Modifié par jedierick, 12 août 2011 - 08:48 .
Den of Delusions - The morality discussion topic
Débuté par
Kaiser Shepard
, juil. 30 2011 01:18
#2201
Posté 12 août 2011 - 08:48
jedierick
-
- Members
- 280 messages
Seems like we are getting a lot of this in this thread.
Retour en haut
#2202
Guest_HomelessGal_*
Posté 12 août 2011 - 08:51
Guest_HomelessGal_*
Guest_HomelessGal_*
-
- Guests
Sounds about right.
At this point I do think there's decent circumstantial evidence that Cerberus is recruiting their ME3 army with Indoctrination tech they've cobbled together thanks to the Collector base.
At this point I do think there's decent circumstantial evidence that Cerberus is recruiting their ME3 army with Indoctrination tech they've cobbled together thanks to the Collector base.
#2203
Posté 12 août 2011 - 09:28
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
When you are discussing anything with lotion that about sums it up.jedierick wrote...
Seems like we are getting a lot of this in this thread.
You would think after a week+ of saying the same thing we would be able to agree to disagree,but instead someone has to be right,and if you disagree with that you are wrong.
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 12 août 2011 - 09:42 .
#2204
Posté 12 août 2011 - 10:38
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
When you are discussing anything with lotion that about sums it up.jedierick wrote...
Seems like we are getting a lot of this in this thread.
You would think after a week+ of saying the same thing we would be able to agree to disagree,but instead someone has to be right,and if you disagree with that you are wrong.
We do agree that we disagree.
Except that I happen to be right.
And that you when confronted with a counter-argument just do this:
www.youtube.com/watch
Seems to be that after a week, you could have just left. Really, if it bothers you that much, what's keeping you here? If you get nothing better to do here then compain about me, then www.youtube.com/watch
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 août 2011 - 10:39 .
#2205
Posté 13 août 2011 - 12:44
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The fate of the galaxy hangs in the blance. What helps the most IS the most importnat merit, not arbitrary morality.
Your using a vastly subjective and emotional reasoning to justify your choice. Which would really be fine if the choice isn't really important of if Shep didn't have the respponsibiltiy he has. Shep that can't make hard choices has no place in N7 or Specters.
[/quote]
1. Choices while having a simple benefit vs, risk equation also have their own unique circumstances, if your using just the benefit vs, risk part of the equation to decide how to choose, then your actually not weigihing up the choice on its own merits but rather on a very basic level. Each choice doesn't have the same exact circumstances or the same criteria, to not weigh up the choice in total is possibly making a choice that's right for one reason and wrong for many others.
[quote]
And realising that you can work agaisnt it.
[/quote]
In as much as your nature allows you to, we're defined by our personality, some people are goal orientated so when faced with a situation they handle that situation in a different way than people who are not, its that simple.
[quote]
So you actually believe that?
That TIM lies to everyone in the organizationm, even high-reaking members like Miranda (and would she lise to you if you romanced her?). That everything Cerberus does, even if it ficts perfectly with their stated goals, is in reality some sinister gambit. How likely is all of that? OR is it more likely that you are simply wrong?
Occam's Razor.
If Cerberus was some real organization and you said something like that, people would label you as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
[/quote]
Miranda is an interesting point, considering in one playthrough she tells TIM to get stuffed when i destroy the base, then you could argue that she is in fact telling me the truth because i romanced her, but thats actually a seperate issue depending on how you play.
What i believe is that since its been shown that TIM will keep info from Shepard who's supposedly vital to what he's trying to do, why is it so hard to accept that he may do the same with others in the organisation.
To use your real world analogy, we're not talking about coca cola or apple (although how truthful they are would be a fun debate) we're talking in your own words about a black ops organisation, if blackwaters chief told a lie would you expect people working for blackwater to call him out on it or to agree that this was actually the truth.
Its only a conspiracy theory as you put it because of the nature of the organisation itself and because of TIM's own in game actions.
[quote]
What? You can't realy on your temmates? Anderson? Hackett?
Shep all alone in the galaxy????
Oh come now. Now you're just sounding incredibly self-absorbed.
[/quote]
In game who makes the choices, Anderson, Hackett, teamates or Shepard, the simple fact is that if you as Shepard don't make the choice then the choice isn't made, but again in a situation where i'm supposed to make a choice and that choice could have ramifications then its up to me when making that choice to consider those ramifications before i choose either way.
[quote]
What's the point? The point is that there IS a day after. I though that would be obvious.
As for you choice.. I can reasonably assume given the power seen by the reapers.
[/quote]
Again though your argument is based on an assumption that my choice precludes tomorrow from happening which it doesn't, your arguments still boil down to base must be kept because it stops the reapers so someone destroying the base has handed victory to the reapers, which is an assumption based on hope.
[quote]
Wait, so now you stopped arguing no tech may come of it?
MEh. All tech can have reprocussions in the wrong hands. Ceberus could have nuked cities all over the galaxy if it wanted (point a ship at the plannet, accelerate and get out)
And Cerberus got RESULTS. You keep talking about reseached killed, but progress was made in each case - and there were cases where everything went smoothly. So no matter if Cerberus messes up or does clean research - no matter if they share tech or not - once that knowledge has been gained, one way or antoher, it exists. If it exists it can be taken.
Can I be certain ther will be no fallout? no. Can you be certain there won't be fallout for saving the Racnii queen or helping the geth? No.
The potential fallout becomes oh-so-uber-importnat when taking about the CB, yet that same fallout becomes irrelevant when talking about other choices????
What I can be certain is that the chances of survival in a war agasint the reapers are near null.
[/quote]
I haven't stopped arguing that no tech may come from it, i've instead taken your point to a conclussion, your argument is that its a definite that tech will come from study of the base, so i've taken that argument and ran with it to prove a point.
Cerberus do get results, just not always good ones, considering the base in your argument could yield massive positives then the negatives it could yield could be massive also, your now arguing that even if the negatives happen there is a positive in the mere fact that the tech knowledge would exist and if it exists it can be taken, but again your assuming that the conditions to take the tech will defintely exist, something again you can't know.
The rachni queen or the geth or cerberus, each seperate and distinct choices which to prove a point you want to lump together as if they are all equivelent to the same thing which they are not, yes each have inherent positives and inherent dangers.
But when weighed up you can come to 3 different choices with 3 different reasonings why those choices are made in the way they are, your so tied into a cost vs, benefit line of thought that rather than decide each choice on any other merit or factor it in, you've convinced yourself that doing one a certain way means you must do all the same way, when it doesn't at all.
The potential fallout from the base becomes uber important because in the specific criteria involved in making that choice, your not just simply saying i trust cerberus so i let them live, but i trust them so much i hand them a base and that could have serious repurcussions.
We can be certain that the reapers will do x, what we can't be certain of is handing the base over to cerberus will prevent it.
[quote]
As I said, Cerberus gets results one way or antoehr. And that's what matters. And yes, that is hoisting the white flag.
You'd throw away the best chance at countering the reapers because you fear Cerberus.
And getting the IFF may be the only advantage you actually get, be we have seen that teh scientists did make journals and reports as they were beign indoctrianted. They have managed to find the IFF, which is in itself impressive.
Adn they did fine with EDI, which saved Sheppards ass in more than one occasion.
[/quote]
Again your back to your original bias which defines every single argument you make, the base is the best chance at countering the reapers is your Opinion, its not a fact, if it was then it becomes a completely different choice.
Those journals were so important, finding out that people were going through indoctrination, how ever would we have known otherwise.
They spent time on the reaper studying it, became indoctrinated and the only in game benefit we got was a schematic telling us where the iff (which we landed on the reaper looking for in the first place) was located.
[quote]
Again, I can REASONABLY presume.
Reapers are super-spaceships. Base was used to build a reaper. Hence why it's likely that tech related to inner workings and construction of reapers is the result. For example, reaper engines. Any starship needs them, and it stands to reason the base is also used to build those.
So yeah, I cna safely say that there are mroe likely and less likely products of the CB.
And I'm also explaning how that info/tech CAN be used. That Cerberus will give it is hte most reasonable course of action (if not, steal it)
And it's irony you're saying I'm making a chaise based on hope, when you're the one hoping based on NOTHING, just beliveing things will work out by themselves or that some Dus Ex Machina will fall into your lap.
At least the CB is somthing solid, something that can reasonably work.
What do you have?
[/quote]
I can reasonably assume that the base may not provide an advantage may actually give me a disadvantage because handing it to cerberus considering my understanding of them and their track record is a risk. Guess what both your assumptions and mine are based on an interpretation of how we saw things and could turn out to be wrong, i'm willing to accept that could be the case, your not.
You explained how hypothetical tech in a hypothetical situation could be used postively, i explained that this hypothetical tech may not be as positive as you hoped and in a different hypothetical situation could be used against us, again both of these are completely unknown and merely examples of a best and worst case sceanrio.
Your hoping that the base yields an advantage, hoping that cerberus are actually able to get to that advantage without any negatives or minimal negatives and then hoping that once they do they'll use that advantage for the purpose you believe, if thats not hope then what is.
You misunderstood my last comment, i wasn't suggesting i wasn't using hope also, rather i was stating that your perfectly entitled to hope for this outcome and i'm perfectly entitled to believe this outcome won't happen.
The collector base is something solid that can reasonably work in exactly the manner you think it can, its also something that could reasonably work in the manner i think it could, that's the basic difference, you believe the base contains something of importance, the benefits outweigh the risks, i believe otherwise, so if i believe otherwise then why should i place my hope in something i don't believe in.
You ask what do i have, i have the same as you, nothing, just hope that i'm making the right choice.
