SandTrout wrote...
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.
Would have been awesome though.
Den of Delusions - The morality discussion topic
Débuté par
Kaiser Shepard
, juil. 30 2011 01:18
#2226
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:27
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
Would have been awesome though.
Retour en haut
#2227
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:28
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Upon further review there are some paragon choice I might retcon with saveditor,saving the council only gets you airqouted and possibly your specter status,which doesn't help you in the slightest unless you're a renegade on Thanes LM, But I stand by my blowing up the CB.Seboist wrote...
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.
#2228
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:30
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 561 messages
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.
Yeah. That.
#2229
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:41
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
Sandtrout
Miranda's part to me almost makes it seem like theres a missing scene somewhere, that somewhere along the line something was supposed to happen to make her question cerberus more, which if included would make her sudden turn make more sense.
It's almost as if they in her character arc had another conversation or another event that changes her opinions, but for whatever reason it never made it into the game.
Its actually even more evident in her resignation which at least attempts to provide some reason why she may feel how she does about the base.
Miranda's part to me almost makes it seem like theres a missing scene somewhere, that somewhere along the line something was supposed to happen to make her question cerberus more, which if included would make her sudden turn make more sense.
It's almost as if they in her character arc had another conversation or another event that changes her opinions, but for whatever reason it never made it into the game.
Its actually even more evident in her resignation which at least attempts to provide some reason why she may feel how she does about the base.
#2230
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:44
sael_feman
-
- Members
- 317 messages
It's hard to tell. My feeling is sometimes in war a sacrifices must be made to ensure a greater victory.
In world war 2 the UK government allowed the bombing of Coventry, even though they knew from intelligence that it was a target. Why? because protecting the secret of the German enigma code took priority.
In ME2 and consequently ME3 it may be that keeping the human-reaper technology would have been beneficial, but as Cerberus is fighting Shepherd in some storylines of ME3 (presumably not others), little good could come from posessing technology based on kidnapped tortured and killed humans.
Shepherd may have to sacrifice systems, planets or people if he is going to defeat the reapers, as he did in the Arrival dlc. Such decisions must be made in epic war because no victory can be a perfect victory kills XXX losses 0.
There are strong parallels between the Mass Effect series and the second world war, it's worth exploring further.
In world war 2 the UK government allowed the bombing of Coventry, even though they knew from intelligence that it was a target. Why? because protecting the secret of the German enigma code took priority.
In ME2 and consequently ME3 it may be that keeping the human-reaper technology would have been beneficial, but as Cerberus is fighting Shepherd in some storylines of ME3 (presumably not others), little good could come from posessing technology based on kidnapped tortured and killed humans.
Shepherd may have to sacrifice systems, planets or people if he is going to defeat the reapers, as he did in the Arrival dlc. Such decisions must be made in epic war because no victory can be a perfect victory kills XXX losses 0.
There are strong parallels between the Mass Effect series and the second world war, it's worth exploring further.
Modifié par sael_feman, 13 août 2011 - 09:45 .
#2231
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:45
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
]Upon further review there are some paragon choice I might retcon with saveditor,saving the council only gets you airqouted and possibly your specter status,which doesn't help you in the slightest unless you're a renegade on Thanes LM, But I stand by my blowing up the CB.
The problem with the saving the council outcome is that as of yet its not really a known thing, it looks like all the advantage you get is simply the spectre status being returned, but you do also get a slightly different impression of humanity also, which could turn out to be important.
Modifié par alperez, 13 août 2011 - 09:45 .
#2232
Posté 13 août 2011 - 09:57
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
I suppose,saving may help gain some favors in ME3,I figure I can't not save them because I want my i told you so moment in ME3alperez wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
]Upon further review there are some paragon choice I might retcon with saveditor,saving the council only gets you airqouted and possibly your specter status,which doesn't help you in the slightest unless you're a renegade on Thanes LM, But I stand by my blowing up the CB.
The problem with the saving the council outcome is that as of yet its not really a known thing, it looks like all the advantage you get is simply the spectre status being returned, but you do also get a slightly different impression of humanity also, which could turn out to be important.
#2233
Posté 13 août 2011 - 10:07
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
I suppose,saving may help gain some favors in ME3,I figure I can't not save them because I want my i told you so moment in ME3
Killing them means you don't get to airquote the turian councillor back, lol.
