3618 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePwener]

SandTrout wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

That person sent you, the player, into a trap on a Collector vessel just to get intel WITHOUT telling you they knew it was a trap.  I am pretty sure in the military they tell people everything they can prior to sending them off to board a vessel or some such thing.

You have just displayed ignorance of how the military works. I've been there, and they certainly would send a team into a known trap without telling them if they thought that they thought the risks and rewards balanced out.

Yeah, like when the US navy blew up one of it's own ships in Cuba and killed over 100 soldiers (most newbies as ALL the admirals were on "shore leave" for some reason.....). They then blamed Spain and went to war with them, but Spain said they didn't do it and surredered Puerto Rico to them (they couldn't win against the US). And that's the reason why PR is a US colony and why we have BK and KFC here. Totally worth it.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

What if those Drug Dealers represented a significant force that could be used against an alien invasion on Earth?

I agree that they are despicable people, but to allow more people to die b/c I was unwilling to work with someone is not moral, it is the abdication of reason and logic for dogma.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument.  And this is why Shepard worked for Cerberus in ME2.  But WORKING and TRUSTING are two different things.  Did I work with Cerberus?  Yes.  Do I trust Cerberus?  Hells No.

Do I trust them to use the CB responsibly?  No.  Do I trust them to share information with me?  No.  Do I trust they can hold the CB against the Reapers?  Do I trust they are even competent to work with Reaper tech and not get indoctrinated.... eh.  This is a bit debateable.  I'm gunna go with no.

For my Shepard it was a clear 'Eff you TIM!'

Did I do playthroughs where I kept the base?  Sure.  Can I see the pros for keeping it?  Sure.  Do I agree?  Again I say HELLS NO!

You and I are on the same page, my friend.

Heh.  'Friend.' 

Too bad you weren't with us a couple of pages ago... good times. 

Eh, what you gonna do? It's the internet. Spelling, I throw it out the window... sometimes.

Nah, nah, It's cool.  I live in Texas so spelling isn't a that big of a deal to me.

I was just talking about a joke somebody made a couple of pages ago.  Ignore me.  It's getting late over here...

[GreenDragon37]

Gregolian wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Gregolian wrote...

That person sent you, the player, into a trap on a Collector vessel just to get intel WITHOUT telling you they knew it was a trap.  I am pretty sure in the military they tell people everything they can prior to sending them off to board a vessel or some such thing.

You have just displayed ignorance of how the military works. I've been there, and they certainly would send a team into a known trap without telling them if they thought that they thought the risks and rewards balanced out.

Seems like a stupid idea but my point still stands.  How can you trust a guy with tech like what was at the Collector's Base if he does crap like that to you?  In the military, you basically have no choice...  in ME2, Shep was basically like a badass mercenary/James Bond that could make his own decisions.

Exactly. Shep has free-reign (for the most part) on his/her mission. Shep is like a freelancer. Mine wanted information while he delt with this group that he despised. He didn't want to be kept in the dark. If he was gonna work for TIM, he wanted info. TIM broke what little "trust" my Shep had, and it wasn't a lot to begin with.

[GreenDragon37]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

What if those Drug Dealers represented a significant force that could be used against an alien invasion on Earth?

I agree that they are despicable people, but to allow more people to die b/c I was unwilling to work with someone is not moral, it is the abdication of reason and logic for dogma.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument.  And this is why Shepard worked for Cerberus in ME2.  But WORKING and TRUSTING are two different things.  Did I work with Cerberus?  Yes.  Do I trust Cerberus?  Hells No.

Do I trust them to use the CB responsibly?  No.  Do I trust them to share information with me?  No.  Do I trust they can hold the CB against the Reapers?  Do I trust they are even competent to work with Reaper tech and not get indoctrinated.... eh.  This is a bit debateable.  I'm gunna go with no.

For my Shepard it was a clear 'Eff you TIM!'

Did I do playthroughs where I kept the base?  Sure.  Can I see the pros for keeping it?  Sure.  Do I agree?  Again I say HELLS NO!

You and I are on the same page, my friend.

Heh.  'Friend.' 

Too bad you weren't with us a couple of pages ago... good times. 

Eh, what you gonna do? It's the internet. Spelling, I throw it out the window... sometimes.

Nah, nah, It's cool.  I live in Texas so spelling isn't a that big of a deal to me.

I was just talking about a joke somebody made a couple of pages ago.  Ignore me.  It's getting late over here...

Hm, I live in Texas, too. Howdy!

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

That's not what I meant.
Not only are we losing the war on drugs, by your logic we should all become drug addicts. (Can't Beat 'Em, so Join 'Em).

No, my logic doesn't suggest that at all. You are taking your own analogy a little too literally.

