' messes.

[Someone With Mass]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Because it's the safer thing to do.

In truth, destroying the base should have been a "renegade" option. If you save it, it is with the intent to save lives. If you destroy it, you have reneged your alliance with Cerberus and stuck to the mission.

I think it's a Paragon action because you're not letting Cerberus control it.

And you pretty much quit Cerberus regardless, so there's no point in doing it afterwards.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Those weird husks on Omega? I'll bet those were a Christmas gift from the Illusive Man. You know what I got for Christmas? It was a banner ****ing year at the old Bender family. I got a carton of cigarettes. The old man grabbed me and said "Hey, smoke up Johnny."

[nhsk]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think it's a Paragon action because you're not letting Cerberus control it.

And you pretty much quit Cerberus regardless, so there's no point in doing it afterwards.

I think it is a paragon action because paragon is about upholding morals and ethics, despite the cost where the renegade is about gaining an advantage no matter the cost.

And yes "pures" in both ends, or extremists, are idiots.

[Chaos-fusion]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Because it's the safer thing to do.

In truth, destroying the base should have been a "renegade" option. If you save it, it is with the intent to save lives. If you destroy it, you have reneged your alliance with Cerberus and stuck to the mission.

I think it's a Paragon action because you're not letting Cerberus control it.

And you pretty much quit Cerberus regardless, so there's no point in doing it afterwards.

And this is why I dislike morlity systems - especially in a game meant to be morally grey. All you end up doing is playing the developers moral view.

Modifié par Chaos-fusion, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:13 .

[Pedro Costa]

nhsk wrote...
Yeah well, I also believe that the technological progress gained from that base is Red-shirt tech, so the Reapers are probably better equipped so to speak.
And that the Reapers can shut down technological marvels from that base, much more easily, than tech we gained from elsewhere.

Thanix cannons and EDI are both reaper-based, the Reapers still weren't able to shut those down.
I'm not saying to reverse-engeneer Reaper tech or to create your own version of a Reaper, I'm saying that understanding how it works and how to counter it gives you a higher probability of success.

So it would be leading further down a road we don't need and at the time I blew it up, I had not played Arrival yet, so I couldn't be sure if it was 1 year from now, 2 years from now or 10 years from now, with plenty of times to find alternatives.

There you go, you're leaving it to blind, dumb luck.

You don't know when they'll hit. You don't know how much you'll advance. You know you don't have much time and an opportunity to develop your understanding of your has just been presented to yourself. Know your enemy as you know yourself. And when you don't know when the enemy will hit, you have to make your best efforts to be as ready as possible in the shortest possible amount of time. Anything after that should be bonus, not the bread and butter of your strategy.

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

That's actually my point; giving the base to Cerberus is just as much blind luck as destroying it.  In destroying it you are eliminating another potential threat, which can be just as useful as a potential gain.

You have a higher chance of success with it than with nothing at all. I don't see how you can logically dispute this.

It's a gamble either way.  Anyone who thinks a single base will provide a breakthrough that will help kill millions of hugely advanced sentient starships is arguably just as naive as those who pick the paragon option just because it's paragon.  And if you are meta-gaming then you have to realize that the base can't possibly be thatimportant anyways, since the ending of ME3 will not be based or heavily dependent on a single choice from a different game.

You're mixing my stances. I clearly detached my in-game logic from my metagaming logic. In fact, I blew the base up for metagaming reasons.

(not metagaming) I'm not talking exclusively about the base - I'm talking about the broad spectrum of it. Studying Sovereign itself (or what's left of it), studying indoctrination, any bit of info we can get out of researching Reaper tech piles up on the probability of success. Heck, the Thannix cannons and EDI, both vital components to the complete success of ME2 were gained from Reaper tech research. Without them, Shepard'd have failed in getting through the Omega4 relay. 
Even the Reaper IFF, arguably pure evil in and of itself since it's as much of a raw reaper as they come, enabled you to go through the Relay and complete your mission.
Not taking the chances when they present themselves don't get us any progress, and are counter-productive to the ultimate odds of success.