#2234
Posté 13 août 2011 - 10:11
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Would be pretty sweet to have an air quote interruptalperez wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
I suppose,saving may help gain some favors in ME3,I figure I can't not save them because I want my i told you so moment in ME3
Killing them means you don't get to airquote the turian councillor back, lol.
Ah yes,"your survival" the thing you want me to ensure,I have dismissed that claim.
#2235
Posté 13 août 2011 - 11:59
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]
The fact your using cost vs. benefit as the prime reasoning in making the choice is placing other factors immediately lower in your weiging up of those choices. Rather than approach each choice and base it on its complete merits and take into account each factor as being of the same importance your approaching the choice with cost vs. benefit as the most important part of the choice, your skewing the choice from the beginning.
I argue that an approach where all factors are of equal importance makes your decision in that choice more balanced, it gives you a more rounded view of the choice rather than just this is the most important factor therefore all other factors mean less.
You disagree with this approach, your perfectly entitled to, as am i to agree to disagree with you on this point.
[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]
The key though is conciously, there are things that are basically second nature to each of us that we may not be aware we do, until someone else points them out to us, so while we may think we're consciously working against our nature, we may not in fact be doing so as much as we believe.
[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]
I have an in game example of TIm behaving in one way with Shepard, so why should that example not be the same way he behaves with others also?
He doesn't have to lie to anyone, there are layers of people in cerberus that would never know anything other than a stated goal and their own role in that goal, they wouldn't be privy to the highest echelons of cerberus so what they in fact know is only what they've been cleared to be told.
In fact given what you learn about the inner workings of cerberus, it seems that they are compartmentalized in such a way that not every cell knows what other cells are doing, so it stands to reason that someone on the normandy knows only their role and nothing else in terms of what cerberus is really up to.
Your saying its a crazy theory that TIM alone knows exactly what cerberus is and what they stand for, that its impossible for that to be the case, when cerberus is basically a dictatorship with TIM at the helm and dictators have been known to keep their true motivations to themselves.
[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]
Again you try to bring in other factors into the discussion, the geth and rachni have no bearing on the collector base except in your own attempts to bring them in to prove a point.
And get real for a second, this is not real life, this is a game, in this game we've been shown that Shepard alone makes the choices and has to deal with the ramifications of those choices, Shepard doesn't do something and someone else clears up the mistake, Shepard does something and Shepard clears up the mistake.
Your trying to portray the choice as if its a real life situation and what would happen in that situation, when in fact its not, its a scenario in a game where your limited by what the game has already shown to be true.
[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]
Its an assumption based on reasoning that could be wrong, something you completely refuse to accept, so rather than accept it as such, you argue its right, therefore disagreeing with it is wrong.
Everything you argue is predicated on what you claim is a fact, that the base can do x, will do x, when in fact all your saying is you believe this to be the case, something we clearly disagree on.
A and b are a given no matter what, with the base or without these 2 are both true so there's no point in stating them.
C is an assumption you make based on your own claim that the base can do as you say, something you cannnot know but only hope for.
D. is true even with the base, the only difference being that you believe keeping the base is a plan, which while technically correct, still doesn't make it a valid one.
As for your last 2 lines, with or without the base that is still exactly the same scenario, the difference once again is your belief that with it somehow the odds are different, something i disagree with for reasons i've spelt out.
[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]
The positives outweigh the negatives is your opinion, i disagree, its really that simple.
Your argument is again predicated on cerberus giving the positives to the rest of the galaxy, which may or may not happen and then that the only negative is that cerberus have stronger weapons, which doesn't make them a larger threat in your eyes even in any post reaper attack.
The simple truth is that you have no idea what the base may produce good or bad, have no idea if what's produced will be given to everyone as you suggest and have no idea if what's produced will be something cerberus could use against everyone else.
Your creating a basic scenario involving the hypothetical benefits and hypothetical negatives which fits nicely into proving that the benefits outweigh the negatives, i've created numerous hypothetical's which show otherwise, the problem is you dismiss my hypotheticals as ridicolous, which forces me to now do the same to yours.
[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 survival or extinction of a sentient species happens to be a slightly larger factor than the stupid way you try to portray the decision above, so quit being childish.
Should you doom a species based on the actions of that species thousands of years ago and the fear that the species could repeat those actions, simply because the cost vs. benefit could turn out to be negative.
