1939 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

jedierick wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Cost/Benefit analysis.. It all comes down to this.

When the Reaprs come, Shep is going to have all the races fighting with him (it's not like they have much choice). Cerberus is pittance compared to that. What assets do they have that cna drastily change the conflict? Most of it will be fought in space - Cerberus doens't have a navy.
On the ground, it doesn't have the numbers to pose a significant threat. And it still remains a lesser threat than even a single reaper.

The survival of the galaxy is at stake. Cerberus does have some info on Shep, but it hardly matter logicly. Shapes survival might become slightly more difficult - but hte knowledge gained could have the galaxy.
Galaxy surviving >>> Shep surviving.

Even assuming the worst possible scenario for the bease, it still pales compared to potential benefits.

Blowing up the base is utterly stupid wihout a backup plan. What is the backup plan? How do you plan to stop the reaprs? What ace in the sleeve do you have?... you don't have any.
The races of the galaxy don't have time to go hte slow and safe route. They don't have 20-100 years to research completley new tech. Tehy need help and answers now.


But I really gotta ask. If in-game you ran into Turains researching Sovereigns cannon (Thanix), would you blow up the base they are working in? Ya know..to prevent indoctrination? And having ot fight the tturians?

Wait a second, who says shepard is going to have the whole galaxy fighting with him? As far as we know, most of the galaxy doesnt think the reapers are real, based on what the council is telling everyone. I think your getting a little meta there. Logical to assume the whole galaxy will fight agaisnt the reapers once they know they are real, but who knows if Shepard will be dead at that point, or how the reapers will reveal themself to the galaxy.


If I came accross turians rsearching cannons based off of soveriegn, I woud not destory their base, they have not given me a reason to think they would get indoctorinated, Cerberus has already screwed up and given me a reason to think they would.. Also, soverign is no longer a risk, or the pieices that flew into the cititdel and were recovered would have ended up in indoctorination, sicne none of that has happended, I would alow the research and spare the base.

1) No one will have much choice in the matter. Fight the reaprs or die. They will help Shep because they must to survive.


2) Double-standards and broken logic again. As expected.
Given you reason to think they will get indoctrinated? Indoctrination has nothing to do with morality or the faction you work for. Tehre's some divice the reaprs have that indoctrinates...no one is immune to that until lwe find out how it works. Technicly, not even Sheppard.
And you wont' find out how it works unless you study it.
Cerberus come in contact with indoctrination ONCE.. and ONE team got indoctrinated. And dispite all of that, usefull data was recovered. Hardly cause for alarm. If anything, given they now know what to expect, you'd expect them to be even more cautious.

Furthermore, how do you know Sovereigns parts are safe, but the baby-reapers one aren't? How do you know the indoctrination device survived the fight or not? You don't.

The risk factor is completely the same in both cases. Hence, double-standards.
You just don't want to admit that your analysis is flawed and your conclusions are incorrect.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar

matthew 16:26 what benefits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.

You say my calculation is wrong because by destroying the base i'm dooming the galaxy to destruction but actually your calculating wrong because you think keeping it isn't.

Apart from the simple fact that we don't know either way if the tech on board could be key to stopping the reapers or not, we don't get the option to keep it, we have to turn it over to cerberus.

A. there is no factual evidence that anything on the base would be useful in stopping the reapers.

People have theories that we'll find some huge key to stopping the reapers or that there is some benefit in knowing the enemy through the information possibly available on the base.

But wouldn't that make the reapers the dumbest super smart machines ever, leave the key to their destruction out of their own hands or leave info that could lead to their destruction out of their hands and in the hands of subordinates?

B. we don't get to keep the base therefore we don't control it.

If the goal is to save the galaxy then handing the base over to someone who wants to basically make every species in the galaxy subservient to humans or even himself may not be a good idea.

You ask what Cerberus has done to suggest they are worse than the reapers, well the goal they have is practically the same, put one race in complete control over every other race, in the reapers case its the reapers wheras with Cerberus its humanity or tim himself.

Either way imo its a bad tradeoff.

You say morality takes second place to survival and for some thats surely true, for others its not. If you lose your morality then what's the point of surviving?

Yes the reapers are coming and yes sovereign kicked a lot of ass and no i don't think it'll be as easy as Shepard stopping them with his AR. As for TIM what his goal ultimately is would be where he and i change paths.

