1939 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

laecraft wrote...

You traded the salvation of the galaxy for a brief moment of personal satisfaction, and you want long-term consequences, as well? You can't have both.

.

Your really sticking to your guns that keeping the base is the salvation of the galaxy, no amount of evidence or new info being released has changed your mind, its the base or the galaxy is screwed as far as your concerned.

There's being annoyed, being stubborn or blindingly holding on to a belief that you alone know all the answers and no matter what anyone else says in the end you will be proved right.

Kudos and pat yourself on the back, oh and btw when the choice bites you in the ass don't worry about it, after all sticking to your guns is much more important, than simple things like logical thinking or assimilating info before making an informed choice.

[essarr71]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a shame. Perhaps if you had finished reading, you might have realized I wasn't using the Shadow Broker as an ethical/moral compass, but as a demonstration that Shepard's line was undermined.

Shep also wasn't going there to get information, either.  Just because the Shadow Broker wanted the scoop doesn't mean morality is tossed aside.  That information is important and that others - regardless of their intentions (be it broker or cerb) - were after it, has no bearing on a moral argument. 

If you asked that saving the base could potentially save millions of lives with tech that'd be available in the aftermath anyway is another story.

[ThePwener]

essarr71 wrote...

It's even a possibility you turn the thing on and try to access it and a picture of Wayne Knight comes on repeating that you didn't say the magic word. 

Is it weird that I can picture the image in my mind perfectly?

[-Skorpious-]

tobynator89 wrote...

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.

You can't be picky about your allies when technologically advanced starships, whose likes and power the galaxy has never seen before, swoop down from darkspace with intentions of harvesting all intelligent life in the galaxy. 

Just sayin'. 

[KingNothing125]

You're not "keeping" the Collector Base. You're giving it to Cerberus. You don't have any control whatsoever over what Cerberus does with it. That's a pretty big blank check you're handing to notorious space terrorists.

And that's exactly what Cerberus is, indoctrination or no indoctrination.

Modifié par KingNothing125, 15 juillet 2011 - 02:53 .

[essarr71]

ThePwener wrote...


Is it weird that I can picture the image in my mind perfectly?

Not weird so long as you hear the voice, too.

[Abispa]

The problem is the the choice was NOT keep the base or destroy the base, it was GIVE the base to Cerberus or destroy the base. Just about every Cerberus experiment Shepard has come across in both games ended in disaster, save Project Lazarus, which stretched credulity to the breaking point. If there were an option to hand control over to the Alliance, Specters, or some such organization INSTEAD of or IN ADDITION to Cerberus I might have been more inclined to keep it.

I did keep one base and was annoyed that every squad member except Zaeed and Kasumi ****ed about the decision, even the ones who suggested I keep it before the boss showdown.

[PrinceLionheart]

KingNothing125 wrote...

You're not "keeping" the Collector Base. You're giving it to Cerberus. You don't have any control whatsoever of what Cerberus does with it. That's a pretty big blank check you're handing to notorious space terrorists.

And that's exactly what Cerberus is, indoctrination or no indoctrination.

Seriously, my main concern was Cerberus' shoddy record when it comes to any non-Shepard related experiments. Far too many cells have gone rogue under TIM's watch so my concern wasn't so much "Will TIM stab me in the back" as it was "Is Cerberus actually competant enough not to screw the pooch with this?"

[Dean_the_Young]

essarr71 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a shame. Perhaps if you had finished reading, you might have realized I wasn't using the Shadow Broker as an ethical/moral compass, but as a demonstration that Shepard's line was undermined.

Shep also wasn't going there to get information, either.  Just because the Shadow Broker wanted the scoop doesn't mean morality is tossed aside.  That information is important and that others - regardless of their intentions (be it broker or cerb) - were after it, has no bearing on a moral argument. 

If you asked that saving the base could potentially save millions of lives with tech that'd be available in the aftermath anyway is another story.

I didn't suggest that Shepard's reason for going there was to get information either.

It's a shame. Perhaps if you had read the post, you might have a better understanding of what I wrote, and not what you think I might have written.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

KingNothing125 wrote...

You're not "keeping" the Collector Base. You're giving it to Cerberus. You don't have any control whatsoever of what Cerberus does with it. That's a pretty big blank check you're handing to notorious space terrorists.

And that's exactly what Cerberus is, indoctrination or no indoctrination.

