1939 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Hellbound555 wrote...

There are more than 1 solution to solve a problem. unless if its a math problem.

And what if - hypothetically - the end result of the Paragon solution to the Collector Base question is, "We didn't develop information warfare from the Collector Base so we can still stop the Reapers but it will take longer and many more people will die?"  That solves the problem of potential extinction, but still has a price.

Essentially your position is that you didn't keep the base because you assume you'll figure something else out later to make up for it.  Is it not?

Arcian wrote...

The point of destroying the base is because all the bad things happening around Failberus now would have been 900 times worse with the Collector Base.

Name an organization or political entity in Mass Effect that isn't failing constantly.  It certainly isn't the bloody Systems Alliance or Citadel Council, there's sooo much fail to go around.  It's not the exclusive domain of Cerberus.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[Someone With Mass]

Inverness Moon wrote...
That doesn't mean the motivation behind Overlord was unsound or the direct connection form the mind like what happened in the game is nonsensical.

No, but when they're basing the VI on aforementioned stupidity, I'm not going to accept it, because it has logical holes you can fly the Normandy through.

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

There are more than 1 solution to solve a problem. unless if its a math problem.

And what if - hypothetically - the end result of the Paragon solution to the Collector Base question is, "We didn't develop information warfare from the Collector Base so we can still stop the Reapers but it will take longer and many more people will die?"  That solves the problem of potential extinction, but still has a price.

Essentially your position is that you didn't keep the base because you assume you'll figure something else out later to make up for it.  Is it not?

No. I didnt keep the base because Cerberus crosses too many lines in their dealings. This track record like I mentioned, Subject zero, the rachni, project overlord, all ended up blowing up in their faces. I cant take that risk.

[upsettingshorts]

Hellbound555 wrote...

No. I didnt keep the base because Cerberus crosses too many lines in their dealings. This track record like I mentioned, Subject zero, the rachni, project overlord, all ended up blowing up in their faces. I cant take that risk.

Do you not view destroying potentially invaluable intelligence as a risk as well?  What are the consequences of lacking the base if it is valuable?  What are the consequences of keeping the base if Cerberus misuses it?  

This isn't like the Mass Effect 1 endgame decision where if we play for a few more minutes we can discover that throwing the fleet at the Destiny Ascension turns out not to be risky at all.

It would be just as foolish to dismiss the potential advantages having the base could offer as it would be to dismiss the idea that Cerberus might misuse it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:32 .

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

No. I didnt keep the base because Cerberus crosses too many lines in their dealings. This track record like I mentioned, Subject zero, the rachni, project overlord, all ended up blowing up in their faces. I cant take that risk.

Do you not view destroying potentially invaluable intelligence as a risk as well?  What are the consequences of lacking the base if it is valuable?  What are the consequences of keeping the base if Cerberus misuses it?  

This isn't like the Mass Effect 1 endgame decision where if we play for a few more minutes we can discover that throwing the fleet at the Destiny Ascension turns out not to be risky at all.

It would be just as foolish to dismiss the potential advantages having the base could offer as it would be to dismiss the idea that Cerberus might misuse it.

cerberus WILL misuse it.

[Pulletlamer]

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.

Okay I will give my reasons and my opinion on the matter, answering one by one the questions in the OP.

That's not a valid point in my opinion. Consider this situation: If you were a U.S special force soldier sent on a mission to destroy an Al-Qaeda nuclear base, and in the end you would be given the choice to keep it and give it to a Russian organization with fame of being terrorist (direct U.S enemy as far as I can know) or destroy it?


Aka Cerberus being  the Russian org., U.S being alliance and Al-Qaeda the reapers/collectors.

PD: I do not intend to be offensive, especially to russian people. I'm not from the U.S or anything. I was just giving an example. And no, I'm not against russians or pro - U.S.

Your point is "I would keep it because the Russians will eventually investigate, or salvage tech from the remnants, and develop Nuclear Power anyway, so why destroy it?" Nothing more to be said on my part, besides that I consider doing that stupid.