While the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, if he is also the enemy of my friends then he is and shall remain my enemy.

[Gill Kaiser]

If the Reapers are destroyed, it doesn't really matter if we use their technology. Proper indoctrination requires the Reapers' will for direction.

[Meatlocker]

I really would prefer not to fight another human reaper.

[alperez]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

If the Reapers are destroyed, it doesn't really matter if we use their technology. Proper indoctrination requires the Reapers' will for direction.

Yes but in using their tech we could be leabing ourselves open to being indoctrinated way before we beat them.

[Inverness Moon]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar

matthew 16:26 what benefits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.

You say my calculation is wrong because by destroying the base i'm dooming the galaxy to destruction but actually your calculating wrong because you think keeping it isn't.

Apart from the simple fact that we don't know either way if the tech on board could be key to stopping the reapers or not, we don't get the option to keep it, we have to turn it over to cerberus.

Don't start quoting the Bible, please. This isn't even about benefiting a single person, but rather the whole galaxy? Or do you think your soul is too important to sacrifice to save the galaxy?

A. there is no factual evidence that anything on the base would be useful in stopping the reapers.

People have theories that we'll find some huge key to stopping the reapers or that there is some benefit in knowing the enemy through the information possibly available on the base.

But wouldn't that make the reapers the dumbest super smart machines ever, leave the key to their destruction out of their own hands or leave info that could lead to their destruction out of their hands and in the hands of subordinates?

There is also no factual evidence that the base or its contents won't be useful. This argument goes both ways.

Plus, there is strong evidence to support the idea that blowing up the base would destroy anything inside that could have been of value against the reapers.

Also, if you're suggesting there is no a benefit to knowing your enemy, then you're a fool. Also, you shouldn't mistakenly suggest that the only reason people want to keep the base is because of the idea of some magic key to defeating the reapers. That is not the argument at all. The argument is that there might be something on the base that could help close the technological gap between us and the reapers. This doesn't necessarily have to exist nor does have it to be immense in scale. The only assertion is that Shepard's foolish decision to destroy the base will destroy anything like that.

B. we don't get to keep the base therefore we don't control it.

If the goal is to save the galaxy then handing the base over to someone who wants to basically make every species in the galaxy subservient to humans or even himself may not be a good idea.

You clearly don't have a reasonable idea of what Cerberus's goals are if you think that is actually what TIM wants.

You say morality takes second place to survival and for some thats surely true, for others its not. If you lose your morality then what's the point of surviving?

Maybe you didn't notice, but not everyone in the galaxy shares your morals or even has morals. But what everyone shares is life.

Do you think the survival of the geth is pointless because they don't have morals?

[Kaiser Shepard]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

If the Reapers are destroyed, it doesn't really matter if we use their technology. Proper indoctrination requires the Reapers' will for direction.

That is merely what you can only assume pre-CB, Kaiser. With the tech we find there, 'we' might actually figure out how to use indoctrination ourselves.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Until we see how the decision affects us this argument is moot...

[Meatlocker]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Until we see how the decision affects us this argument is moot...

Pretty true.

[alperez]

Inverness

Firstly i quoted the bible because the quote represented what i was trying to say, not for any theological significance.

Secondly, my point was supposed to be that if you wish to be an ends justify the means person than so be it, some people are not, some people feel that the means justify the ends also.

Its supposed to be our own morality that defines us, thats why we make different choices, some people use logic at the expense of all other rationale, some use how they feel, some use a combination of both.

I never said that there wasn't some info or tech available inside that could be helpful and if you read what i said you'd have realised this.

Of course the argument goes both ways, my view was in response to someone suggesting the opposite, that by destroying the base i was dooming the galaxy.

Strong evidence you say, destroying the base destroys whatever is inside it so of course that could be considered strong evidence, but where is the evidence that whats inside is beneficial?

Knowing your enemy is key, but there's knowing your enemy through your own collection of information and knowing your enemy through what may be flawed information given to you by someone else (in this case cerberus).

I suggested 2 reasons why someone keeps the base, there are multitudes, as there are for why people do not.

As for Shepard destroying the base being foolish, again your basing your counterargument on the fact that you may get something from a base that you don't actually have any control over.