The base imo doesn't give me an advantage in fighting the reapers, so destroying it doesn't give me a disadvantage, the base in your opinion provides an advantage and keeping it doesn't place you at a disadvantage, in the end you claim i have nothing while you have the base, i claim the base is nothing so keeping it means nothing.
[quote]
No, the simple truth is that I have far more reasons to hope that you ever could.
Again, my hope is based on palatible, visible things. To take every resource we can, to follow every lead (so no, my entire faith isn't placed in the CB) and find a way to stop them.
The base isn't blind home - it really is the best chance we logicly have,
What you have is prayers. You admit you don't jknow of any other options., You PRESUME they exist with nothing to back it up. Not even probabiltiy.
[/quote]
Your hope is based on what could turn out to be a fallacy, that the base provides an advantage and that its only in studying the base that we can possibly find that advantage, you claim its a resource and that we follow every lead in order to find a way to stop them, then as usual you claim the base is logically the best chance we have.
The simple fact is that everything you base your argument on comes down to the same truth, that the base gives an advantage, if this truth turns out to be false then every other part of your argument fails.
I believe its false, you don't, in the end its really that simple.
I don't have any options that's true, but my argument is that neither do you, you continually claim that the base gives you that option, i disagree with that claim, if i'm right then your in exactly the same position as i am. You cannot accept though that you could be wrong, which blinds you to the realisation that if you are then your no better off than you claim i am.
[quote]
I'm willing to take risks, what i'm not willing to do is take what i believe are risks that make no sense to me.
I'm actually a mostly paragon player.
I don't even like Cerberus and TIM.. but I HATE people with redicolous reasoning that put their own self-righteousnesss ahead of everything.
I find the bolded part even more interesting ,as I seem to recall you clamied that both decisiosn were reasonable. And now the renegade one doesnt' make sense? Or was that again someone else and not you?
[/quote]
I'm actually surprised at the fact you say you play mostly paragon considering the nature of your arguments particularly in terms of the rachni queen.
But then you go an spoil it by once again saying that an argument that disagrees with you is riidicolous, your own bias or belief in your own arguments makes every argument ridicolous if it disagrees with you at some point.
You claim people put self righteousness ahead of everything and that's true some people do, but that's their choice, whether you like it or not, people are entitled to use whatever justification they wish to in making the choices they make.
As for the bolded part again your either mistaken my arguments with others or your completely misinterpreting them for some reason.
I have always claimed both choices were reasonable and nothing in what you bolded disputes this fact, if it doesn't make sense to me to take a certain risk then i won't take that risk, that doesn't preclude it from making sense to you or for you making a different choice and me understanding why you did it or me thinking its a reasonable one.
It just means that i would make a different one,
[quote]
It gave it a chance. But chance is a harsh mistress.
Better than staring blankly in the wall and doign nothing.
[/quote]
I believe the chance your taking is too big a risk so rather than take the same chance i eliminated that risk, Both of these are doing something, just not the same thing.
[quote]
There is no "don't have" resources. If a side in a war can't protect vital resources, it already lost.
And you protect what you deem important. If it turns out if wasn't..bummer. But that holds true for everything one deems importnat. You act on what you know or predict now.
[/quote]
If a side in war is fighting against a vastly superior force and is being overwhelmed then protecting vital resources may be out of its hands, that doesn't mean that defeat is inevitable, there is tactical retreating and regrouping and sometimes no matter how valuable a resource may be, the cost of protecting that resource may be one your unwilling or unable to protect.
Not to mention that in war sometimes the wrong tactical choices are made, sometimes resources are less important than moral victories, throughout the history of warfare, choices have been made were something strategically or resourcefully important was actually deemed less important than something of a symbolic value.
[quote]
the choice doesn't tell you ANYTHING that will happen after it. It doesn't tell you TIM will use it tu subjugate the universe, yet you seem to base the decision based on that possibility. So the possibiltiy for Shep to alter blow up the base is also a future possiblity.
[/quote]
The events that lead up to the choice may however which is why they can be factored into the choice itself, at no point do the events suggest that Shepard will have the opportunity to do as you say, so it cannot be factored in.
[quote]
Nah. But there's only way realy leading to there and spaceships really can't hide that well. A couple of scout sats or drone is all you need to give you a heads up. Ship, not even reapers, move instantly.
A 5-minute warning is all you would need.
And even assumign the reapers re-capture it..SO WHAT? On the reaper side, the CB would be completley irrelevant to their war effort.
[/quote]
And if they're quicker than you think and destroy those scouts or drones before they get a chance then your where exactly.
While the base may not be relevant to their war effort, what if it is? but even if it isn't you've lost ships that could be used elsewhere in order to protect something you may not be able to protect, so what exactly is the point in the first place.
[quote]
Well, maybe you shouldnt' be telling the scientists how to do their job? Indoctrination is definately a tough nut to crack, and it may require may sacrifices to finally understand it - but you really should do it. Indoctrination is the reapers most insidious weapon.
[/quote]
Indeed it is which was kinda the point i made, yes we need to understand it but we should try so with the least amount of risks to do so, repeating the same mistakes provides us with nothing we already don't know, so perhaps we should find a different way rather than keep repeating those mistakes.
[quote]
People are morons and put morons in power. They might be EMPOWERED to make choices, but hat doesn't mean that the majority would even agree with their decision. Or even know. Or even care.
Legitimacy is totally irrelevant.
We're talking about decisions that would be made in the midst of the galactic war of extinction.Do you really think the Asari leadership would shrink from abandoning the humans to the reapers, if they even for a second thought it would be in the best interest of hte Asari?
[/quote]
Legitimacy is relevant for the simple reason without that legitimacy you've got anarchy, not exactly the best basis for a combined effort against the reapers. Whether the people put in power are morons or not doesn't enter into it, they are still the legitimate power and the people who's directives have a legitimacy.
While the asari may indeed do as you claim,they are technically part of an overall galactic council who thus far have made choices based on a consensus, in a particular circumstance they may go out of that consensus as you suggest, but so far in game they have not, which is basically all you have to go on in terms of what they will do.
The fate of the galaxy hangs in the blance. What helps the most IS the most importnat merit, not arbitrary morality.
Your using a vastly subjective and emotional reasoning to justify your choice. Which would really be fine if the choice isn't really important of if Shep didn't have the respponsibiltiy he has. Shep that can't make hard choices has no place in N7 or Specters.
[/quote]
1. Choices while having a simple benefit vs, risk equation also have their own unique circumstances, if your using just the benefit vs, risk part of the equation to decide how to choose, then your actually not weigihing up the choice on its own merits but rather on a very basic level. Each choice doesn't have the same exact circumstances or the same criteria, to not weigh up the choice in total is possibly making a choice that's right for one reason and wrong for many others.
[quote]
And realising that you can work agaisnt it.
[/quote]
In as much as your nature allows you to, we're defined by our personality, some people are goal orientated so when faced with a situation they handle that situation in a different way than people who are not, its that simple.
[quote]
So you actually believe that?
That TIM lies to everyone in the organizationm, even high-reaking members like Miranda (and would she lise to you if you romanced her?). That everything Cerberus does, even if it ficts perfectly with their stated goals, is in reality some sinister gambit. How likely is all of that? OR is it more likely that you are simply wrong?
Occam's Razor.
If Cerberus was some real organization and you said something like that, people would label you as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
[/quote]
Miranda is an interesting point, considering in one playthrough she tells TIM to get stuffed when i destroy the base, then you could argue that she is in fact telling me the truth because i romanced her, but thats actually a seperate issue depending on how you play.
What i believe is that since its been shown that TIM will keep info from Shepard who's supposedly vital to what he's trying to do, why is it so hard to accept that he may do the same with others in the organisation.
To use your real world analogy, we're not talking about coca cola or apple (although how truthful they are would be a fun debate) we're talking in your own words about a black ops organisation, if blackwaters chief told a lie would you expect people working for blackwater to call him out on it or to agree that this was actually the truth.
Its only a conspiracy theory as you put it because of the nature of the organisation itself and because of TIM's own in game actions.
[quote]
What? You can't realy on your temmates? Anderson? Hackett?
Shep all alone in the galaxy????
Oh come now. Now you're just sounding incredibly self-absorbed.
[/quote]
In game who makes the choices, Anderson, Hackett, teamates or Shepard, the simple fact is that if you as Shepard don't make the choice then the choice isn't made, but again in a situation where i'm supposed to make a choice and that choice could have ramifications then its up to me when making that choice to consider those ramifications before i choose either way.
[quote]
What's the point? The point is that there IS a day after. I though that would be obvious.
As for you choice.. I can reasonably assume given the power seen by the reapers.
[/quote]
Again though your argument is based on an assumption that my choice precludes tomorrow from happening which it doesn't, your arguments still boil down to base must be kept because it stops the reapers so someone destroying the base has handed victory to the reapers, which is an assumption based on hope.
[quote]
Wait, so now you stopped arguing no tech may come of it?
MEh. All tech can have reprocussions in the wrong hands. Ceberus could have nuked cities all over the galaxy if it wanted (point a ship at the plannet, accelerate and get out)
And Cerberus got RESULTS. You keep talking about reseached killed, but progress was made in each case - and there were cases where everything went smoothly. So no matter if Cerberus messes up or does clean research - no matter if they share tech or not - once that knowledge has been gained, one way or antoher, it exists. If it exists it can be taken.
Can I be certain ther will be no fallout? no. Can you be certain there won't be fallout for saving the Racnii queen or helping the geth? No.
The potential fallout becomes oh-so-uber-importnat when taking about the CB, yet that same fallout becomes irrelevant when talking about other choices????