I'm not against studying the base.  I am against giving reaper tech to Cerberus, who has demonstrated numerous times that they can't handle projects of that scope. My Shepard destroys a potential risk.

Cerberus gave you EDI - an AI based on Reaper tech. They are incompetent and not trustworthy, but *any* chance of success is better than none at all.

And when my Shepard saves the Council she isn't really saving the Council.  She is saving the Destiny Ascension, whose total crew count ends up being about 3 times the size of the amount of human lives lost in saving it.

My Shepard saved it for more logistical reasons, honestly.
Saving the previous council would probably mean I'd have a better chance of influencing them in the future and a dreadnought is still a dreadnought.

So you can argue that the paragons don't get "punished" enough for making the decisions that you don't think are practical or are "naive", but I can just as quickly point out that renegades shouldn't be able to walk around shooting people in the foot, assaulting unarmed civilians, and the like and not have any repercussions for that.

Getting a bit passive-agressive here, aren't you? 
I never claimed I was renegade, I didn't say paragons not being punished was wrong. I was making factual observations from a metagaming perspective. And from an in-game perspective, they *are* naive.
Don't mix things up or put words in my mouth.

Anyway, I'm done. Have fun. =)

[nhsk]

I'd rather take my chances with dumb blind luck than giving that technology to humanity, cerberus or not. Some way down the road some dumbweed like Doctor Archer will abuse it.

[Pedro Costa]

nhsk wrote...

I'd rather take my chances with dumb blind luck than giving that technology to humanity, cerberus or not. Some way down the road some dumbweed like Doctor Archer will abuse it.

Yes, they will. It'd be stupid to think someone wouldn't. And then someone will stop them.

But, at this point in the ME-universe's History, we need everything we can get our hands on to ensure that the galaxy's spacefaring species survive and that the Reapers are stopped.
Whatever will come down the road, will only come if the Galaxy was saved to begin with. There's no point in thinking what someone will do with it afterwards if you can't ensure that there'll be an afterwards. That's basically the crux of my opinion.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

You have a higher chance of success with it than with nothing at all. I don't see how you can logically dispute this.

Getting a bit passive-agressive here, aren't you? 
I never claimed I was renegade, I didn't say paragons not being punished was wrong. I was making factual observations from a metagaming perspective. And from an in-game perspective, they *are* naive.
Don't mix things up or put words in my mouth.

Anyway, I'm done. Have fun. =)

I wasn't directing that bit at the end directly at you; it was aimed at the general attitude that paragons deserve to be punished which is prevalent on the boards.

And having the base does not necessarily give you a higher chance of success.  Any potential positive from studying the reaper tech is directly countered by any potential screw-up Cerberus might [and probably will] perform.  Like I said, my Shepard was making a calculated risk in destroying a potential threat.

Sure, nuclear weapon technology might be a worthy pursuit, but you don't give all the ingredients to a bunch of incompetents with a history of assassination, immoral experiments, and general acts of recklessness.  You're as likely to blow yourself up as you are your enemy.

[GreenDragon37]

So I could give TIM the finger as I flew away and watched that base explode.

Also, because I found it too dangerous for TIM to have.

But then again, what was the point? TIM gets tech from the base (destroyed or no) anyway.

[Pedro Costa]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
I wasn't directing that bit at the end directly at you; it was aimed at the general attitude that paragons deserve to be punished which is prevalent on the boards.

Then I present my appologies, however, I think you could have been clearer.

And having the base does not necessarily give you a higher chance of success.  Any potential positive from studying the reaper tech is directly countered by any potential screw-up Cerberus might [and probably will] perform.  Like I said, my Shepard was making a calculated risk in destroying a potential threat.

Point taken, although I still believe that *any* chance of better odds is better than the certainty of none at all.

Sure, nuclear weapon technology might be a worthy pursuit, but you don't give all the ingredients to a bunch of incompetents with a history of assassination, immoral experiments, and general acts of recklessness.  You're as likely to blow yourself up as you are your enemy.