I have a perception of what i consider to be TIM's goals and what i consider to be his ultimate one, like everything else that perception could be wrong but when making a choice, i have to use that perception to inform that choice.

Morality is unique to you the indvidual, how you use that morality or how much it influences your actions is up to you, your the one that has to live with the consequences of your actions.

So while not everyone shares my morals or even agrees with them, its also true that not everyone shares yours or anyone elses either.

But considering my morals inform my actions and my choices as much as they do and considering my shepard is supposed to be a representation of me then why would i care if anyone else shares those morals in the first place?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Until we see how the decision affects us this argument is moot...

Not if we want to debate about which course of action is the most sensible given the available information at the time.

But in the end that just turns into paragon vs renegade which in turn becomes the unstopable force meets the immovable object.

Both choices are morally gray,both look for the greater good, Paragon is if we lose what makes us us then we may as well have already lost,renegade sees the base as an abomination and a tool,neither is irrational,neither is unsensible,it just comes down to what you personally beleive in.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

But in the end that just turns into paragon vs renegade which in turn becomes the unstopable force meets the immovable object.

That's your fault for refusing to be reasonable.

Case and point....It's completely reasonable that your truth has to be everyone elses,but not that I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinion on the base.


This is a troll thread,all hands abandon thread.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 26 juillet 2011 - 01:41 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Let's all be nice to eachother again, 'kay?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 26 juillet 2011 - 01:44 .

[jedierick]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jedierick wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Cost/Benefit analysis.. It all comes down to this.

When the Reaprs come, Shep is going to have all the races fighting with him (it's not like they have much choice). Cerberus is pittance compared to that. What assets do they have that cna drastily change the conflict? Most of it will be fought in space - Cerberus doens't have a navy.
On the ground, it doesn't have the numbers to pose a significant threat. And it still remains a lesser threat than even a single reaper.

The survival of the galaxy is at stake. Cerberus does have some info on Shep, but it hardly matter logicly. Shapes survival might become slightly more difficult - but hte knowledge gained could have the galaxy.
Galaxy surviving >>> Shep surviving.

Even assuming the worst possible scenario for the bease, it still pales compared to potential benefits.

Blowing up the base is utterly stupid wihout a backup plan. What is the backup plan? How do you plan to stop the reaprs? What ace in the sleeve do you have?... you don't have any.
The races of the galaxy don't have time to go hte slow and safe route. They don't have 20-100 years to research completley new tech. Tehy need help and answers now.


But I really gotta ask. If in-game you ran into Turains researching Sovereigns cannon (Thanix), would you blow up the base they are working in? Ya know..to prevent indoctrination? And having ot fight the tturians?

Wait a second, who says shepard is going to have the whole galaxy fighting with him? As far as we know, most of the galaxy doesnt think the reapers are real, based on what the council is telling everyone. I think your getting a little meta there. Logical to assume the whole galaxy will fight agaisnt the reapers once they know they are real, but who knows if Shepard will be dead at that point, or how the reapers will reveal themself to the galaxy.


If I came accross turians rsearching cannons based off of soveriegn, I woud not destory their base, they have not given me a reason to think they would get indoctorinated, Cerberus has already screwed up and given me a reason to think they would.. Also, soverign is no longer a risk, or the pieices that flew into the cititdel and were recovered would have ended up in indoctorination, sicne none of that has happended, I would alow the research and spare the base.

1) No one will have much choice in the matter. Fight the reaprs or die. They will help Shep because they must to survive.


2) Double-standards and broken logic again. As expected.
Given you reason to think they will get indoctrinated? Indoctrination has nothing to do with morality or the faction you work for. Tehre's some divice the reaprs have that indoctrinates...no one is immune to that until lwe find out how it works. Technicly, not even Sheppard.
And you wont' find out how it works unless you study it.
Cerberus come in contact with indoctrination ONCE.. and ONE team got indoctrinated. And dispite all of that, usefull data was recovered. Hardly cause for alarm. If anything, given they now know what to expect, you'd expect them to be even more cautious.

Furthermore, how do you know Sovereigns parts are safe, but the baby-reapers one aren't? How do you know the indoctrination device survived the fight or not? You don't.

The risk factor is completely the same in both cases. Hence, double-standards.
You just don't want to admit that your analysis is flawed and your conclusions are incorrect.