Seriously, my main concern was Cerberus' shoddy record when it comes to any non-Shepard related experiments. Far too many cells have gone rogue under TIM's watch so my concern wasn't so much "Will TIM stab me in the back" as it was "Is Cerberus actually competant enough not to screw the pooch with this?"

This right there is my entire reasoning. They fail at everything, remember Overlord? The thing that almost destroyed our galaxy's technology leaving us completely exposed to the Reapers? Its funny how people say not giving the base to Cerberus is idiotic yet they don't think entrusting the same group that almost ruined the galaxy is a bit touched in the head.

[88mphSlayer]

do you like orange or blue 'splosions? and do you want a red or blue star behind TIM at the end?

in a nutshell

[tobynator89]

-Skorpious- wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

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.

You can't be picky about your allies when technologically advanced starships, whose likes and power the galaxy has never seen before, swoop down from darkspace with intentions of harvesting all intelligent life in the galaxy. 

Just sayin'. 

you can when picking said ally alienates the rest of the galaxy from helpig you out. Cerberus<rest of the galaxy including the alliance

[essarr71]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a shame. Perhaps if you had finished reading, you might have realized I wasn't using the Shadow Broker as an ethical/moral compass, but as a demonstration that Shepard's line was undermined.

Shep also wasn't going there to get information, either.  Just because the Shadow Broker wanted the scoop doesn't mean morality is tossed aside.  That information is important and that others - regardless of their intentions (be it broker or cerb) - were after it, has no bearing on a moral argument. 

If you asked that saving the base could potentially save millions of lives with tech that'd be available in the aftermath anyway is another story.

I didn't suggest that Shepard's reason for going there was to get information either.

It's a shame. Perhaps if you had read the post, you might have a better understanding of what I wrote, and not what you think I might have written.

I know you didnt suggest that Shep wasn't going there for info, but you used the intentions of getting information by others as the basis for your answer to a question not about information.

Next time I'll quote you so you can be sure i read it.

[alperez]

Dean

Basically your argument is that regardless of the choice you make the outcome which you cannot know and only hope for, may not be the outcome you expected, therefore the choice itself shouldn't be made and bioware shouldn't have given you that choice since they already had other potential outcomes in mind.

Because thats what it comes down to, you make a choice hoping for the outcome you desire but you have no pre existing knowledge that you will get that outcome.

Bioware in a lot of cases take the choices you make and where they don't fit into the narrative the go round or through them to get the narrative back on line, all you can hope for is that the narrative makes sense within the confines of the choices you make.

Everything we know so far about the Collector base choice fits within a narrative, up to now all we've done is delay and disrupt plans of Reapers, Cerberus, Conrad Verner whoever.

So why in a game where nothing we've done so far has stopped what is going to happen should a choice about the Collector Base be handled any differently than most choices we've made.

I brought up Harbinger to illustrate that point but you can go further back to Sovereign, we stop his using the citadel reaper, the reapers find a differnt way to achieve the same goals, why should what we do with the collector base be handled any differently than this?

Is it bad storytelling that even after the events of me1 the reapers still arrive in me3 and if not then how can it be bad storytelling that if we destroy or keep the base in the end it makes no other difference other than potentially delaying cerberus ending up in the same situation either way.

[ThePwener]

Metagaming - the base promotes human dominance

There, I just saved everyone hours of mindless squabbling. Everyone metagamed for saving the council, but not for this one. Wonder why.... oh yeah, the smart choice this time was renegade! Hipocrites.....

[PrinceLionheart]

alperez wrote...

Is it bad storytelling that even after the events of me1 the reapers still arrive in me3 and if not then how can it be bad storytelling that if we destroy or keep the base in the end it makes no other difference other than potentially delaying cerberus ending up in the same situation either way.

Yep, that's pretty much the limitation of roleplaying in video games. Even with multiple choices the plot has to be moved forward anyway. That's why a lot of these "Paragons should be punished too" threads tend to be silly in my opinion, because aside from a few superficial consequences, you can't prevent the player from progressing forward.

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:15 .

[gastraphetes]

well in mass effect 3 i heard cerberus betrays yu and if they get the base the probably have better weapons and technology to kill yu

[Foolsfolly]

It's Reaper tech which allows for indoctrination.

It was also a giant metal space womb that pumps out Reapers. Give it to Cerberus and if they get indoctrinated they'll start feeding the station organic material to make more Reapers.