Also you would betray your principes (if you had any), country/governement, and everything.

Saying that it "might help" against the Reapers is being ignorant, since you are giving it to Cerberus, a potential terrorist organization that can do with it what they want. "Human dominance, or just Cerberus?" -Shepard.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.

Yes, it was to stop Cerberus of getting power and knowledge. I don't think that Cerberus would give Reaper knowledge to the Alliance or other races.

They're terrorists( have a very bad reputation. It would be like strengthening a terrorist organization.


Also you're assuming that Shepard knows about Grayson and everything.

And I don't think Cerberus would use it for humanity's good.

You're in this situation: Cerberus rebuilt you, then sent you on a mission to stop the collectors from abducing colonists.

Along the campaign The Illusive man betrays you several times (Horizon, Collector Ship, Suicide Mission...) by not telling you information and sending into potential death.

And just when you're about to blow up the base, he comes up and says "Hey, don't destroy it, better give it to me".
That's willing to manipulate and try to convince/persuade Shepard in a difficult moment by saying that is for humanity dominance.

When I had to make the choice, the options were "Destroy it" or "Give it to Cerberus, a human xenophobic organization who has fame of being terrorists, and has been running dangerous experiments (biotic facility on Jack loyalty mission, dead reaper...etc., and that's only what Shepard knows)."

I will say NO everytime.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.

Yes, since Reaper technology is very dangerous. Do you think Shepard knew that Cerberus would get against him/work with the repaers after the end of ME2?

So, saying that the "E3 demos show how well that worked" is not an argument, since there's no possible way Shepard or "You" (as a player) could know that.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Was it because blown up Reaper technology is safe Reaper technology?

Well, given all of the above...

Every bit of reaper technology is dangerous.

Doesn't matter if there's going to be Reaper technology after destroying reapers, or by the en of ME3, that doesn't justify giving the base to Cerberus by any means, since:

-Even assuming everyone gets Reaper technology by the end of ME3, Cerberus would have had it from the end of ME2, and would have had more time to investigate it than other races/organizations.

-You don't know what Cerberus is going to do with it, since you're giving it in exchange for a "promise to help humanity".

Saying that Cerberus might help you or the alliance is a big fallacy and you're kidding yourself if you really believe that. We don't know. It's speculation.

- All that I know from the game is that Cerberus and the Illusive Man is not trustworthy, therefore I don't want to give them power.

-Is like what Salarians did with the Krogan to stop the Rachni. Altering "technological evolution". You know how well that worked.

"Given all of the above" is not an argument.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:06 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Name an organization or political entity in Mass Effect that isn't failing constantly.  It certainly isn't the bloody Systems Alliance or Citadel Council, there's sooo much fail to go around.  It's not the exclusive domain of Cerberus.

The Hegemony seems to be pulling its own weight pretty well, everything considering.

[upsettingshorts]

Hellbound555 wrote...

cerberus WILL misuse it.

I could just as easily say:

More people WILL die if you don't keep the base.

Neither of us actually knows.  Which is why the argument carries no weight. 

[Dave of Canada]

The Base is unnecessary, you blew it up.
Well, grats. You blew it up. How many lives could've been saved from the tech?

The Base is necessary, you blew it up.
Galaxy is doomed.

The Base is unnecessary, you kept it.
Everybody has Reaper tech from Reaper corpses anyway, the difference is that Cerberus managed to study it faster. Whether this makes a difference or not cannot be seen.

The Base is necessary, you kept it.
The galaxy is saved.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:41 .

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

cerberus WILL misuse it.

I could just as easily say:

More people WILL die if you don't keep the base.

Neither of us actually knows.  Which is why the argument carries no weight. 

They cross too many lines to get to their achievement. They kidnapped Jack, pumped her full of drugs just so they could make a biotic supersoldier. They tortured a man for every moment of his life until/if we got to rescue him so they could understand how a geth works. They brought back an extinct species for the expressed purpose of enslaving it.
too many lines crossed. They WILL misuse it.