1)There is a third choice, hide out like some of the protheans did so the reapers dont find you. Obviously it can be done as they themself did it without the reapers finding them.

2) My bad, indoctorination is the wrong example. Lets say they have not given me a reason not to trust them. Cerberus has, turians team studying laser have not.  So take indoctorination out of it, I was incorrect to put it in there.

Well I assume soverigns parts are safe as I said becasue there has not been any fallout from studying them already. I donnt know whats left of the baby reaper, your right,  but i am not going to risk Cerberus getting their hands on it, I dont trust them to not screw it up.

The only reason the mission on the derelict reaper was pulled off and anything successfull was recovered was becasue of Shepard, if he had not got involved, then the mission woud have been a failure.

The risk factor is not the same in both cases, one involves turians, one involves cerberus. Cerberus presents more of a risk than the turians do based on their history.  The analysis is not flawed.  You might think it is flawed becasue you dont agree with it, but logically in your example, the turians dont present as much of a risk as Cerberus.

[ME-ParaShep]

Inverness Moon wrote...

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar

matthew 16:26 what benefits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.

You say my calculation is wrong because by destroying the base i'm dooming the galaxy to destruction but actually your calculating wrong because you think keeping it isn't.

Apart from the simple fact that we don't know either way if the tech on board could be key to stopping the reapers or not, we don't get the option to keep it, we have to turn it over to cerberus.

Don't start quoting the Bible, please. This isn't even about benefiting a single person, but rather the whole galaxy? Or do you think your soul is too important to sacrifice to save the galaxy?

A. there is no factual evidence that anything on the base would be useful in stopping the reapers.

People have theories that we'll find some huge key to stopping the reapers or that there is some benefit in knowing the enemy through the information possibly available on the base.

But wouldn't that make the reapers the dumbest super smart machines ever, leave the key to their destruction out of their own hands or leave info that could lead to their destruction out of their hands and in the hands of subordinates?

There is also no factual evidence that the base or its contents won't be useful. This argument goes both ways.

Plus, there is strong evidence to support the idea that blowing up the base would destroy anything inside that could have been of value against the reapers.

Also, if you're suggesting there is no a benefit to knowing your enemy, then you're a fool. Also, you shouldn't mistakenly suggest that the only reason people want to keep the base is because of the idea of some magic key to defeating the reapers. That is not the argument at all. The argument is that there might be something on the base that could help close the technological gap between us and the reapers. This doesn't necessarily have to exist nor does have it to be immense in scale. The only assertion is that Shepard's foolish decision to destroy the base will destroy anything like that.

B. we don't get to keep the base therefore we don't control it.

If the goal is to save the galaxy then handing the base over to someone who wants to basically make every species in the galaxy subservient to humans or even himself may not be a good idea.

You clearly don't have a reasonable idea of what Cerberus's goals are if you think that is actually what TIM wants.

You say morality takes second place to survival and for some thats surely true, for others its not. If you lose your morality then what's the point of surviving?

Maybe you didn't notice, but not everyone in the galaxy shares your morals or even has morals. But what everyone shares is life.

Do you think the survival of the geth is pointless because they don't have morals?

Nitpick @ the bold: The Geth do have morals. When they found out that there's an alternative use to the virus that Sovereign gave to the Heretic Geth, they sought consensus among themselves whether they should use it to swerve the Heretic Geth's mind to be apart of the True Geth. If the Geth didn't have morals, they would've immediately fought over control of what the virus would be repurposed for. In turn, when they came to a stalemate consensus. They left the choice up to Shepard, someone who they can trust, to handle the Geth's fate.

I say, everyone and everything has morals, but if you wish to utilize or disregard them to fulfill certain means then do as you wish, just deal with the consequences.

[Inverness Moon]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

Nitpick @ the bold: The Geth do have morals. When they found out that there's an alternative use to the virus that Sovereign gave to the Heretic Geth, they sought consensus among themselves whether they should use it to swerve the Heretic Geth's mind to be apart of the True Geth. If the Geth didn't have morals, they would've immediately fought over control of what the virus would be repurposed for. In turn, when they came to a stalemate consensus. They left the choice up to Shepard, someone who they can trust, to handle the Geth's fate.