Thats what the choice boils down to, its a factor thats not present despite how much you want it to be in keeping or not keeping the collector base, by not handing the base over to TIM i'm not dooming him to extinction, i'm not dooming anyone to extinction as much as you like to claim otherwise.
[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]
Firstly in a thread about keeping a base or destroying it, of course i keep focussing on the potential negatives of the CB choce, simply because thats the choice the thread is about, its not a rachni thread or a geth thread, its a thread about keeping or destroying the base.
Secondly, i've continually explained why the choices are different and why they should be treated different, its your own view that each choice most important factor is cost vs, benefit that blinds you to why the choices are not relevant to each other.
Each choice has its own variables, its own known outcomes and its own possible ones, in 2 of these choices the known outcome is death or the rachni, destruction of the geth, there is no way back once you make those choices.
In the base the known outcome is cerberus don't get the base, that's it, not destruction of cerberus, not death of TIm, a simple he don't get the base, if you fail to see why these choices are different which you obviously do, then your either being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary for the sake of it.
[quote]
We can say it has a high probablity of helping.
[/quote]
No we can't, yet you continue anyway.
[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]
The base being kept is not the best chance we have, you believe it is but this isn't a fact, i don't have to name another way that i think is superior, considering i believe your premise is wrong in the first place.
[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]
My point was you claimed the scientists acheived something because they had reports which must have contained info, which thus far the only info gained was directions to the iff, something we were there to find anyway.
The scientist's were there to study the reaper something which as we see turned out extremely well.
We're the one's sent to find the IFF, they were there for a complete different reason, not to find the Iff as you claim.
[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]
Your stating your opinion backing it up with a hypothetical that portrays the possible positives in the best light, complete ignores the possible negatives and then presenting it as fact when in reality its just a hypothetical plucked from the air to try and prove your point.
I've presented alternatives hypotheticals which you dismiss as having either a ridicolously low or no chance of happening.
We disagree complete on what the potential of the base is, so there is actually no point in having the same arguments over and over again.
[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]
The mere fact something exists doesn't prove it can reasonably work, you can hope it does, you can believe it does, you cannot expect it to, if your willing to completely disregard potential negatives only expect that the postives will occur then you can claim as you do it can reasonably work, it can also just as reasonably not work.
[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]
You have more, you have false hope, you win.
[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]
If the base turns up nothing then the idea that the base would give you an advantage would indeed be a fallacy.
SInce the rest of what you say is based on what could turn out to be a fallacy, then i have no need to respond further than this.
Everything you claim lives or dies based on whether or not the base gives you some advantage, if it doesn't then the position you claim i'm in is exactly the same position you would then be in, i say the base rather than give me an advantage puts me at a disadvantage is i'm right then the position i would be in would be more advantageous than the one your in.
So considering both of these outcomes are unknown at this point and considering i disagree with your assertion of what the base will do, there really is no point arguing the same point over and over again.
There are enough hints and references thrown to you in me2 about dark energy to make you believe that this in some way is much more of a key to beating the reapers than the base is, so for arguments sake lets say i put my hope in that, does this make my position any better or worse than yours, answers on a postcard please.
[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]
But using cost vs. benefit as the key reasoning behind your choices is not being biased in any way.
[quote]
When did I ever said peopel aren't entilted to use whatever justification they want?
[/quote]
You said you hated people who did so, which while not saying they aren't entitled to is however expressing your feelings on people who do, which can be inferred as saying they shouldn't be entitled to.
[quote]
Hence, priorities.
[/quote]
Which again doesn't disprove the point i've made, priorities are not just defined by what you should do, they are also defined by what your able to.
[quote]
and at no point do the events say TIM will conquer the universe either.
[/quote]
Which is where understanding TIM's goal of human dominance comes into the equation, if you believe its simply putting humanity in a higher position then fine, you just don't have to believe that is the case either.
[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]
If they jam the signal or if they send out a false one, there are numerous ways around any scenario you present as to why you may not be able to do what you claim.
The races of the galaxy being under an attack by an overwhelming force which is quickly destroying those capabilities may not have resources to spare or those resources may not make it to where they should be deployed or carry out the mission you want them to, simply because of the very nature of the conflict they're in.
As for the Normandy, well isn't that going to be explained in game, isn't rallying the galaxy apparently what the normandy is doing.