The drug addicts are a symptom of drugs anyway, they are not the cause.

What I'm saying is we should join with the drug pushers and producers in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Namely, we let them sell legally and we put a tax on it.

The explicit reason that we are losing the "war" on drugs (which is as much a philosophical war as a physical war) is because of addiction.
True addicts will support the illegal drug industry, despite the consequences of using an illegal substance. So, legalizing drugs still wouldn't stop addiction. Er go,  if we can't beat addiction, we should all become addicted ourselves.

If you don't believe that, then you don't truly believe that if we can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[SandTrout]

@Humaniod_Typhoon

Meh, they claimed that the technical advances occurred in between ME1 and ME2. That disqualifies it from retcon status, and I just consider it a game mechanic though (like the biotic 'bolts' that act like physical objects), and largely ignore it for lore purposes, similar to ignoring space-ships making noise in sci-fi movies.

Seems like a stupid idea but my point still stands. How can you trust a guy with tech like what was at the Collector's Base if he does crap like that to you? In the military, you basically have no choice... in ME2, Shep was basically like a badass mercenary/James Bond that could make his own decisions.

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

SandTrout wrote...

@Humaniod_Typhoon

Meh, they claimed that the technical advances occurred in between ME1 and ME2. That disqualifies it from retcon status, and I just consider it a game mechanic though (like the biotic 'bolts' that act like physical objects), and largely ignore it for lore purposes, similar to ignoring space-ships making noise in sci-fi movies.

Seems like a stupid idea but my point still stands. How can you trust a guy with tech like what was at the Collector's Base if he does crap like that to you? In the military, you basically have no choice... in ME2, Shep was basically like a badass mercenary/James Bond that could make his own decisions.

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

What about that one dudes Jacob loyalty mission,they were there for 8+ years...I suppose this is just an isolated incident. Carry-on.

[Gregolian]

SandTrout wrote...

@Humaniod_Typhoon

Meh, they claimed that the technical advances occurred in between ME1 and ME2. That disqualifies it from retcon status, and I just consider it a game mechanic though (like the biotic 'bolts' that act like physical objects), and largely ignore it for lore purposes, similar to ignoring space-ships making noise in sci-fi movies.

Seems like a stupid idea but my point still stands. How can you trust a guy with tech like what was at the Collector's Base if he does crap like that to you? In the military, you basically have no choice... in ME2, Shep was basically like a badass mercenary/James Bond that could make his own decisions.

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

Just cause you want to save your own ass doesn't mean you care about anyone else though.

TMI had a very "After me you come first" air about him.  Whatever I can do to screw him over and protect as many people as possible the better.

[didymos1120]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

1. TIM still gains knowledge from the base- making my decision pointless.

2. Anderson steps down- again, making my decision pointless.

I consider Retribution and ME2 in the same "area".

Those are NOT retcons.   No: not even if they said that what you chose never happened.  Why? Because there's no established canon for those events.  If they do say "This is how it really happened for choice X" then all they've done is to define canon for that choice. You're free to dislike the hell out of that, but a retcon it is not. No, a retcon is when something that was already canon is later said to have happened differently or even that it never happened at all. Retroactive continuity.

[ThePwener]

Yay! Let's make child porno legal too! Oh wait, it already is in Japan! Hooray for worldwide decadence.

And people ask me why I am a nihilist.....

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

The explicit reason that we are losing the "war" on drugs (which is as much a philosophical war as a physical war) is because of addiction.

No, it is not a philosophical war. It is a very phyiscal war and we're losing because of a lack of support in other countries (namely South America), the inability of our police forces to take the necessary aggressive action, as well as a dirth of home-grown drugs.

It's just not worth fighting. It was a bad idea to ban them in the first place.

If made legal the drugs would be profitable and safer too.

Right.  Becuase meth and herion are very safe.  Carry on.

[ThePwener]

didymos1120 wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

1. TIM still gains knowledge from the base- making my decision pointless.

2. Anderson steps down- again, making my decision pointless.

I consider Retribution and ME2 in the same "area".

Those are NOT retcons.   No: not even if they said that what you chose never happened.  Why? Because there's no established canon for those events.  If they do say "This is how it really happened for choice X" then all they've done is to define canon for that choice. You're free to dislike the hell out of that, but a retcon it is not. No, a retcon is when something that was already canon is later said to have happened differently or even that it never happened at all. Retroactive continuity.

Feign ignorance is a serious issue didy, just look at what happened to Star Wars.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

didymos1120 wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

1. TIM still gains knowledge from the base- making my decision pointless.

2. Anderson steps down- again, making my decision pointless.

I consider Retribution and ME2 in the same "area".