What I can be certain is that the chances of survival in a war agasint the reapers are near null.
[/quote]
I haven't stopped arguing that no tech may come from it, i've instead taken your point to a conclussion, your argument is that its a definite that tech will come from study of the base, so i've taken that argument and ran with it to prove a point.
Cerberus do get results, just not always good ones, considering the base in your argument could yield massive positives then the negatives it could yield could be massive also, your now arguing that even if the negatives happen there is a positive in the mere fact that the tech knowledge would exist and if it exists it can be taken, but again your assuming that the conditions to take the tech will defintely exist, something again you can't know.
The rachni queen or the geth or cerberus, each seperate and distinct choices which to prove a point you want to lump together as if they are all equivelent to the same thing which they are not, yes each have inherent positives and inherent dangers.
But when weighed up you can come to 3 different choices with 3 different reasonings why those choices are made in the way they are, your so tied into a cost vs, benefit line of thought that rather than decide each choice on any other merit or factor it in, you've convinced yourself that doing one a certain way means you must do all the same way, when it doesn't at all.
The potential fallout from the base becomes uber important because in the specific criteria involved in making that choice, your not just simply saying i trust cerberus so i let them live, but i trust them so much i hand them a base and that could have serious repurcussions.
We can be certain that the reapers will do x, what we can't be certain of is handing the base over to cerberus will prevent it.
[quote]
As I said, Cerberus gets results one way or antoehr. And that's what matters. And yes, that is hoisting the white flag.
You'd throw away the best chance at countering the reapers because you fear Cerberus.
And getting the IFF may be the only advantage you actually get, be we have seen that teh scientists did make journals and reports as they were beign indoctrianted. They have managed to find the IFF, which is in itself impressive.
Adn they did fine with EDI, which saved Sheppards ass in more than one occasion.
[/quote]
Again your back to your original bias which defines every single argument you make, the base is the best chance at countering the reapers is your Opinion, its not a fact, if it was then it becomes a completely different choice.
Those journals were so important, finding out that people were going through indoctrination, how ever would we have known otherwise.
They spent time on the reaper studying it, became indoctrinated and the only in game benefit we got was a schematic telling us where the iff (which we landed on the reaper looking for in the first place) was located.
[quote]
Again, I can REASONABLY presume.
Reapers are super-spaceships. Base was used to build a reaper. Hence why it's likely that tech related to inner workings and construction of reapers is the result. For example, reaper engines. Any starship needs them, and it stands to reason the base is also used to build those.
So yeah, I cna safely say that there are mroe likely and less likely products of the CB.
And I'm also explaning how that info/tech CAN be used. That Cerberus will give it is hte most reasonable course of action (if not, steal it)
And it's irony you're saying I'm making a chaise based on hope, when you're the one hoping based on NOTHING, just beliveing things will work out by themselves or that some Dus Ex Machina will fall into your lap.
At least the CB is somthing solid, something that can reasonably work.
What do you have?
[/quote]
I can reasonably assume that the base may not provide an advantage may actually give me a disadvantage because handing it to cerberus considering my understanding of them and their track record is a risk. Guess what both your assumptions and mine are based on an interpretation of how we saw things and could turn out to be wrong, i'm willing to accept that could be the case, your not.
You explained how hypothetical tech in a hypothetical situation could be used postively, i explained that this hypothetical tech may not be as positive as you hoped and in a different hypothetical situation could be used against us, again both of these are completely unknown and merely examples of a best and worst case sceanrio.
Your hoping that the base yields an advantage, hoping that cerberus are actually able to get to that advantage without any negatives or minimal negatives and then hoping that once they do they'll use that advantage for the purpose you believe, if thats not hope then what is.
You misunderstood my last comment, i wasn't suggesting i wasn't using hope also, rather i was stating that your perfectly entitled to hope for this outcome and i'm perfectly entitled to believe this outcome won't happen.
The collector base is something solid that can reasonably work in exactly the manner you think it can, its also something that could reasonably work in the manner i think it could, that's the basic difference, you believe the base contains something of importance, the benefits outweigh the risks, i believe otherwise, so if i believe otherwise then why should i place my hope in something i don't believe in.
You ask what do i have, i have the same as you, nothing, just hope that i'm making the right choice.
The base imo doesn't give me an advantage in fighting the reapers, so destroying it doesn't give me a disadvantage, the base in your opinion provides an advantage and keeping it doesn't place you at a disadvantage, in the end you claim i have nothing while you have the base, i claim the base is nothing so keeping it means nothing.
[quote]
No, the simple truth is that I have far more reasons to hope that you ever could.
Again, my hope is based on palatible, visible things. To take every resource we can, to follow every lead (so no, my entire faith isn't placed in the CB) and find a way to stop them.
The base isn't blind home - it really is the best chance we logicly have,
What you have is prayers. You admit you don't jknow of any other options., You PRESUME they exist with nothing to back it up. Not even probabiltiy.
[/quote]
Your hope is based on what could turn out to be a fallacy, that the base provides an advantage and that its only in studying the base that we can possibly find that advantage, you claim its a resource and that we follow every lead in order to find a way to stop them, then as usual you claim the base is logically the best chance we have.
The simple fact is that everything you base your argument on comes down to the same truth, that the base gives an advantage, if this truth turns out to be false then every other part of your argument fails.
I believe its false, you don't, in the end its really that simple.
I don't have any options that's true, but my argument is that neither do you, you continually claim that the base gives you that option, i disagree with that claim, if i'm right then your in exactly the same position as i am. You cannot accept though that you could be wrong, which blinds you to the realisation that if you are then your no better off than you claim i am.
[quote]
I'm willing to take risks, what i'm not willing to do is take what i believe are risks that make no sense to me.
I'm actually a mostly paragon player.
I don't even like Cerberus and TIM.. but I HATE people with redicolous reasoning that put their own self-righteousnesss ahead of everything.
I find the bolded part even more interesting ,as I seem to recall you clamied that both decisiosn were reasonable. And now the renegade one doesnt' make sense? Or was that again someone else and not you?
[/quote]
I'm actually surprised at the fact you say you play mostly paragon considering the nature of your arguments particularly in terms of the rachni queen.
But then you go an spoil it by once again saying that an argument that disagrees with you is riidicolous, your own bias or belief in your own arguments makes every argument ridicolous if it disagrees with you at some point.
You claim people put self righteousness ahead of everything and that's true some people do, but that's their choice, whether you like it or not, people are entitled to use whatever justification they wish to in making the choices they make.
As for the bolded part again your either mistaken my arguments with others or your completely misinterpreting them for some reason.
I have always claimed both choices were reasonable and nothing in what you bolded disputes this fact, if it doesn't make sense to me to take a certain risk then i won't take that risk, that doesn't preclude it from making sense to you or for you making a different choice and me understanding why you did it or me thinking its a reasonable one.
It just means that i would make a different one,
[quote]
It gave it a chance. But chance is a harsh mistress.
Better than staring blankly in the wall and doign nothing.
[/quote]
I believe the chance your taking is too big a risk so rather than take the same chance i eliminated that risk, Both of these are doing something, just not the same thing.
[quote]
There is no "don't have" resources. If a side in a war can't protect vital resources, it already lost.
And you protect what you deem important. If it turns out if wasn't..bummer. But that holds true for everything one deems importnat. You act on what you know or predict now.
[/quote]
If a side in war is fighting against a vastly superior force and is being overwhelmed then protecting vital resources may be out of its hands, that doesn't mean that defeat is inevitable, there is tactical retreating and regrouping and sometimes no matter how valuable a resource may be, the cost of protecting that resource may be one your unwilling or unable to protect.
Not to mention that in war sometimes the wrong tactical choices are made, sometimes resources are less important than moral victories, throughout the history of warfare, choices have been made were something strategically or resourcefully important was actually deemed less important than something of a symbolic value.
[quote]
the choice doesn't tell you ANYTHING that will happen after it. It doesn't tell you TIM will use it tu subjugate the universe, yet you seem to base the decision based on that possibility. So the possibiltiy for Shep to alter blow up the base is also a future possiblity.
[/quote]
The events that lead up to the choice may however which is why they can be factored into the choice itself, at no point do the events suggest that Shepard will have the opportunity to do as you say, so it cannot be factored in.
[quote]
Nah. But there's only way realy leading to there and spaceships really can't hide that well. A couple of scout sats or drone is all you need to give you a heads up. Ship, not even reapers, move instantly.
A 5-minute warning is all you would need.
And even assumign the reapers re-capture it..SO WHAT? On the reaper side, the CB would be completley irrelevant to their war effort.
[/quote]
And if they're quicker than you think and destroy those scouts or drones before they get a chance then your where exactly.
While the base may not be relevant to their war effort, what if it is? but even if it isn't you've lost ships that could be used elsewhere in order to protect something you may not be able to protect, so what exactly is the point in the first place.
[quote]
Well, maybe you shouldnt' be telling the scientists how to do their job? Indoctrination is definately a tough nut to crack, and it may require may sacrifices to finally understand it - but you really should do it. Indoctrination is the reapers most insidious weapon.
[/quote]
Indeed it is which was kinda the point i made, yes we need to understand it but we should try so with the least amount of risks to do so, repeating the same mistakes provides us with nothing we already don't know, so perhaps we should find a different way rather than keep repeating those mistakes.
[quote]
People are morons and put morons in power. They might be EMPOWERED to make choices, but hat doesn't mean that the majority would even agree with their decision. Or even know. Or even care.
Legitimacy is totally irrelevant.
We're talking about decisions that would be made in the midst of the galactic war of extinction.Do you really think the Asari leadership would shrink from abandoning the humans to the reapers, if they even for a second thought it would be in the best interest of hte Asari?