[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]
Speed means nothing is what your doing is simply repeating the same mistakes just doing it more quickly. I assume that it could be the case that doing the same things we've done thus far, things that have been shown to lead to mistakes may in fact be just repeating those mistakes because that's what we've been shown.
You say finding a different way is all nice and proper if you can afford the time, i say better that than repeating the same mistakes over and over.
[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]
When a concise coherent plan is needed, being in a state of anarachy may not be the best way to acheive creation of that concise coherent plan.
What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
Cerberus have been shown to whatever THEY deem neccessary irrespective of how their action may impact on anyone else, something which the asari thus far haven't been shown as.
So your trying to compare what they Asari may do in regards to what Cerberus have been shown to do, is a moot point.
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]
The fact your using cost vs. benefit as the prime reasoning in making the choice is placing other factors immediately lower in your weiging up of those choices. Rather than approach each choice and base it on its complete merits and take into account each factor as being of the same importance your approaching the choice with cost vs. benefit as the most important part of the choice, your skewing the choice from the beginning.
I argue that an approach where all factors are of equal importance makes your decision in that choice more balanced, it gives you a more rounded view of the choice rather than just this is the most important factor therefore all other factors mean less.
You disagree with this approach, your perfectly entitled to, as am i to agree to disagree with you on this point.
[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]
The key though is conciously, there are things that are basically second nature to each of us that we may not be aware we do, until someone else points them out to us, so while we may think we're consciously working against our nature, we may not in fact be doing so as much as we believe.
[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]
I have an in game example of TIm behaving in one way with Shepard, so why should that example not be the same way he behaves with others also?
He doesn't have to lie to anyone, there are layers of people in cerberus that would never know anything other than a stated goal and their own role in that goal, they wouldn't be privy to the highest echelons of cerberus so what they in fact know is only what they've been cleared to be told.
In fact given what you learn about the inner workings of cerberus, it seems that they are compartmentalized in such a way that not every cell knows what other cells are doing, so it stands to reason that someone on the normandy knows only their role and nothing else in terms of what cerberus is really up to.
Your saying its a crazy theory that TIM alone knows exactly what cerberus is and what they stand for, that its impossible for that to be the case, when cerberus is basically a dictatorship with TIM at the helm and dictators have been known to keep their true motivations to themselves.
[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]
Again you try to bring in other factors into the discussion, the geth and rachni have no bearing on the collector base except in your own attempts to bring them in to prove a point.
And get real for a second, this is not real life, this is a game, in this game we've been shown that Shepard alone makes the choices and has to deal with the ramifications of those choices, Shepard doesn't do something and someone else clears up the mistake, Shepard does something and Shepard clears up the mistake.
Your trying to portray the choice as if its a real life situation and what would happen in that situation, when in fact its not, its a scenario in a game where your limited by what the game has already shown to be true.
[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]
Its an assumption based on reasoning that could be wrong, something you completely refuse to accept, so rather than accept it as such, you argue its right, therefore disagreeing with it is wrong.
Everything you argue is predicated on what you claim is a fact, that the base can do x, will do x, when in fact all your saying is you believe this to be the case, something we clearly disagree on.
A and b are a given no matter what, with the base or without these 2 are both true so there's no point in stating them.
C is an assumption you make based on your own claim that the base can do as you say, something you cannnot know but only hope for.
D. is true even with the base, the only difference being that you believe keeping the base is a plan, which while technically correct, still doesn't make it a valid one.
As for your last 2 lines, with or without the base that is still exactly the same scenario, the difference once again is your belief that with it somehow the odds are different, something i disagree with for reasons i've spelt out.
[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]
The positives outweigh the negatives is your opinion, i disagree, its really that simple.
Your argument is again predicated on cerberus giving the positives to the rest of the galaxy, which may or may not happen and then that the only negative is that cerberus have stronger weapons, which doesn't make them a larger threat in your eyes even in any post reaper attack.
The simple truth is that you have no idea what the base may produce good or bad, have no idea if what's produced will be given to everyone as you suggest and have no idea if what's produced will be something cerberus could use against everyone else.
Your creating a basic scenario involving the hypothetical benefits and hypothetical negatives which fits nicely into proving that the benefits outweigh the negatives, i've created numerous hypothetical's which show otherwise, the problem is you dismiss my hypotheticals as ridicolous, which forces me to now do the same to yours.