I say, everyone and everything has morals, but if you wish to utilize or disregard them to fulfill certain means then do as you wish, just deal with the consequences.

That has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with how the geth have been behaving since their creation. They work together and build consensus before acting. That is pure logic based on the fact that there are many geth that have to work together.

Though I suppose people have different definitions of morals. The geth certainly don't have any morals in the human sense. So I'll say that geth do not have human morals.

Paragons often place their own morals above other people's. The galaxy doesn't share the same morals, but they share life. I try to protect that life no matter what it takes. Paragons often protect life, but only if it is in a manner that adheres to their morals. That shortsightedness would result in quite a lot of harm being done if Mass Effect were reality.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 26 juillet 2011 - 03:52 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

jedierick wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

1) No one will have much choice in the matter. Fight the reaprs or die. They will help Shep because they must to survive.


2) Double-standards and broken logic again. As expected.
Given you reason to think they will get indoctrinated? Indoctrination has nothing to do with morality or the faction you work for. Tehre's some divice the reaprs have that indoctrinates...no one is immune to that until lwe find out how it works. Technicly, not even Sheppard.
And you wont' find out how it works unless you study it.
Cerberus come in contact with indoctrination ONCE.. and ONE team got indoctrinated. And dispite all of that, usefull data was recovered. Hardly cause for alarm. If anything, given they now know what to expect, you'd expect them to be even more cautious.

Furthermore, how do you know Sovereigns parts are safe, but the baby-reapers one aren't? How do you know the indoctrination device survived the fight or not? You don't.

The risk factor is completely the same in both cases. Hence, double-standards.
You just don't want to admit that your analysis is flawed and your conclusions are incorrect.

1)There is a third choice, hide out like some of the protheans did so the reapers dont find you. Obviously it can be done as they themself did it without the reapers finding them.

That solution didnt' really work for the Protheans, now did it? The repears hanged around so long all hte Protheans died.
No to mention it requires any other race to actually sacrifice 99% of their race and live in a cave for thousands of years.

2) My bad, indoctorination is the wrong example. Lets say they have not given me a reason not to trust them. Cerberus has, turians team studying laser have not.  So take indoctorination out of it, I was incorrect to put it in there.

Well I assume soverigns parts are safe as I said becasue there has not been any fallout from studying them already. I donnt know whats left of the baby reaper, your right,  but i am not going to risk Cerberus getting their hands on it, I dont trust them to not screw it up.

And there we have it. It has nothing to do with reason or logic, simply your mistrust of Cerberus. Which, given what is at stake, is silly.
Trusting Cerberus is irrelevant. TIM doesn't want humanity destroyed by the reapers. Whatever he finds, he will use it agaisnt the reapers.

The only reason the mission on the derelict reaper was pulled off and anything successfull was recovered was becasue of Shepard, if he had not got involved, then the mission woud have been a failure.

Shepard was the first on the scene. TIM could have sent someone else...a entire detachment of cerberus elite troopers. So you cna't really say it's a instant-faliure wihout Sheppard.

The risk factor is not the same in both cases, one involves turians, one involves cerberus. Cerberus presents more of a risk than the turians do based on their history.  The analysis is not flawed.  You might think it is flawed becasue you dont agree with it, but logically in your example, the turians dont present as much of a risk as Cerberus.

Bollocks. The risk factor is the same. Indoctrination doesn't care if you're turian or Cerberus.
And what Cerberus history? The only thing you have to go on is the Derelict Reaper - which ended up yielding critical results!

It's just unreasonable to the max, to deny the galaxy the collector base, simply because you don't trust Cerberus. Trust is irrelevant. Survival is the only thing that matters.
And with you at the helm, the galaxy would persih a hunderd times over.



and heere we see an interesting patters. As a broken theory/redicolous assunmptions is dissected and torn down, oyu come up wiht a new one, ignore it, or switch track. Rinse and repeat.

Funny how their thread went from "all repaer tech is EEEBIL" to "the base is immoral in itself" to "giving it Cerberus is more dangerous" to "well I just dont' like them!"
My initial assesment of base-destroyers being self-absorbed is proving correct.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...
You say morality takes second place to survival and for some thats surely true, for others its not. If you lose your morality then what's the point of surviving?