[/quote]
Legitimacy is relevant for the simple reason without that legitimacy you've got anarchy, not exactly the best basis for a combined effort against the reapers. Whether the people put in power are morons or not doesn't enter into it, they are still the legitimate power and the people who's directives have a legitimacy.
While the asari may indeed do as you claim,they are technically part of an overall galactic council who thus far have made choices based on a consensus, in a particular circumstance they may go out of that consensus as you suggest, but so far in game they have not, which is basically all you have to go on in terms of what they will do.
#2206
Posté 13 août 2011 - 01:06
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
I stay because I love watching you use fallacy to argue logic,and say whatever you have to say to make yourself seem right,and I enjoy alperez tearing you down just for you to say nah uh
#2207
Posté 13 août 2011 - 11:24
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
[quote]alperez wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The fate of the galaxy hangs in the blance. What helps the most IS the most importnat merit, not arbitrary morality.
Your using a vastly subjective and emotional reasoning to justify your choice. Which would really be fine if the choice isn't really important of if Shep didn't have the respponsibiltiy he has. Shep that can't make hard choices has no place in N7 or Specters.
[/quote]
1. Choices while having a simple benefit vs, risk equation also have their own unique circumstances, if your using just the benefit vs, risk part of the equation to decide how to choose, then your actually not weigihing up the choice on its own merits but rather on a very basic level. Each choice doesn't have the same exact circumstances or the same criteria, to not weigh up the choice in total is possibly making a choice that's right for one reason and wrong for many others.[/quote]
I never said everything else should be totaly ignored, but the prime argument should be cost/benefit.
Why? Because it's the only logical thing to do.
Circumstances may be somewhat different, but the overall circumstanaces of the GALAXY remain the same - reapers are coming, we need every ounce of strength we can muster. That doesn't change.
There is only one reasons you should be worried about getting right. Because if you don't, all the other reasons may end up not mattering anyway.
[quote][quote]
And realising that you can work agaisnt it.
[/quote]
In as much as your nature allows you to, we're defined by our personality, some people are goal orientated so when faced with a situation they handle that situation in a different way than people who are not, its that simple.[/quote]
And again, if you know this, you can conciously work with it. I dont' know what your nature is, but my nature gives me a lot of leevy.
[quote][quote]
So you actually believe that?
That TIM lies to everyone in the organizationm, even high-reaking members like Miranda (and would she lise to you if you romanced her?). That everything Cerberus does, even if it ficts perfectly with their stated goals, is in reality some sinister gambit. How likely is all of that? OR is it more likely that you are simply wrong?
Occam's Razor.
If Cerberus was some real organization and you said something like that, people would label you as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
[/quote]
Miranda is an interesting point, considering in one playthrough she tells TIM to get stuffed when i destroy the base, then you could argue that she is in fact telling me the truth because i romanced her, but thats actually a seperate issue depending on how you play.
What i believe is that since its been shown that TIM will keep info from Shepard who's supposedly vital to what he's trying to do, why is it so hard to accept that he may do the same with others in the organisation.
To use your real world analogy, we're not talking about coca cola or apple (although how truthful they are would be a fun debate) we're talking in your own words about a black ops organisation, if blackwaters chief told a lie would you expect people working for blackwater to call him out on it or to agree that this was actually the truth.
Its only a conspiracy theory as you put it because of the nature of the organisation itself and because of TIM's own in game actions.[/quote]
So it is a conspiracy theory. You're gunning for a less kiley scenario. Not even in blackwater or any other organization does the man in chage lie to everyone. It's interesting oyu belive that he should lead an organization for 20 years and nobody noticing anything? Given that everything he did is in line with the stated goal and "party line", are you telling me he spent 20 years doing nothing but acting? That all of that was just so that he could trick Sheppard?
Crazy, crazy theory.
[quote][quote]
What? You can't realy on your temmates? Anderson? Hackett?
Shep all alone in the galaxy????
Oh come now. Now you're just sounding incredibly self-absorbed.
[/quote]
In game who makes the choices, Anderson, Hackett, teamates or Shepard, the simple fact is that if you as Shepard don't make the choice then the choice isn't made, but again in a situation where i'm supposed to make a choice and that choice could have ramifications then its up to me when making that choice to consider those ramifications before i choose either way.[/quote]
What are you talking about? The teamates are with you. You're again metagaming here with the "only Shep makes choices. With shep dead, universe dies"
No..Just no. Shep makes a choice, but he's not the only one in the galaxy. Assuming Shep died, others will be left behind. They will continue their lives wihout Shep. Tehy will do their job without Shep.
Do you think Anderson or the others will just give up is Hep dies? That if Cerberus tries something, they'll do nothing?
And why not use that line of reasoning for the others? Hell, the Geth and Rachnii - if they turn on you and Shep isn'tthere, who's gonan stop them? Better make sure they aren't a danger then!
Your argument is laughable..
[quote][quote]
What's the point? The point is that there IS a day after. I though that would be obvious.
As for you choice.. I can reasonably assume given the power seen by the reapers.
[/quote]
Again though your argument is based on an assumption that my choice precludes tomorrow from happening which it doesn't, your arguments still boil down to base must be kept because it stops the reapers so someone destroying the base has handed victory to the reapers, which is an assumption based on hope.[/quote]
It is an assumption based on reason.
a) Reaper are super-powerfull
Galaxy has almost no hope of survival agaisnt them
c) Base CAN close/reduce the technological cap between us
d) We have no other plans, not even a idea, on how to beat them
I can't say that it's 100% sure you'll doom the galaxy, but for all practical intents are purposes, our chances of survival are so low, it might as well be 100%.
I already shown that even with a relatively low number of reapers (2000), with a simple strategy they could eradicate everything.
[quote][quote]
Wait, so now you stopped arguing no tech may come of it?
MEh. All tech can have reprocussions in the wrong hands. Ceberus could have nuked cities all over the galaxy if it wanted (point a ship at the planet, accelerate and get out)
And Cerberus got RESULTS. You keep talking about reseached killed, but progress was made in each case - and there were cases where everything went smoothly. So no matter if Cerberus messes up or does clean research - no matter if they share tech or not - once that knowledge has been gained, one way or antoher, it exists. If it exists it can be taken.
Can I be certain ther will be no fallout? no. Can you be certain there won't be fallout for saving the Racnii queen or helping the geth? No.
The potential fallout becomes oh-so-uber-importnat when taking about the CB, yet that same fallout becomes irrelevant when talking about other choices????
What I can be certain is that the chances of survival in a war agasint the reapers are near null.
[/quote]
I haven't stopped arguing that no tech may come from it, i've instead taken your point to a conclussion, your argument is that its a definite that tech will come from study of the base, so i've taken that argument and ran with it to prove a point.
Cerberus do get results, just not always good ones, considering the base in your argument could yield massive positives then the negatives it could yield could be massive also, your now arguing that even if the negatives happen there is a positive in the mere fact that the tech knowledge would exist and if it exists it can be taken, but again your assuming that the conditions to take the tech will defintely exist, something again you can't know.
The rachni queen or the geth or cerberus, each seperate and distinct choices which to prove a point you want to lump together as if they are all equivelent to the same thing which they are not, yes each have inherent positives and inherent dangers.[/quote]
The benefit of the positives outweighs the danger of the negatives.
The nagatives it yields cannot be as massiev as the positive, by the mere fact that the positives would be used by everyone, hence effectively multiplying them. Any negatives would be used by cerberus only. If Cerberus invents a ship gun that is 3 times as powerful, it will be of little use to them if they (unlikely) turn against the rest of the galaxy.
Yet that same cannon, distributed among the fleet, culd make all the difference in the battle agasint the repaers.
[quote]
But when weighed up you can come to 3 different choices with 3 different reasonings why those choices are made in the way they are, your so tied into a cost vs, benefit line of thought that rather than decide each choice on any other merit or factor it in, you've convinced yourself that doing one a certain way means you must do all the same way, when it doesn't at all.[/quote]
It does. You can - as far as I'm coincerend - let hte Rachnii queen go because you like red, and she is red. And that is the most important factor in your decision. If you value that factor more than anything else, then that choice would be "right" by you. Doesn't change the fact that it's exceptionally stupid.
Yes, you can make a choice based on prioritising any factor. But the choice of hte factor itself is critical here. Survival of the galaxy as a factor trumps everything else.
[quote]
The potential fallout from the base becomes uber important because in the specific criteria involved in making that choice, your not just simply saying i trust cerberus so i let them live, but i trust them so much i hand them a base and that could have serious repurcussions.[/quote]
And rachni and geth choices cna have uber-important reprocussions that do MORE harm than cerberus choice. And yet you keep ignoring that, again and again. you have double-standards and are clearly showing them here, because you only keep focusing only on the CB potential negatives.
[quote]
We can be certain that the reapers will do x, what we can't be certain of is handing the base over to cerberus will prevent it.[/quote]
We can say it has a high probablity of helping.
[quote]
Again your back to your original bias which defines every single argument you make, the base is the best chance at countering the reapers is your Opinion, its not a fact, if it was then it becomes a completely different choice.[/quote]
No, tiu's actually a fact. It's the base chance we have. If you know of a better chance, lert's hear it. I dare you to name another way you think superior.
[quote]
They spent time on the reaper studying it, became indoctrinated and the only in game benefit we got was a schematic telling us where the iff (which we landed on the reaper looking for in the first place) was located.[/quote]
Do you have a point there?
As I already told you, their job was to locate the IFF. And they did it.