[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 survival or extinction of a sentient species happens to be a slightly larger factor than the stupid way you try to portray the decision above, so quit being childish.
Should you doom a species based on the actions of that species thousands of years ago and the fear that the species could repeat those actions, simply because the cost vs. benefit could turn out to be negative.
Thats what the choice boils down to, its a factor thats not present despite how much you want it to be in keeping or not keeping the collector base, by not handing the base over to TIM i'm not dooming him to extinction, i'm not dooming anyone to extinction as much as you like to claim otherwise.
[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]
Firstly in a thread about keeping a base or destroying it, of course i keep focussing on the potential negatives of the CB choce, simply because thats the choice the thread is about, its not a rachni thread or a geth thread, its a thread about keeping or destroying the base.
Secondly, i've continually explained why the choices are different and why they should be treated different, its your own view that each choice most important factor is cost vs, benefit that blinds you to why the choices are not relevant to each other.
Each choice has its own variables, its own known outcomes and its own possible ones, in 2 of these choices the known outcome is death or the rachni, destruction of the geth, there is no way back once you make those choices.
In the base the known outcome is cerberus don't get the base, that's it, not destruction of cerberus, not death of TIm, a simple he don't get the base, if you fail to see why these choices are different which you obviously do, then your either being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary for the sake of it.
[quote]
We can say it has a high probablity of helping.
[/quote]
No we can't, yet you continue anyway.
[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]
The base being kept is not the best chance we have, you believe it is but this isn't a fact, i don't have to name another way that i think is superior, considering i believe your premise is wrong in the first place.
[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]
My point was you claimed the scientists acheived something because they had reports which must have contained info, which thus far the only info gained was directions to the iff, something we were there to find anyway.
The scientist's were there to study the reaper something which as we see turned out extremely well.
We're the one's sent to find the IFF, they were there for a complete different reason, not to find the Iff as you claim.
[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]
Your stating your opinion backing it up with a hypothetical that portrays the possible positives in the best light, complete ignores the possible negatives and then presenting it as fact when in reality its just a hypothetical plucked from the air to try and prove your point.
I've presented alternatives hypotheticals which you dismiss as having either a ridicolously low or no chance of happening.
We disagree complete on what the potential of the base is, so there is actually no point in having the same arguments over and over again.
[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]
The mere fact something exists doesn't prove it can reasonably work, you can hope it does, you can believe it does, you cannot expect it to, if your willing to completely disregard potential negatives only expect that the postives will occur then you can claim as you do it can reasonably work, it can also just as reasonably not work.
[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]
You have more, you have false hope, you win.
[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]
If the base turns up nothing then the idea that the base would give you an advantage would indeed be a fallacy.
SInce the rest of what you say is based on what could turn out to be a fallacy, then i have no need to respond further than this.
Everything you claim lives or dies based on whether or not the base gives you some advantage, if it doesn't then the position you claim i'm in is exactly the same position you would then be in, i say the base rather than give me an advantage puts me at a disadvantage is i'm right then the position i would be in would be more advantageous than the one your in.
So considering both of these outcomes are unknown at this point and considering i disagree with your assertion of what the base will do, there really is no point arguing the same point over and over again.
There are enough hints and references thrown to you in me2 about dark energy to make you believe that this in some way is much more of a key to beating the reapers than the base is, so for arguments sake lets say i put my hope in that, does this make my position any better or worse than yours, answers on a postcard please.
[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]
But using cost vs. benefit as the key reasoning behind your choices is not being biased in any way.
[quote]
When did I ever said peopel aren't entilted to use whatever justification they want?
[/quote]
You said you hated people who did so, which while not saying they aren't entitled to is however expressing your feelings on people who do, which can be inferred as saying they shouldn't be entitled to.
[quote]
Hence, priorities.
[/quote]
Which again doesn't disprove the point i've made, priorities are not just defined by what you should do, they are also defined by what your able to.
[quote]
and at no point do the events say TIM will conquer the universe either.
[/quote]
Which is where understanding TIM's goal of human dominance comes into the equation, if you believe its simply putting humanity in a higher position then fine, you just don't have to believe that is the case either.
[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]
If they jam the signal or if they send out a false one, there are numerous ways around any scenario you present as to why you may not be able to do what you claim.