[upsettingshorts]

Hellbound555 wrote...

They cross too many lines to get to their achievement.  They WILL misuse it.

I already responded to this argument in a previous post.  Your logic is the definition of circular.

[Dariuszp]

REPLAY TO MAIN TOPIC:
because ME sold nice so they need to quickly release ME2. But they didn't have idea for nice story so they create FILLER. Unimportant story about nothing (another great foe to kill and save the world). Filler is when after end ot if - nothing in main story change.
Now you can have ME2.... sorry... ME3 that will end this part of story.

If we can belive EA and Bioware - we can expect next ME games just like COD. Year after year same old crap. But before ME series will turn into COD crap, enjoy ME3. I hope they make it nice.

[upsettingshorts]

Arcian wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Name an organization or political entity in Mass Effect that isn't failing constantly.

The Illuminated Primacy.

Also:

Where's your data for that chart?

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Base is unnecessary, you blew it up.
Well, grats. You blew it up. How many lives could've been saved from the tech?

The Base is necessary, you blew it up.
Galaxy is doomed.

The Base is unnecessary, you kept it.
Everybody has Reaper tech from Reaper corpses anyway, the difference is that Cerberus managed to study it faster. Whether this makes a difference or not cannot be seen.

The Base is necessary, you kept it.
The galaxy is saved.

It won't be, because it wouldn't be much of a choice if the outcome of one side is that important to the plot.

Not to mention that the characters in the game, books and comics only loosely refers to it by just saying that they're salvaging it.

[Pulletlamer]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Base is unnecessary, you blew it up.
Well, grats. You blew it up. How many lives could've been saved from the tech?

How many lives could have been saved by blewing it up?

Dave of Canada wrote...
The Base is necessary, you blew it up.
Galaxy is doomed.

Do you think having the base for Cerberus and ONLY Cerberus to study it wouldn't prevent the galaxy of being "doomed"?
I'm sure Cerberus is going to do a Reaper tech giveaway on Friday's. Yeah.

Dave of Canada wrote...
The Base is unnecessary, you kept it.
Everybody has Reaper tech from Reaper corpses anyway, the difference is that Cerberus managed to study it faster. Whether this makes a difference or not cannot be seen.

There's no point in keeping it if it's unnecessary for humanity/other races. What we know is it's useful for the Reapers. Therefore, it's safer to destroy it.

Dave of Canada wrote..
The Base is necessary, you kept it.
The galaxy is saved.

As I said above, the only group who has access to it is cerberus, enough reason for me to destroy it. Since I don't think keeping it is automatic victory against the Reapers. Therefore, implying that by keeping it you save the galaxy is being a bit arrogant or pretending you know what is going to happen.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:51 .

[Homebound]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

They cross too many lines to get to their achievement.  They WILL misuse it.

I already responded to this argument in a previous post.  Your logic is the definition of circular.

Im not assuming either of those.

I can find better people.

the geth

the quarians

the rachni

the krogans

the alliance.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It won't be, because it wouldn't be much of a choice if the outcome of one side is that important to the plot.

So you mean this.

[Someone With Mass]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Name an organization or political entity in Mass Effect that isn't failing constantly.

The STG, the Alliance and the asari Justicars.

[upsettingshorts]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The STG, the Alliance and the asari Justicars.

The STG doesn't seem to fail, but they're a tool.  Justicars aren't an organization - that I can tell - or a political entity.

The Alliance fails all the damn time. 

Hellbound555 wrote...

Im not assuming either of those.

I can find better people.

That is an assumption. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:51 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...

So you mean this.

Weak excuse is weak.

[Someone With Mass]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Alliance fails all the damn time. 

I wouldn't call getting humanity a Council seat a failure.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

So you mean this.

Weak excuse is weak.

Thanks for proving to me that you're not looking for much discussion (again and again and again)?

Why do you even bother to come into the thread if you're going to be an ass?