And to locate it they had to look trough the reaper (2km long spaceship, a MASSIVE volume ot cover), analyze and detemine the function of various devices they came across, to identifythe IFF.
Or do you think each reper device is labeled in bright colorfull letters and comes with an instructon book?
[quote][quote]
Again, I can REASONABLY presume.
Reapers are super-spaceships. Base was used to build a reaper. Hence why it's likely that tech related to inner workings and construction of reapers is the result. For example, reaper engines. Any starship needs them, and it stands to reason the base is also used to build those.
So yeah, I cna safely say that there are mroe likely and less likely products of the CB.
And I'm also explaning how that info/tech CAN be used. That Cerberus will give it is hte most reasonable course of action (if not, steal it)
And it's irony you're saying I'm making a chaise based on hope, when you're the one hoping based on NOTHING, just beliveing things will work out by themselves or that some Dus Ex Machina will fall into your lap.
At least the CB is somthing solid, something that can reasonably work.
What do you have?
[/quote]
I can reasonably assume that the base may not provide an advantage may actually give me a disadvantage because handing it to cerberus considering my understanding of them and their track record is a risk. Guess what both your assumptions and mine are based on an interpretation of how we saw things and could turn out to be wrong, i'm willing to accept that could be the case, your not.
You explained how hypothetical tech in a hypothetical situation could be used postively, i explained that this hypothetical tech may not be as positive as you hoped and in a different hypothetical situation could be used against us, again both of these are completely unknown and merely examples of a best and worst case sceanrio.
Your hoping that the base yields an advantage, hoping that cerberus are actually able to get to that advantage without any negatives or minimal negatives and then hoping that once they do they'll use that advantage for the purpose you believe, if thats not hope then what is.[/quote]
No. You're utterly wrong.
Your presumptions are based on things that have a redicolously low chance of happening and things that have no chance of happing at all.
I explaned to you how most of the hypotheticla discoveries CANNOT be used agaisnt the galaxy in the same vein as agasint the reapers. Half of hte discoveries, in order ot be effective, require resources and cooperation from other races.
That the base yields an advantage is a high probability - it's after all a reaper shipyards, so it should be brimming with usefull tech.
Cerberus sharing the tech is again, a high probability - they have done it before and it's in their best interest, in the interest of the surival of the galaxy and humanity.
There's a high probabiltiy that Cerberus will get that advantage, because Cerberus has a track record of gettign results (even if killing scientists in the process)
In short, the CB CAN work, a
[quote]
The collector base is something solid that can reasonably work in exactly the manner you think it can, its also something that could reasonably work in the manner i think it could, that's the basic difference, you believe the base contains something of importance, the benefits outweigh the risks, i believe otherwise, so if i believe otherwise then why should i place my hope in something i don't believe in.[/quote]
Becasue the base is somethig that exists and can reasonably work.
Hopeing in another deus ex machine is something that doesn't an cannot be even gauged as probable. You could just as well hope a anit-reper cannon would materialze out of thin air in front of you. It's the same thing. Youre' hoping something would come out OUT OF NOTHING. Ther's nothing to base that hope on, other than wishfull thinking.
[quote]
You ask what do i have, i have the same as you, nothing, just hope that i'm making the right choice.[/quote]
No, you have less.
You base your hope and expectations on nothing. There's nothing that even tells you what you're hoping for may even happe or even exist.
[quote][quote]
No, the simple truth is that I have far more reasons to hope that you ever could.
Again, my hope is based on palatible, visible things. To take every resource we can, to follow every lead (so no, my entire faith isn't placed in the CB) and find a way to stop them.
The base isn't blind home - it really is the best chance we logicly have,
What you have is prayers. You admit you don't know of any other options., You PRESUME they exist with nothing to back it up. Not even probabiltiy.
[/quote]
Your hope is based on what could turn out to be a fallacy, that the base provides an advantage and that its only in studying the base that we can possibly find that advantage, you claim its a resource and that we follow every lead in order to find a way to stop them, then as usual you claim the base is logically the best chance we have.
The simple fact is that everything you base your argument on comes down to the same truth, that the base gives an advantage, if this truth turns out to be false then every other part of your argument fails.
I believe its false, you don't, in the end its really that simple.
I don't have any options that's true, but my argument is that neither do you, you continually claim that the base gives you that option, i disagree with that claim, if i'm right then your in exactly the same position as i am. You cannot accept though that you could be wrong, which blinds you to the realisation that if you are then your no better off than you claim i am.[/quote]
The base COUOLD end up not turning anything in time. It's a low probabiltiy, but it could happen. That doesn't make it a falacy.
It's a game of probablity, or what CAN happen, what COULD happen and what you reasonably CANNOT expect ot happen.
Again, it's something palatiple and reasonable - you admit it yourself, as you accept that the base might yield something critical. I'm basing my hope on something I KNOW can reasonably happen (and have a good chance of happening).
Yet you, while having no other plan, no alternative to the CB, belive something ELSE will turn up. What that something else is? You don't know. How and when it would tun up? You don't know.
On what do you base this belief? Nothing.
Even if I end up being wrong and the base turing out nothing, it was still a choice based on more reason and better foundations and with mroe chancess of working than your blind hope in *something*.
[quote]
I'm willing to take risks, what i'm not willing to do is take what i believe are risks that make no sense to me.
I'm actually a mostly paragon player.
I don't even like Cerberus and TIM.. but I HATE people with redicolous reasoning that put their own self-righteousnesss ahead of everything.
[/quote]
I'm actually surprised at the fact you say you play mostly paragon considering the nature of your arguments particularly in terms of the rachni queen.[/quote]
I actually spared her in my playtrough. But if one cannot distance oneself from one's choice and play the devlis advocate, then one really is biased as he shuts himself from the opposite view.
[quote]
You claim people put self righteousness ahead of everything and that's true some people do, but that's their choice, whether you like it or not, people are entitled to use whatever justification they wish to in making the choices they make.[/quote]
When did I ever said peopel aren't entilted to use whatever justification they want?
[quote]
If a side in war is fighting against a vastly superior force and is being overwhelmed then protecting vital resources may be out of its hands, that doesn't mean that defeat is inevitable, there is tactical retreating and regrouping and sometimes no matter how valuable a resource may be, the cost of protecting that resource may be one your unwilling or unable to protect.[/quote]
Hence, priorities.
[quote][quote]
the choice doesn't tell you ANYTHING that will happen after it. It doesn't tell you TIM will use it tu subjugate the universe, yet you seem to base the decision based on that possibility. So the possibiltiy for Shep to alter blow up the base is also a future possiblity.
[/quote]
The events that lead up to the choice may however which is why they can be factored into the choice itself, at no point do the events suggest that Shepard will have the opportunity to do as you say, so it cannot be factored in.[/quote]
and at no point do the events say TIM will conquer the universe either.
[quote]
Nah. But there's only way realy leading to there and spaceships really can't hide that well. A couple of scout sats or drone is all you need to give you a heads up. Ship, not even reapers, move instantly.
A 5-minute warning is all you would need.
And even assumign the reapers re-capture it..SO WHAT? On the reaper side, the CB would be completley irrelevant to their war effort.
[/quote]
And if they're quicker than you think and destroy those scouts or drones before they get a chance then your where exactly.
While the base may not be relevant to their war effort, what if it is? but even if it isn't you've lost ships that could be used elsewhere in order to protect something you may not be able to protect, so what exactly is the point in the first place.
[quote]
As I said before, reapers are big and fast, but still limited by being warships in space. If a scout is destroyed, the second you loose the signal you know something is up.
Again, 2 cruisers is a really small force, and if the races of the galaxy cannot spare that, then they are stupid.
AS for ships beign used elsewhere.You cna ALWAYSuse that argument anywhere. Why isnt' the Normandy on Earth, fighting?
[quote][quote]
Well, maybe you shouldnt' be telling the scientists how to do their job? Indoctrination is definately a tough nut to crack, and it may require may sacrifices to finally understand it - but you really should do it. Indoctrination is the reapers most insidious weapon.
[/quote]
Indeed it is which was kinda the point i made, yes we need to understand it but we should try so with the least amount of risks to do so, repeating the same mistakes provides us with nothing we already don't know, so perhaps we should find a different way rather than keep repeating those mistakes.[/quote]
Reapers are knowing down on aour door, speed is esential here. Slow and steady looses the race in this case.
You mention the least amount of risks, yet have no idea how to minimze them, and simply assume the same mistakes will be reepated.
Finding a different way is all nice and proper - if you can afford the time.
[quote][quote]
People are morons and put morons in power. They might be EMPOWERED to make choices, but hat doesn't mean that the majority would even agree with their decision. Or even know. Or even care.
Legitimacy is totally irrelevant.
We're talking about decisions that would be made in the midst of the galactic war of extinction.Do you really think the Asari leadership would shrink from abandoning the humans to the reapers, if they even for a second thought it would be in the best interest of hte Asari?
[/quote]
Legitimacy is relevant for the simple reason without that legitimacy you've got anarchy, not exactly the best basis for a combined effort against the reapers. Whether the people put in power are morons or not doesn't enter into it, they are still the legitimate power and the people who's directives have a legitimacy.
While the asari may indeed do as you claim,they are technically part of an overall galactic council who thus far have made choices based on a consensus, in a particular circumstance they may go out of that consensus as you suggest, but so far in game they have not, which is basically all you have to go on in terms of what they will do.
[/quote]
Anarchy is a small price to pay for surival.
In such cases, when extinction looms, legitimacy is not going to be that importnat to the people.
And here you are, telling us the Asari never went outside of the concensus (as far as you know anyway) and usign that as some kind of a pointer that tehy won't in the future either.
so when exactly did Cerberus attempt to eradicate all alines in the past? Hm..so far we havn't seen that. Well then, guess we have nothingto fear then!