The races of the galaxy being under an attack by an overwhelming force which is quickly destroying those capabilities may not have resources to spare or those resources may not make it to where they should be deployed or carry out the mission you want them to, simply because of the very nature of the conflict they're in.
As for the Normandy, well isn't that going to be explained in game, isn't rallying the galaxy apparently what the normandy is doing.
[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]
Speed means nothing is what your doing is simply repeating the same mistakes just doing it more quickly. I assume that it could be the case that doing the same things we've done thus far, things that have been shown to lead to mistakes may in fact be just repeating those mistakes because that's what we've been shown.
You say finding a different way is all nice and proper if you can afford the time, i say better that than repeating the same mistakes over and over.
[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]
When a concise coherent plan is needed, being in a state of anarachy may not be the best way to acheive creation of that concise coherent plan.
What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
Cerberus have been shown to whatever THEY deem neccessary irrespective of how their action may impact on anyone else, something which the asari thus far haven't been shown as.
So your trying to compare what they Asari may do in regards to what Cerberus have been shown to do, is a moot point.
Modifié par alperez, 14 août 2011 - 12:24 .
#2236
Posté 14 août 2011 - 01:12
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Except Benezia.What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
Edit: Or Vasir.
Modifié par SandTrout, 14 août 2011 - 01:18 .
#2237
Posté 14 août 2011 - 01:19
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
SandTrout wrote...
Except Benezia.What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
She became indoctrinated, her initial goal was to get Saren to see differently and mend his ways.
Edit: you may be right about Vasir, I can't actually recall her conversation that well.
Quite liked coming across another Spectre, anyone noticed every Spectre we've met has been killed?
Modifié par Davie McG, 14 août 2011 - 01:25 .
#2238
Posté 14 août 2011 - 01:20
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Wasn't Benezia indoctrinated?
And what are you trout,saphra?
And what are you trout,saphra?
#2239
Posté 14 août 2011 - 01:23
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
And she was willing to take the place as his aid in the meantime, and took the job upon herself rather than reporting Saren to the Council, as she should have.Davie McG wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
Except Benezia.What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
She became indoctrinated, her initial goal was to get Saren to see differently and mend his ways.
#2240
Posté 14 août 2011 - 01:25
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Nah, I'm not going to start insulting people for using logic. I am taking a devil's advocate on that point, though. People are too quick to diefy aliens, IMO.Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Wasn't Benezia indoctrinated?
And what are you trout,saphra?
#2241
Posté 14 août 2011 - 01:28
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
SandTrout wrote...
Except Benezia.What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
Edit: Or Vasir.
Apart from the fact that the 2 examples you state are individuals and if you didn't just pick a single follow up point in the argument but instead followed the whole argument you'd have noticed my point was in direct response to Lotion's about the Asari as a race, there are also in game explanations as to why the 2 indviduals you point out are doing what they're doing.
You could have easily said the same thing if we were arguing about turians and thrown up Saren as an explanation, so i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just picking up on the point i made without understanding the context it was made in.
#2242
Posté 14 août 2011 - 02:11
LucidStrike
-
- Members
- 900 messages
Without even delving deeply into my ethics, I destroyed the base partially because I hate TIM and Cerberus and didn't trust them. Of course, I was right not to trust them. 
I remember arguin' against Cerberus before ME2 came out and how so many folks defended those nationalists. Ha.
I remember arguin' against Cerberus before ME2 came out and how so many folks defended those nationalists. Ha.
#2243
Posté 14 août 2011 - 02:30
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
True enough. I have pretty much been attacking single points of argument this entire thread though. It's what I do. I probably missed the Saphra thing because I don't put much stock in anything he/she says. I respect you enough to argue the point.alperez wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
Except Benezia.
Edit: Or Vasir.
Apart from the fact that the 2 examples you state are individuals and if you didn't just pick a single follow up point in the argument but instead followed the whole argument you'd have noticed my point was in direct response to Lotion's about the Asari as a race, there are also in game explanations as to why the 2 indviduals you point out are doing what they're doing.
You could have easily said the same thing if we were arguing about turians and thrown up Saren as an explanation, so i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just picking up on the point i made without understanding the context it was made in.
#2244
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:08
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
alperez wrote...
What i said was unlike cerberus, the asari haven't so far being shown to do whatever they want with disregard to anyone else, they haven't been shown to be an ends justify the means race, where no action is considered not worth taking, no sacrifice is consdered a price too high.