I think you're being too specific here. Nuclear weaponry is never a worthy pursuit. The americans showed us that pretty clearly during WW2.
Nuclear technology in the broader sense is (to some degree) a worthy pursuit, at least until better alternatives are found (as are being found currently).

Further, I'm not very enthusiastic of mixing real-word events such as this with works of fiction. Hope you'll understand =)

[alperez]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

nhsk wrote...
I would, some prices are not worth paying and I truly believe this is the case, I would rather blow up the council a million times and kill the last Rachni queen again than use that base.

As long as you know you're more than likely sentencing the whole galaxy because you aren't willing to betray your own, personal set of morals, fine. (again, not metagaming)

It's not my place to dissuade you or force my own sense of ethics and when to throw them out of the window onto you.

I really love the argument that blowing up the base is more than likely sentencing the whole galaxy, that sticking to our own morals is in some way wrong and that because we choose to do so we're the ones taking the huge risk.

Yet despite cerberus shoddy record in handling reaper tech and their habit of having experiments blow up in their faces us handing the base over to them, hoping that this time they get things right and that if they do they use this new awesome power they've got only on the reapers and to help us without betraying us because they have no real need of us anymore (awesome power which destroys the reapers kinda limits need for a shepard to destroy those same reapers) that this is the less risky choice and one that isn't sentencing the whole galaxy.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

DarkLord_PT wrote...
I think you're being too specific here. Nuclear weaponry is never a worthy pursuit. The americans showed us that pretty clearly during WW2.
Nuclear technology in the broader sense is (to some degree) a worthy pursuit, at least until better alternatives are found (as are being found currently).

Further, I'm not very enthusiastic of mixing real-word events such as this with works of fiction. Hope you'll understand =)

It was just an example.  I wasn't trying to promote nuclear weaponry; I was just using it as an analogy.

Sometimes the potential gain is not worth the risk of the potential danger, and eliminating a threat can be just as useful in a war as gaining a technoligical advantage.  They are both useful.  The only thing with the Collector Base is that neither decision offers a clear indication of the result, so both options are viable depending on how much you trust Cerberus not to screw it up somehow.

[BatmanPWNS]

I just blew it up so no one could took advantage of the technology, but deep inside I probably just blew it up cuz it was the paragon choice. (Sad really)

[Pedro Costa]

alperez wrote...
I really love the argument that blowing up the base is more than likely sentencing the whole galaxy, that sticking to our own morals is in some way wrong and that because we choose to do so we're the ones taking the huge risk.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't say that the base is the end-all, be-all. I said it dampens the odds of success.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not in the mood to read a wall of text when you so conveniently disregarded my whole post for a snide remark based on a rather willful misinterpretation of my opinion.

[Son of Illusive Man]

[quote]Inverness Moon wrote...
1. Destroying what might give us a significant advantage against the Reapers is foolish.[/quote]

It's not us keeping the base itself.  It's Cerberus, who we basically quit in both endings of ME2.

You don't have any clue whether it will even make a difference against the reapers.  Every time scientists have dealt with live Reaper technology, it has resulted in indoctrination.  It is only the scavenged parts and debris that have been successfully used.

The radiation purge only kills organic lifeforms.  Reapers are hybrid.  Cerberus has just as much chance of being indoctrinated as they do of coming up with a technology that will make a major impact against the Reapers.

They have just as much chance of being indoctrinated as they do 

[quote]2. The Reapers dwarf any threat Cerberus poses with or without the base.[/quote]

Yes, but how about winning without giving Cerberus control of the galaxy.  Don't let fear compromise who you are.

[quote]3. We know nothing about Reaper numbers or even how to fight them, other than throwing entire fleets at them. There could be anywhere from 300 to 30,000. Destroying anything that could improve our chances is foolish.[/quote]

So one Reaper is going to kill 300 to 30000?

[quote]Also, it's also silly to think that you know about all of Cerberus's successes and failures. Cerberus doesn't send Shepard to clean up their successes.[/quote]

Okay, so when in the codex or expanded universe, have they been successful, besides Lazarus?

On the other hand, I've seen many of Cerberus' messes without being sent to clean them up by Cerberus itself.  All the Alliance missions in ME1 that dealt with Hade's Dogs, Jack's mission, etc.