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The fate of the galaxy hangs in the blance. What helps the most IS the most importnat merit, not arbitrary morality.
Your using a vastly subjective and emotional reasoning to justify your choice. Which would really be fine if the choice isn't really important of if Shep didn't have the respponsibiltiy he has. Shep that can't make hard choices has no place in N7 or Specters.
[/quote]
1. Choices while having a simple benefit vs, risk equation also have their own unique circumstances, if your using just the benefit vs, risk part of the equation to decide how to choose, then your actually not weigihing up the choice on its own merits but rather on a very basic level. Each choice doesn't have the same exact circumstances or the same criteria, to not weigh up the choice in total is possibly making a choice that's right for one reason and wrong for many others.[/quote]
I never said everything else should be totaly ignored, but the prime argument should be cost/benefit.
Why? Because it's the only logical thing to do.
Circumstances may be somewhat different, but the overall circumstanaces of the GALAXY remain the same - reapers are coming, we need every ounce of strength we can muster. That doesn't change.
There is only one reasons you should be worried about getting right. Because if you don't, all the other reasons may end up not mattering anyway.
[quote][quote]
And realising that you can work agaisnt it.
[/quote]
In as much as your nature allows you to, we're defined by our personality, some people are goal orientated so when faced with a situation they handle that situation in a different way than people who are not, its that simple.[/quote]
And again, if you know this, you can conciously work with it. I dont' know what your nature is, but my nature gives me a lot of leevy.
[quote][quote]
So you actually believe that?
That TIM lies to everyone in the organizationm, even high-reaking members like Miranda (and would she lise to you if you romanced her?). That everything Cerberus does, even if it ficts perfectly with their stated goals, is in reality some sinister gambit. How likely is all of that? OR is it more likely that you are simply wrong?
Occam's Razor.
If Cerberus was some real organization and you said something like that, people would label you as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
[/quote]
Miranda is an interesting point, considering in one playthrough she tells TIM to get stuffed when i destroy the base, then you could argue that she is in fact telling me the truth because i romanced her, but thats actually a seperate issue depending on how you play.
What i believe is that since its been shown that TIM will keep info from Shepard who's supposedly vital to what he's trying to do, why is it so hard to accept that he may do the same with others in the organisation.
To use your real world analogy, we're not talking about coca cola or apple (although how truthful they are would be a fun debate) we're talking in your own words about a black ops organisation, if blackwaters chief told a lie would you expect people working for blackwater to call him out on it or to agree that this was actually the truth.
Its only a conspiracy theory as you put it because of the nature of the organisation itself and because of TIM's own in game actions.[/quote]
So it is a conspiracy theory. You're gunning for a less kiley scenario. Not even in blackwater or any other organization does the man in chage lie to everyone. It's interesting oyu belive that he should lead an organization for 20 years and nobody noticing anything? Given that everything he did is in line with the stated goal and "party line", are you telling me he spent 20 years doing nothing but acting? That all of that was just so that he could trick Sheppard?
Crazy, crazy theory.
[quote][quote]
What? You can't realy on your temmates? Anderson? Hackett?
Shep all alone in the galaxy????
Oh come now. Now you're just sounding incredibly self-absorbed.
[/quote]
In game who makes the choices, Anderson, Hackett, teamates or Shepard, the simple fact is that if you as Shepard don't make the choice then the choice isn't made, but again in a situation where i'm supposed to make a choice and that choice could have ramifications then its up to me when making that choice to consider those ramifications before i choose either way.[/quote]
What are you talking about? The teamates are with you. You're again metagaming here with the "only Shep makes choices. With shep dead, universe dies"
No..Just no. Shep makes a choice, but he's not the only one in the galaxy. Assuming Shep died, others will be left behind. They will continue their lives wihout Shep. Tehy will do their job without Shep.
Do you think Anderson or the others will just give up is Hep dies? That if Cerberus tries something, they'll do nothing?
And why not use that line of reasoning for the others? Hell, the Geth and Rachnii - if they turn on you and Shep isn'tthere, who's gonan stop them? Better make sure they aren't a danger then!
Your argument is laughable..
[quote][quote]
What's the point? The point is that there IS a day after. I though that would be obvious.
As for you choice.. I can reasonably assume given the power seen by the reapers.
[/quote]
Again though your argument is based on an assumption that my choice precludes tomorrow from happening which it doesn't, your arguments still boil down to base must be kept because it stops the reapers so someone destroying the base has handed victory to the reapers, which is an assumption based on hope.[/quote]
It is an assumption based on reason.
a) Reaper are super-powerfull
Galaxy has almost no hope of survival agaisnt themc) Base CAN close/reduce the technological cap between us
d) We have no other plans, not even a idea, on how to beat them
I can't say that it's 100% sure you'll doom the galaxy, but for all practical intents are purposes, our chances of survival are so low, it might as well be 100%.
I already shown that even with a relatively low number of reapers (2000), with a simple strategy they could eradicate everything.
[quote][quote]
Wait, so now you stopped arguing no tech may come of it?
MEh. All tech can have reprocussions in the wrong hands. Ceberus could have nuked cities all over the galaxy if it wanted (point a ship at the planet, accelerate and get out)
And Cerberus got RESULTS. You keep talking about reseached killed, but progress was made in each case - and there were cases where everything went smoothly. So no matter if Cerberus messes up or does clean research - no matter if they share tech or not - once that knowledge has been gained, one way or antoher, it exists. If it exists it can be taken.
Can I be certain ther will be no fallout? no. Can you be certain there won't be fallout for saving the Racnii queen or helping the geth? No.
The potential fallout becomes oh-so-uber-importnat when taking about the CB, yet that same fallout becomes irrelevant when talking about other choices????
What I can be certain is that the chances of survival in a war agasint the reapers are near null.
[/quote]
I haven't stopped arguing that no tech may come from it, i've instead taken your point to a conclussion, your argument is that its a definite that tech will come from study of the base, so i've taken that argument and ran with it to prove a point.
Cerberus do get results, just not always good ones, considering the base in your argument could yield massive positives then the negatives it could yield could be massive also, your now arguing that even if the negatives happen there is a positive in the mere fact that the tech knowledge would exist and if it exists it can be taken, but again your assuming that the conditions to take the tech will defintely exist, something again you can't know.
The rachni queen or the geth or cerberus, each seperate and distinct choices which to prove a point you want to lump together as if they are all equivelent to the same thing which they are not, yes each have inherent positives and inherent dangers.[/quote]
The benefit of the positives outweighs the danger of the negatives.
The nagatives it yields cannot be as massiev as the positive, by the mere fact that the positives would be used by everyone, hence effectively multiplying them. Any negatives would be used by cerberus only. If Cerberus invents a ship gun that is 3 times as powerful, it will be of little use to them if they (unlikely) turn against the rest of the galaxy.
Yet that same cannon, distributed among the fleet, culd make all the difference in the battle agasint the repaers.
[quote]
But when weighed up you can come to 3 different choices with 3 different reasonings why those choices are made in the way they are, your so tied into a cost vs, benefit line of thought that rather than decide each choice on any other merit or factor it in, you've convinced yourself that doing one a certain way means you must do all the same way, when it doesn't at all.[/quote]
It does. You can - as far as I'm coincerend - let hte Rachnii queen go because you like red, and she is red. And that is the most important factor in your decision. If you value that factor more than anything else, then that choice would be "right" by you. Doesn't change the fact that it's exceptionally stupid.
Yes, you can make a choice based on prioritising any factor. But the choice of hte factor itself is critical here. Survival of the galaxy as a factor trumps everything else.
[quote]
The potential fallout from the base becomes uber important because in the specific criteria involved in making that choice, your not just simply saying i trust cerberus so i let them live, but i trust them so much i hand them a base and that could have serious repurcussions.[/quote]
And rachni and geth choices cna have uber-important reprocussions that do MORE harm than cerberus choice. And yet you keep ignoring that, again and again. you have double-standards and are clearly showing them here, because you only keep focusing only on the CB potential negatives.
[quote]
We can be certain that the reapers will do x, what we can't be certain of is handing the base over to cerberus will prevent it.[/quote]
We can say it has a high probablity of helping.
[quote]
Again your back to your original bias which defines every single argument you make, the base is the best chance at countering the reapers is your Opinion, its not a fact, if it was then it becomes a completely different choice.[/quote]
No, tiu's actually a fact. It's the base chance we have. If you know of a better chance, lert's hear it. I dare you to name another way you think superior.
[quote]
They spent time on the reaper studying it, became indoctrinated and the only in game benefit we got was a schematic telling us where the iff (which we landed on the reaper looking for in the first place) was located.[/quote]
Do you have a point there?
As I already told you, their job was to locate the IFF. And they did it.
And to locate it they had to look trough the reaper (2km long spaceship, a MASSIVE volume ot cover), analyze and detemine the function of various devices they came across, to identifythe IFF.
Or do you think each reper device is labeled in bright colorfull letters and comes with an instructon book?
[quote][quote]
Again, I can REASONABLY presume.
Reapers are super-spaceships. Base was used to build a reaper. Hence why it's likely that tech related to inner workings and construction of reapers is the result. For example, reaper engines. Any starship needs them, and it stands to reason the base is also used to build those.
So yeah, I cna safely say that there are mroe likely and less likely products of the CB.
And I'm also explaning how that info/tech CAN be used. That Cerberus will give it is hte most reasonable course of action (if not, steal it)
And it's irony you're saying I'm making a chaise based on hope, when you're the one hoping based on NOTHING, just beliveing things will work out by themselves or that some Dus Ex Machina will fall into your lap.