Except you have to ask yourself - when's the last time the Asari have been in a situation desperate enough to use any menas?
How about the Rachnii wars? That ended swell for everyone involved, didn't it?
How about the Justicars? The order that doens't give a damn about whateveryone else thinks and are follow otheir own code. Adn the Asari support that order apparently.
Cerberus acts like it does because they are well aware of the reapers.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold
#2245
Posté 14 août 2011 - 05:13
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
[quote]alperez wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]
The fact your using cost vs. benefit as the prime reasoning in making the choice is placing other factors immediately lower in your weiging up of those choices. Rather than approach each choice and base it on its complete merits and take into account each factor as being of the same importance your approaching the choice with cost vs. benefit as the most important part of the choice, your skewing the choice from the beginning.
I argue that an approach where all factors are of equal importance makes your decision in that choice more balanced, it gives you a more rounded view of the choice rather than just this is the most important factor therefore all other factors mean less.
You disagree with this approach, your perfectly entitled to, as am i to agree to disagree with you on this point.[/quote]
Given that the survival of all life in the galaxy is at stake, cost vs. balance Is hte factor with the msot importance (or should be). Disagree all you want, but that's the only reasonable approach.
Thank God you are in no position of important decision making.
[quote][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]
I have an in game example of TIm behaving in one way with Shepard, so why should that example not be the same way he behaves with others also?[/quote]
Because that's an assumption based on a single point of data. And a point that is also very debatable t oboot.
[quote]
He doesn't have to lie to anyone, there are layers of people in cerberus that would never know anything other than a stated goal and their own role in that goal, they wouldn't be privy to the highest echelons of cerberus so what they in fact know is only what they've been cleared to be told.
In fact given what you learn about the inner workings of cerberus, it seems that they are compartmentalized in such a way that not every cell knows what other cells are doing, so it stands to reason that someone on the normandy knows only their role and nothing else in terms of what cerberus is really up to.
Your saying its a crazy theory that TIM alone knows exactly what cerberus is and what they stand for, that its impossible for that to be the case, when cerberus is basically a dictatorship with TIM at the helm and dictators have been known to keep their true motivations to themselves.[/quote]
Miranda is part of the higher echelon. And you really haven't answered the bolded part.
[quote][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]
Again you try to bring in other factors into the discussion, the geth and rachni have no bearing on the collector base except in your own attempts to bring them in to prove a point.
And get real for a second, this is not real life, this is a game, in this game we've been shown that Shepard alone makes the choices and has to deal with the ramifications of those choices, Shepard doesn't do something and someone else clears up the mistake, Shepard does something and Shepard clears up the mistake.
Your trying to portray the choice as if its a real life situation and what would happen in that situation, when in fact its not, its a scenario in a game where your limited by what the game has already shown to be true.[/quote]
Dude, that's why it's called a In-character (or in-universe) decision.
You make decisions as if everything is TRUE. ME universe is real. Go from there.
Sad that you (again, for the n'th time) try to resort to metagaming to defend your arguments.
[quote][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]
Its an assumption based on reasoning that could be wrong, something you completely refuse to accept, so rather than accept it as such, you argue its right, therefore disagreeing with it is wrong.[/quote]
THEN PROVE IT WRONG. I dared you eons ago. I dared you to come up with viable strategy to defet them.. even with a small numebr of reapers you couldn't.
The reasoning is as solid as a rock.
[quote]
Everything you argue is predicated on what you claim is a fact, that the base can do x, will do x, when in fact all your saying is you believe this to be the case, something we clearly disagree on.
A and b are a given no matter what, with the base or without these 2 are both true so there's no point in stating them.
C is an assumption you make based on your own claim that the base can do as you say, something you cannnot know but only hope for.
D. is true even with the base, the only difference being that you believe keeping the base is a plan, which while technically correct, still doesn't make it a valid one.
As for your last 2 lines, with or without the base that is still exactly the same scenario, the difference once again is your belief that with it somehow the odds are different, something i disagree with for reasons i've spelt out.[/quote]
a, b, c and d are all correct.
C is the asumption that is more probable thany anything you put forward, and it makes more sense than anything you put forward.
D changes the odds significantly, weather you want to accept it or not.