This is like temporarily neutering the Reaper race. As long as it exists they can indoctrinate or retake the station and begin pumping out more Reapers.

Now I see no reason to keep the base. EDI's inside their systems, I'm positive she's copied information. That's useful with less risk.

In my opinion, of course. The actual outcomes will be known to us soon enough.

[-Skorpious-]

tobynator89 wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

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.

You can't be picky about your allies when technologically advanced starships, whose likes and power the galaxy has never seen before, swoop down from darkspace with intentions of harvesting all intelligent life in the galaxy. 

Just sayin'. 

you can when picking said ally alienates the rest of the galaxy from helpig you out. Cerberus<rest of the galaxy including the alliance

I think many people here are overlooking the fact that Shepard does not have the benefit of hindsight as we players do. We players understand that Shepard will "win" in ME3 regardless of the Collecter Base decision (like we understand that Ceberus betrays you), but Shepard has no idea that he/she is a fictional character who has the ability to re-live past experiences with the press of a button - to him/her the situations and predicaments are much more severe, with very dire effects on the galactic community as a whole. 

Sometimes players (like myself) do not determine the best course of action based on personal beliefs, but rather by trying to view the situation from the characters perspective.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:25 .

[alperez]

ThePwener wrote...

Metagaming - the base promotes human dominance

There, I just saved everyone hours of mindless squabbling. Everyone metagamed for saving the council, but not for this one. Wonder why.... oh yeah, the smart choice this time was renegade! Hipocrites.....

Everyone who saved the council metagamed, and the people who didn't take the renegede action with the base are hippocrites, do i sense some hostility because not everyone agrees with you or plays in the manner you do.

Some people no doubt metagamed some choices, others went with their own views based on the Shepard they created but of course this doesn't fit into your superior knowledge of how everyone else plays the game or comes to make the choices they make.

[JamieCOTC]

It's threads like these that make me glad I have multiple Shepards. I get to see every decision and not have to pick a side and worry about proving my point to the world.

[Malanek]

alperez wrote...
Everyone who saved the council metagamed, and the people who didn't take the renegede action with the base are hippocrites, do i sense some hostility because not everyone agrees with you or plays in the manner you do.

Wooaaahhh!!!! Load of rubbish I'm afraid. People who are idealists would take that action regardless if there was a strategically greater chance of failure. Some people find it really hard to let thousands of people die when they can do something about it. For the record, I generally prefer taking paragon choices, but I think saving the collector base was the best decision for shepard.

EDIT: Actually reading that again was there supposed to be a question mark at the end of your statement? Perhaps this should have been credited to pwener, however my comment still stands.

Modifié par Malanek999, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:33 .

[ME-ParaShep]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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

I'm trying to formulate a rebuttle against this (even though I'm a paragon player) and I can't find anything to dismiss this claim. The games sure do have the paragon player's backs. I wonder if that trend will continue in ME 3, though I highly doubt it. Although no one should complain if the trend breaks. It's reality. The Reapers are destroying worlds. Moral decisions shouldn't cut the cake on everything.

[tobynator89]

-Skorpious- wrote...


I think many people here are overlooking the fact that Shepard does not have the benefit of hindsight as we players do. We players understand that Shepard will "win" in ME3 regardless of the Collecter Base decision (like we understand that Ceberus betrays you), but Shepard has no idea that he/she is a fictional character who has the ability to re-live past experiences with the press of a button - to him/her the situations and predicaments are much more severe, with very dire effects on the galactic community as a whole. 

Sometimes players (like myself) do not determine the best course of action based on personal beliefs, but rather by trying to view the situation from the characters perspective.

Huh, I've tried to frame my arguments from the characters PoV as best as I can. I've never said that they were my own. I always try to go for as a consistent shep as possible (disregarding the whole para/renegade meter) trying to figure out how my character  ticks. Got 6 different playthroughs with sheps that I all feel are unique persons. All imported from ME1. Never seen the logic in giving the base to cerberus however. and my first olaythrough was mostly renegade.

[Malanek]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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

I'm trying to formulate a rebuttle against this (even though I'm a paragon player) and I can't find anything to dismiss this claim. The games sure do have the paragon player's backs. I wonder if that trend will continue in ME 3, though I highly doubt it. Although no one should complain if the trend breaks. It's reality. The Reapers are destroying worlds. Moral decisions shouldn't cut the cake on everything.

Which renegade choices have gone horribly wrong?