At least the CB is somthing solid, something that can reasonably work.
What do you have?
[/quote]
I can reasonably assume that the base may not provide an advantage may actually give me a disadvantage because handing it to cerberus considering my understanding of them and their track record is a risk. Guess what both your assumptions and mine are based on an interpretation of how we saw things and could turn out to be wrong, i'm willing to accept that could be the case, your not.
You explained how hypothetical tech in a hypothetical situation could be used postively, i explained that this hypothetical tech may not be as positive as you hoped and in a different hypothetical situation could be used against us, again both of these are completely unknown and merely examples of a best and worst case sceanrio.
Your hoping that the base yields an advantage, hoping that cerberus are actually able to get to that advantage without any negatives or minimal negatives and then hoping that once they do they'll use that advantage for the purpose you believe, if thats not hope then what is.[/quote]
No. You're utterly wrong.
Your presumptions are based on things that have a redicolously low chance of happening and things that have no chance of happing at all.
I explaned to you how most of the hypotheticla discoveries CANNOT be used agaisnt the galaxy in the same vein as agasint the reapers. Half of hte discoveries, in order ot be effective, require resources and cooperation from other races.
That the base yields an advantage is a high probability - it's after all a reaper shipyards, so it should be brimming with usefull tech.
Cerberus sharing the tech is again, a high probability - they have done it before and it's in their best interest, in the interest of the surival of the galaxy and humanity.
There's a high probabiltiy that Cerberus will get that advantage, because Cerberus has a track record of gettign results (even if killing scientists in the process)
In short, the CB CAN work, a
[quote]
The collector base is something solid that can reasonably work in exactly the manner you think it can, its also something that could reasonably work in the manner i think it could, that's the basic difference, you believe the base contains something of importance, the benefits outweigh the risks, i believe otherwise, so if i believe otherwise then why should i place my hope in something i don't believe in.[/quote]
Becasue the base is somethig that exists and can reasonably work.
Hopeing in another deus ex machine is something that doesn't an cannot be even gauged as probable. You could just as well hope a anit-reper cannon would materialze out of thin air in front of you. It's the same thing. Youre' hoping something would come out OUT OF NOTHING. Ther's nothing to base that hope on, other than wishfull thinking.
[quote]
You ask what do i have, i have the same as you, nothing, just hope that i'm making the right choice.[/quote]
No, you have less.
You base your hope and expectations on nothing. There's nothing that even tells you what you're hoping for may even happe or even exist.
[quote][quote]
No, the simple truth is that I have far more reasons to hope that you ever could.
Again, my hope is based on palatible, visible things. To take every resource we can, to follow every lead (so no, my entire faith isn't placed in the CB) and find a way to stop them.
The base isn't blind home - it really is the best chance we logicly have,
What you have is prayers. You admit you don't know of any other options., You PRESUME they exist with nothing to back it up. Not even probabiltiy.
[/quote]
Your hope is based on what could turn out to be a fallacy, that the base provides an advantage and that its only in studying the base that we can possibly find that advantage, you claim its a resource and that we follow every lead in order to find a way to stop them, then as usual you claim the base is logically the best chance we have.
The simple fact is that everything you base your argument on comes down to the same truth, that the base gives an advantage, if this truth turns out to be false then every other part of your argument fails.
I believe its false, you don't, in the end its really that simple.
I don't have any options that's true, but my argument is that neither do you, you continually claim that the base gives you that option, i disagree with that claim, if i'm right then your in exactly the same position as i am. You cannot accept though that you could be wrong, which blinds you to the realisation that if you are then your no better off than you claim i am.[/quote]
The base COUOLD end up not turning anything in time. It's a low probabiltiy, but it could happen. That doesn't make it a falacy.
It's a game of probablity, or what CAN happen, what COULD happen and what you reasonably CANNOT expect ot happen.
Again, it's something palatiple and reasonable - you admit it yourself, as you accept that the base might yield something critical. I'm basing my hope on something I KNOW can reasonably happen (and have a good chance of happening).
Yet you, while having no other plan, no alternative to the CB, belive something ELSE will turn up. What that something else is? You don't know. How and when it would tun up? You don't know.
On what do you base this belief? Nothing.
Even if I end up being wrong and the base turing out nothing, it was still a choice based on more reason and better foundations and with mroe chancess of working than your blind hope in *something*.
[quote]
I'm willing to take risks, what i'm not willing to do is take what i believe are risks that make no sense to me.
I'm actually a mostly paragon player.
I don't even like Cerberus and TIM.. but I HATE people with redicolous reasoning that put their own self-righteousnesss ahead of everything.
[/quote]
I'm actually surprised at the fact you say you play mostly paragon considering the nature of your arguments particularly in terms of the rachni queen.[/quote]
I actually spared her in my playtrough. But if one cannot distance oneself from one's choice and play the devlis advocate, then one really is biased as he shuts himself from the opposite view.
[quote]
You claim people put self righteousness ahead of everything and that's true some people do, but that's their choice, whether you like it or not, people are entitled to use whatever justification they wish to in making the choices they make.[/quote]
When did I ever said peopel aren't entilted to use whatever justification they want?
[quote]
If a side in war is fighting against a vastly superior force and is being overwhelmed then protecting vital resources may be out of its hands, that doesn't mean that defeat is inevitable, there is tactical retreating and regrouping and sometimes no matter how valuable a resource may be, the cost of protecting that resource may be one your unwilling or unable to protect.[/quote]
Hence, priorities.
[quote][quote]
the choice doesn't tell you ANYTHING that will happen after it. It doesn't tell you TIM will use it tu subjugate the universe, yet you seem to base the decision based on that possibility. So the possibiltiy for Shep to alter blow up the base is also a future possiblity.
[/quote]
The events that lead up to the choice may however which is why they can be factored into the choice itself, at no point do the events suggest that Shepard will have the opportunity to do as you say, so it cannot be factored in.[/quote]
and at no point do the events say TIM will conquer the universe either.
[quote]
Nah. But there's only way realy leading to there and spaceships really can't hide that well. A couple of scout sats or drone is all you need to give you a heads up. Ship, not even reapers, move instantly.
A 5-minute warning is all you would need.
And even assumign the reapers re-capture it..SO WHAT? On the reaper side, the CB would be completley irrelevant to their war effort.
[/quote]
And if they're quicker than you think and destroy those scouts or drones before they get a chance then your where exactly.
While the base may not be relevant to their war effort, what if it is? but even if it isn't you've lost ships that could be used elsewhere in order to protect something you may not be able to protect, so what exactly is the point in the first place.
[quote]
As I said before, reapers are big and fast, but still limited by being warships in space. If a scout is destroyed, the second you loose the signal you know something is up.
Again, 2 cruisers is a really small force, and if the races of the galaxy cannot spare that, then they are stupid.
AS for ships beign used elsewhere.You cna ALWAYSuse that argument anywhere. Why isnt' the Normandy on Earth, fighting?
[quote][quote]
Well, maybe you shouldnt' be telling the scientists how to do their job? Indoctrination is definately a tough nut to crack, and it may require may sacrifices to finally understand it - but you really should do it. Indoctrination is the reapers most insidious weapon.
[/quote]
Indeed it is which was kinda the point i made, yes we need to understand it but we should try so with the least amount of risks to do so, repeating the same mistakes provides us with nothing we already don't know, so perhaps we should find a different way rather than keep repeating those mistakes.[/quote]
Reapers are knowing down on aour door, speed is esential here. Slow and steady looses the race in this case.
You mention the least amount of risks, yet have no idea how to minimze them, and simply assume the same mistakes will be reepated.
Finding a different way is all nice and proper - if you can afford the time.
[quote][quote]
People are morons and put morons in power. They might be EMPOWERED to make choices, but hat doesn't mean that the majority would even agree with their decision. Or even know. Or even care.
Legitimacy is totally irrelevant.
We're talking about decisions that would be made in the midst of the galactic war of extinction.Do you really think the Asari leadership would shrink from abandoning the humans to the reapers, if they even for a second thought it would be in the best interest of hte Asari?
[/quote]
Legitimacy is relevant for the simple reason without that legitimacy you've got anarchy, not exactly the best basis for a combined effort against the reapers. Whether the people put in power are morons or not doesn't enter into it, they are still the legitimate power and the people who's directives have a legitimacy.
While the asari may indeed do as you claim,they are technically part of an overall galactic council who thus far have made choices based on a consensus, in a particular circumstance they may go out of that consensus as you suggest, but so far in game they have not, which is basically all you have to go on in terms of what they will do.
[/quote]
Anarchy is a small price to pay for surival.
In such cases, when extinction looms, legitimacy is not going to be that importnat to the people.
And here you are, telling us the Asari never went outside of the concensus (as far as you know anyway) and usign that as some kind of a pointer that tehy won't in the future either.
so when exactly did Cerberus attempt to eradicate all alines in the past? Hm..so far we havn't seen that. Well then, guess we have nothingto fear then!
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 13 août 2011 - 07:32 .
#2208
Posté 13 août 2011 - 11:24
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
I stay because I love watching you use fallacy to argue logic,and say whatever you have to say to make yourself seem right,and I enjoy alperez tearing you down just for you to say nah uh
Oh, how I love you little dellusions. You are funny. I needed that laugh. Thanks.
#2209
Posté 13 août 2011 - 03:26
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
If you cant say 100% blowing it will doom the galaxy,then why do you keep doing it?
"I can agree to disagree,but I happen to be right."-Lotion
Keep telling yourself you're the god of logic,just makes you look 12.