[quote]The Reapers have a proven track record of genocide going back tens of millions of years. It's absurd to sabatoge your chances against them because you're worried about Cerberus. The only way to explain that is either ignorance of the threat the Reapers represent, or you're metagaming because you know the Reapers will be dealt with in ME3.[/quote]

You're still making the assumption that something major will come out of this technology, and it will be used against the Reapers.

[quote]Valentia X wrote...

My paragon Shepard is a derp[/quote]
This is just hilarious to me for some reason.
[/quote]

[Blarty]

Nearly everyone who has tried to study or go near anything to do with the Reapers has become indoctrinated, plus who knows how many of the collectors on board the base are left and also whether they have any ships away from the base that could return as reinforcements.

Given these options, blowing the base up is the only way to ensure that the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands even if they are good hands to begin with (The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that) and that there is nothing left to be reclaimed by Collector remnants/reinforcements which, in turn, if left to occur, makes the entire mission a complete waste of time, bar destroying the human reaper larvae, which they'll probably just start all over again, and accelerate their abduction rates to make up the time.

[Son of Illusive Man]

Inverness Moon wrote...
I haven't seen any reports about Turians being indoctrinated while they studied Sovereign's main gun to develop the thannix cannon.

Of course, then there is EDI, who is based on reaper tech.

Destroyed Reapers can't indoctrinate

If you don't blow up the base, any Reapers would survive the radation purge.  They are part synthetic.

[Pedro Costa]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
Sometimes the potential gain is not worth the risk of the potential danger, and eliminating a threat can be just as useful in a war as gaining a technoligical advantage.  They are both useful.  The only thing with the Collector Base is that neither decision offers a clear indication of the result, so both options are viable depending on how much you trust Cerberus not to screw it up somehow.

I see your point. And I agree to a certain extent. I just happen to think that Reaper tech research shouldn't be dismissed nor left alone for reasons that aren't logical as I have seen here presented too oftenly.

After all, if anything, ME2 showed us just how pivotal it can be.

[Blarty]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

alperez wrote...
I really love the argument that blowing up the base is more than likely sentencing the whole galaxy, that sticking to our own morals is in some way wrong and that because we choose to do so we're the ones taking the huge risk.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't say that the base is the end-all, be-all. I said it dampens the odds of success.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not in the mood to read a wall of text when you so conveniently disregarded my whole post for a snide remark based on a rather willful misinterpretation of my opinion.

It may well dampen the odds of success, but it also demonstrably reduces the risk. There is no way to calculate the risk involved with keeping the Reaper base, for Shepard to make a decision in favour of keeping the Reaper base goes against all other anecdotal evidence to date with regards to Reaper tech (reaper artifacts in particular) and indoctrination.

Modifié par Blarty, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:03 .

[pablodurando]

Son of Illusive Man wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
I haven't seen any reports about Turians being indoctrinated while they studied Sovereign's main gun to develop the thannix cannon.

Of course, then there is EDI, who is based on reaper tech.

Destroyed Reapers can't indoctrinate

If you don't blow up the base, any Reapers would survive the radation purge.  They are part synthetic.

"Even a dead god can dream."

[GreenDragon37]

I hate it when Renegades say that Paragons are delusional for destroying the base and taking a leap of faith. Really, keeping the base is also a leap of faith. We don't know the risks or benefits that it might produce. It just seems so... hypocritical. Everyone is taking a leap of faith.

[The Elder King]

Saphra Deden wrote...

snip

I'll understand your logic. Still, I can't accept that (especially the Reaper thing. While I  probably don't even want to process the vorcha, despite my hate for them, I don't think that the vorcha can be used to create a Reaper, otherwise the Collectors could have tried to create it. From what we know the only possibile Reaper among the spacefaring species could be created only from the humans.). But I can understand that with this type of experiments it will be (probably) easier to destroy the Reapers. If playing following my logic will lead to victory, with more casualties, so be it. I don't think that your logic is wrong, but simply I can't accept to work in that way. My opinion of course.