Those are NOT retcons.   No: not even if they said that what you chose never happened.  Why? Because there's no established canon for those events.  If they do say "This is how it really happened for choice X" then all they've done is to define canon for that choice. You're free to dislike the hell out of that, but a retcon it is not. No, a retcon is when something that was already canon is later said to have happened differently or even that it never happened at all. Retroactive continuity.

Serious question here. So if they introduce a way to defeat the reaper it is not in-fact a retcon.
Which would mean...people throw the word at stuff they don't like.

[ThePwener]

Are we moving the thread? Okay then....

[Kaiser Shepard]

SandTrout wrote...

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

That, and his ability to do so without things backfiring in the usual Cerberus way. 70 to 100% casualties most certainly isn't acceptable this time.

[didymos1120]

ThePwener wrote...

Feign ignorance is a serious issue didy, just look at what happened to Star Wars.

It's called using words properly.  I didn't say I liked the notion of them overriding my choices or your choices or anyone's choices.  I said they aren't retcons because no canon has been established for these things.  It's really not that hard:

a. Bioware says "Udina was always the one picked for the Council."  Establishing canon.

b. Bioware says "Sovereign wasn't really a Reaper.  It really was a geth ship that just thought it was a Reaper." Retcon.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

That, and his ability to do so without things backfiring in the usual Cerberus way. 70 to 100% casualties most certainly isn't acceptable this time.

Yeah.  Competence is an issue.  As is an argrement on what is 'acceptible.'  Killing 50 marines just test the effictiveness of a big worm is not my idea of 'acceptible' rescource managment...

[dreman9999]

ThePwener wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

I didn't trust TIM with it, so I destroyed it. I don't make apologies for destroying it, I believe in what I did. However it's all irrelevant, TIM gets the tech regardless.

Ah, the almighty power of RETCON.

Retcon means unexplained events to counter pervious stated facts.
For one, Cerberus had reaper indoctrination tech from ME1.(The dragon's teeth.)
Also, nothing is stoping Cerberus from going back their and seeing what tech they can scrape up.(Even the shadow broker stated he want to take the normady's iff to see if he can find usable tach from the destoried base.)
....
You say Retcon..
I say pay attenion.

[ThePwener]

didymos1120 wrote...

no canon has been established

Wait until the movie comes out. Then this place will really get topsy turvy.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

That, and his ability to do so without things backfiring in the usual Cerberus way. 70 to 100% casualties most certainly isn't acceptable this time.

You what is kind of funny when people bring up the Cerberus success/failure rate the 3 successes(mostly were near misses) had no negative outcome (other then Shepard not being alive) they bring up Lazarus,EDI,and SR-2,two of those didn't have potentially galaxy shaking repercussions and their was pretty much no negative that could come from it,unlike their utter ****ups(Overlord)

[ThePwener]

dreman9999 wrote...

You say Retcon..
I say pay attenion.

You say pay attention
I say BW could have done better

[Sisterofshane]

SandTrout wrote...

@Humaniod_Typhoon

Meh, they claimed that the technical advances occurred in between ME1 and ME2. That disqualifies it from retcon status, and I just consider it a game mechanic though (like the biotic 'bolts' that act like physical objects), and largely ignore it for lore purposes, similar to ignoring space-ships making noise in sci-fi movies.

Seems like a stupid idea but my point still stands. How can you trust a guy with tech like what was at the Collector's Base if he does crap like that to you? In the military, you basically have no choice... in ME2, Shep was basically like a badass mercenary/James Bond that could make his own decisions.

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

i don't think it's that simple.  What if TIM's self survival technique is to become the very thing we are trying to fight?

It's more reasonable to assume that we would find evidence on building Reapers at the CB then evidence on how to destroy one.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Sisterofshane wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

@Humaniod_Typhoon

Meh, they claimed that the technical advances occurred in between ME1 and ME2. That disqualifies it from retcon status, and I just consider it a game mechanic though (like the biotic 'bolts' that act like physical objects), and largely ignore it for lore purposes, similar to ignoring space-ships making noise in sci-fi movies.

Seems like a stupid idea but my point still stands. How can you trust a guy with tech like what was at the Collector's Base if he does crap like that to you? In the military, you basically have no choice... in ME2, Shep was basically like a badass mercenary/James Bond that could make his own decisions.

You don't need to trust him in any general sense. All you need to do is have faith in TIM's desire to save his own butt.

i don't think it's that simple.  What if TIM's self survival technique is to become the very thing we are trying to fight?

It's more reasonable to assume that we would find evidence on building Reapers at the CB then evidence on how to destroy one.

*TIM turns himself into a reaper*

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1!!!!!!111!!