...Horrible spelling doesn't help your case either.
"I can agree to disagree,but I happen to be right."-Lotion
Keep telling yourself you're the god of logic,just makes you look 12.
...Horrible spelling doesn't help your case either.
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 13 août 2011 - 03:27 .
#2210
Posté 13 août 2011 - 07:26
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
If you cant say 100% blowing it will doom the galaxy,then why do you keep doing it?
Because I can say 99%.
"I can agree to disagree,but I happen to be right."-Lotion
Keep telling yourself you're the god of logic,just makes you look 12.
...Horrible spelling doesn't help your case either.
Keep on trollin.
Makes you look 1.
#2211
Posté 13 août 2011 - 07:32
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
If you would sir,please provide your source for 99% chance we lose without it.
Also,your 99% is an opinion,so yet again,not a fact.
Also,your 99% is an opinion,so yet again,not a fact.
#2212
Posté 13 août 2011 - 07:38
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
If you would sir,please provide your source for 99% chance we lose without it.
Also,your 99% is an opinion,so yet again,not a fact.
Given that it took the DA and 2 fleets to take out 1 reaper.... and there's thousands of them coming. The chances of survival for the galaxy are near nil.
You can try to debate this, but it's been already done in other threads, and no effective strategy or plan agaisnt even a small fleet of the reapers was produced.
#2213
Posté 13 août 2011 - 07:41
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Then do tell,what is the point of ME3?Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
If you would sir,please provide your source for 99% chance we lose without it.
Also,your 99% is an opinion,so yet again,not a fact.
Given that it took the DA and 2 fleets to take out 1 reaper.... and there's thousands of them coming. The chances of survival for the galaxy are near nil.
You can try to debate this, but it's been already done in other threads, and no effective strategy or plan agaisnt even a small fleet of the reapers was produced.
#2214
Posté 13 août 2011 - 07:51
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Incorrect. It took the Arcturus fleet, which lost about 6~7 cruisers IIRC, to take down sovereign. The DA and the citadel fleet were engaging the Geth outside of the Citadel, and only the Alliance had enough unengaged ships to push in on Sovereign.Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Given that it took the DA and 2 fleets to take out 1 reaper.... and there's thousands of them coming. The chances of survival for the galaxy are near nil.
#2215
Posté 13 août 2011 - 08:02
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Plenty of plans have been produced,you can't say they aren't effective because you have nothing to compare them to.
#2216
Posté 13 août 2011 - 08:45
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
If you would sir,please provide your source for 99% chance we lose without it.
Also,your 99% is an opinion,so yet again,not a fact.
Given that it took the DA and 2 fleets to take out 1 reaper.... and there's thousands of them coming. The chances of survival for the galaxy are near nil.
You can try to debate this, but it's been already done in other threads, and no effective strategy or plan agaisnt even a small fleet of the reapers was produced.
So let me get this straight the justificationyour using for being 99% right in claming not keeping the base means we lose, is it took a huge effort to defeat sovereign, so how exactly does this prove your argument?
All that statement proves is that it'll take an even larger effort in defeating the reapers, it proves absolutely nothing in regard to the base whatsoever.
Modifié par alperez, 13 août 2011 - 08:46 .
#2217
Posté 13 août 2011 - 08:59
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 561 messages
I fail to see how the Collector base can tip the balance if we're so vastly outnumbered.
Oh, we might get beam weapons, which the Reapers already have, or find a weak spot, which the Reapers can more than likely adapt to. Or find the plans on how to build one specific Reaper when they have several different shapes and weapons. Big whoop.
And we're handing them all to Cerberus, which I doubt will give the beneficial technolgy to everyone out there.
Oh, we might get beam weapons, which the Reapers already have, or find a weak spot, which the Reapers can more than likely adapt to. Or find the plans on how to build one specific Reaper when they have several different shapes and weapons. Big whoop.
And we're handing them all to Cerberus, which I doubt will give the beneficial technolgy to everyone out there.
Modifié par Someone With Mass, 13 août 2011 - 09:00 .
#2218
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:11
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Why do people keep bringing up the failed argument of 'The CB won't defeat the Reapers on its own, therefor it is pointless to keep it"?Someone With Mass wrote...
I fail to see how the Collector base can tip the balance if we're so vastly outnumbered.
Oh, we might get beam weapons, which the Reapers already have, or find a weak spot, which the Reapers can more than likely adapt to. Or find the plans on how to build one specific Reaper when they have several different shapes and weapons. Big whoop.
And we're handing them all to Cerberus, which I doubt will give the beneficial technolgy to everyone out there.
#2219
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:12
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
Before i reply yet again in the never ending cycle that myself and Lotion seem to be engaged in, i earlier decided to replay the SM and arrival and 2 things struck me in a different way than when i'd played them originally.
In arrival, your conversation with Harbinger at the end, Harbinger uses the line "your leaders will beg to serve us", which at the time seems just like typical Harbinger bluster, but is it actually supposed to be more than that, what if in fact what it's supposed to be is foreshadowing.
The sm itself and the choice to destroy or keep the base, people have always made a big deal about the team's seemingly schizophrenic reactions to what you do with the base, where they argue one way before you make the choice and another after it.
But when you analyse it a little further, what may be happening is pre making the choice we're getting a similar Rachni,council situation where teammates are simply offereing contrasting opinions.
Post SM what we may be getting though is an affirmation that you may have made the right choice, think of it like this why do teamates who support keeping the base actually change and say your wrong to do so, if that isn't really supposed to be the intent.
It could of course just be lazy writing on Bioware's part, but if that indeed is the case, does it not seem likely that at least some of your team would tell you destroying the base was wrong?
In arrival, your conversation with Harbinger at the end, Harbinger uses the line "your leaders will beg to serve us", which at the time seems just like typical Harbinger bluster, but is it actually supposed to be more than that, what if in fact what it's supposed to be is foreshadowing.
The sm itself and the choice to destroy or keep the base, people have always made a big deal about the team's seemingly schizophrenic reactions to what you do with the base, where they argue one way before you make the choice and another after it.
But when you analyse it a little further, what may be happening is pre making the choice we're getting a similar Rachni,council situation where teammates are simply offereing contrasting opinions.
Post SM what we may be getting though is an affirmation that you may have made the right choice, think of it like this why do teamates who support keeping the base actually change and say your wrong to do so, if that isn't really supposed to be the intent.
It could of course just be lazy writing on Bioware's part, but if that indeed is the case, does it not seem likely that at least some of your team would tell you destroying the base was wrong?
#2220
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:14
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
SandTrout wrote...
[Why do people keep bringing up the failed argument of 'The CB won't defeat the Reapers on its own, therefor it is pointless to keep it"?
Possibly because some people seem to continually bring up the failed argument that destroying the base dooms us to defeat, so by destroying it we're dooming the galaxy.
#2221
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:20
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
I agree with your analysis that the apparent 'schizophrenia' of your squad-mates is likely due to wanting to provide both sides of the argument to the player. To be honest, it actually annoys the ****** out of me that Miranda agrees with your decision to blow up the base, but is more critical if you kept it; most everyone else largely makes sense. This seems completely out of character to me considering she spent the entire game advertising for TIM and Cerberus. The obvious conclusion for me is that BioWare is telling Renegades that they screwed up. If true, I consider this poor form on the writer's part for feeling the need to gratify Paragons in such a manner.It could of course just be lazy writing on Bioware's part, but if that indeed is the case, does it not seem likely that at least some of your team would tell you destroying the base was wrong?
The alternate conclusion is that BioWare is setting Paragons up for a punch in the gut, which I would find quite humorous.
#2222
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:21
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Yeah, both of those arguments are pretty fail.alperez wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
[Why do people keep bringing up the failed argument of 'The CB won't defeat the Reapers on its own, therefor it is pointless to keep it"?
Possibly because some people seem to continually bring up the failed argument that destroying the base dooms us to defeat, so by destroying it we're dooming the galaxy.
#2223
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:23
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
...Exactly...but that won't stop he who shall not be named from using it.SandTrout wrote...
Yeah, both of those arguments are pretty fail.alperez wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
[Why do people keep bringing up the failed argument of 'The CB won't defeat the Reapers on its own, therefor it is pointless to keep it"?
Possibly because some people seem to continually bring up the failed argument that destroying the base dooms us to defeat, so by destroying it we're dooming the galaxy.
Also this is the 2222nd post. buahahahahaha.
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 13 août 2011 - 09:24 .
#2224
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:24
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
SandTrout wrote...
I agree with your analysis that the apparent 'schizophrenia' of your squad-mates is likely due to wanting to provide both sides of the argument to the player. To be honest, it actually annoys the ****** out of me that Miranda agrees with your decision to blow up the base, but is more critical if you kept it; most everyone else largely makes sense. This seems completely out of character to me considering she spent the entire game advertising for TIM and Cerberus. The obvious conclusion for me is that BioWare is telling Renegades that they screwed up. If true, I consider this poor form on the writer's part for feeling the need to gratify Paragons in such a manner.It could of course just be lazy writing on Bioware's part, but if that indeed is the case, does it not seem likely that at least some of your team would tell you destroying the base was wrong?
The alternate conclusion is that BioWare is setting Paragons up for a punch in the gut, which I would find quite humorous.
That's been my suspicion from the start, either that or they had different writers who had no contact with each other writing the dialogue for the CB and the Normandy aftermath.
As for setting up Paragons for a punch in the gut, that's just wishful thinking given Bioware's track record in ME2 of the ME1 imports.
#2225
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:26
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Yeah, I know.As for setting up Paragons for a punch in the gut, that's just wishful thinking given Bioware's track record in ME2 of the ME1 imports.