If you'd care to explain to me how I'd exactly loose my morality?

[SwedishSammich]

well if you saved the collector base , shepard dies, no ME 3 ( which is why if you made that choice you can't import your ME 2 save in ME 3 )
so the obvious one is destroy it, leave ME 2 like a badass and clean up the mess in ME 3 ..

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...
A. there is no factual evidence that anything on the base would be useful in stopping the reapers.

People have theories that we'll find some huge key to stopping the reapers or that there is some benefit in knowing the enemy through the information possibly available on the base.

But wouldn't that make the reapers the dumbest super smart machines ever, leave the key to their destruction out of their own hands or leave info that could lead to their destruction out of their hands and in the hands of subordinates?

Common sense man. Try using it.
The base was used to construct reapers and has a reaper corpse in it. OF COURSE we'll find someonthing usefull.
It's like saying that you can't learn anything about human aatomy by examining a cropse. It's just silly.

Key to their destruction? If oyu mean some super-weapon that insta-kills reapers? No. But things that greatly enhance our understanding of hte reapers and move our tech forward, closing hte gap between us? Yes. Things like better shieldings, weapons, more efficient energy producation/storage/manipulation, better armor. Advanced construction and production methods. Knowledge of repaer construction/internals...possible weak(er) points in the armor and so forth. All things you could sensible expect to gain from the base.

Reaper being stupid? No. The Collector base is well defended and in an inacessible place - the Reapers didn't think anyone could get there in the first place. And the collectors are 100% loyal, so no danger from that front.
Why would that make teh Reapers dumb? If you break into Chayenee Mountain and find interesting tech inside, does that make the US stupid?

B. we don't get to keep the base therefore we don't control it.

If the goal is to save the galaxy then handing the base over to someone who wants to basically make every species in the galaxy subservient to humans or even himself may not be a good idea.

You ask what Cerberus has done to suggest they are worse than the reapers, well the goal they have is practically the same, put one race in complete control over every other race, in the reapers case its the reapers wheras with Cerberus its humanity or tim himself.

Nope. The goal is most definately not the same, not the slightest. Cerberus wants a strong humanity- one that is a major player in the galaxy and can resist any possible negative influence from the Council or other races.TIM doesn't want to enslave other races. You might want to look up the term dominance. TI's basicly what the super-powers of hte world are doing.

And he can't do it even if he wanted to AND had reaper tech. Cerberus simply doesn't have the resources and manpower to enslave the galaxy. What he can do is feed researched repaer tech to the Alliance, to make it the most powerfull faction.

And no. With the reapers, all sentient life in the galaxy would be gone.
Even assuming the worst-case fantasy Cerberus scenario, in which the now-mighy humanity somehow enslaves all other races - life continues and thrives. In time, enslaved races would free themselves again. Life ramians. Hope remains.

You say morality takes second place to survival and for some thats surely true, for others its not. If you lose your morality then what's the point of surviving?

How do you loose your morality? Again, I keep hearing this drivel, but no one is yet able to explain it.
As Legion siad - the faciltiy is data. It HAS NO ETHICAL VALUE.

While the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, if he is also the enemy of my friends then he is and shall remain my enemy.

TIM is the enemy of what friends?
Cerberus works for the benefit of humanity. If you talk to the Cerberus personall abord hte SR-2, you'll find that they don't hate aliens. Other races are not the enemy of Cerberus.
So who exactly is this "friend" you're reffering to?

[Lotion Soronarr]

SwedishSammich wrote...

well if you saved the collector base , shepard dies, no ME 3 ( which is why if you made that choice you can't import your ME 2 save in ME 3 )
so the obvious one is destroy it, leave ME 2 like a badass and clean up the mess in ME 3 ..

:blink::blink:

Wut?
Shep doesn't die if you save the base......what have you been smoking?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Until we see how the decision affects us this argument is moot...

Not if we want to debate about which course of action is the most sensible given the available information at the time.

But in the end that just turns into paragon vs renegade which in turn becomes the unstopable force meets the immovable object.

Both choices are morally gray,both look for the greater good, Paragon is if we lose what makes us us then we may as well have already lost,renegade sees the base as an abomination and a tool,neither is irrational,neither is unsensible,it just comes down to what you personally beleive in.

The underlined part is bollocks. That's the problem.