[quote][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]
The positives outweigh the negatives is your opinion, i disagree, its really that simple.
Your argument is again predicated on cerberus giving the positives to the rest of the galaxy, which may or may not happen and then that the only negative is that cerberus have stronger weapons, which doesn't make them a larger threat in your eyes even in any post reaper attack.
The simple truth is that you have no idea what the base may produce good or bad, have no idea if what's produced will be given to everyone as you suggest and have no idea if what's produced will be something cerberus could use against everyone else.
Your creating a basic scenario involving the hypothetical benefits and hypothetical negatives which fits nicely into proving that the benefits outweigh the negatives, i've created numerous hypothetical's which show otherwise, the problem is you dismiss my hypotheticals as ridicolous, which forces me to now do the same to yours.[/quote]
All of your hyprotheticals have been shot down, if you bother to check back.
Yes, we in fact can make a reasonable predicion of what can come out of the the base. There are many possiblities, but agian, probablity is the key here.We can reasonably assume that starship technolgoy will be among those probable things (as reapers are starships).
[quote][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 survival or extinction of a sentient species happens to be a slightly larger factor than the stupid way you try to portray the decision above, so quit being childish.[/quote]
galaxy > single race
[quote]
Should you doom a species based on the actions of that species thousands of years ago and the fear that the species could repeat those actions, simply because the cost vs. benefit could turn out to be negative.
Thats what the choice boils down to, its a factor thats not present despite how much you want it to be in keeping or not keeping the collector base, by not handing the base over to TIM i'm not dooming him to extinction, i'm not dooming anyone to extinction as much as you like to claim otherwise.[/quote]
The species has already been extinct. The death of a hundered rachnii on that base is harldy a huge price to pay for the safety of the galaxy. Assuming of course, they really are such a huge threat.
It doesn't matter if it's factor that's not present, becuse there's a common factor between them. And if you want antoehr factor, how about the CB's far greater benefits? You know that you MAY be dooming everyone to extinction, as much as you definately want to claim that that is not a possiblity, despite it being obvious that it most likely is.
Again, the rachnii queen is there to maek a point. I spared her in my playtrough (the Godzilla Treshhold thing).
[quote][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]
Firstly in a thread about keeping a base or destroying it, of course i keep focussing on the potential negatives of the CB choce, simply because thats the choice the thread is about, its not a rachni thread or a geth thread, its a thread about keeping or destroying the base.
Secondly, i've continually explained why the choices are different and why they should be treated different, its your own view that each choice most important factor is cost vs, benefit that blinds you to why the choices are not relevant to each other.[/quote]
Firstly, you keep ignoring the question.
Secondly, I continually explained why you're wrong.
Cost vs. benefit is not blindness. It's vision.
[quote]
Each choice has its own variables, its own known outcomes and its own possible ones, in 2 of these choices the known outcome is death or the rachni, destruction of the geth, there is no way back once you make those choices.[/quote]
There is also no way back once you blow hte base up..and yet you can always blow the base up later.
[quote]
In the base the known outcome is cerberus don't get the base, that's it, not destruction of cerberus, not death of TIm, a simple he don't get the base, if you fail to see why these choices are different which you obviously do, then your either being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary for the sake of it.[/quote]
And the galaxy is standing at the edge of oblivion and you're running around having completely different priorities.
If you fail to see why the criteria are critical, then your either being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary
for the sake of it
[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]
The base being kept is not the best chance we have, you believe it is but this isn't a fact, i don't have to name another way that i think is superior, considering i believe your premise is wrong in the first place.[/quote]
Yes you have. You have to offer an alternative to saving the galaxy.
[quote][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]
My point was you claimed the scientists acheived something because they had reports which must have contained info, which thus far the only info gained was directions to the iff, something we were there to find anyway.
The scientist's were there to study the reaper something which as we see turned out extremely well.
We're the one's sent to find the IFF, they were there for a complete different reason, not to find the Iff as you claim.
[/quote]
Wrong. They went there to study the reaper and locate the IFF.
How do you think Shep even knows there to look for it, or how can he ever recognize it? It's an alien device among other alien devices.Is Shepo psychic? Does he automaticly know the fucntion of every peice of a reaper on sight? No?
Then don't say things that make no sense.
[quote][quote]
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)
[/quote]
Your stating your opinion backing it up with a hypothetical that portrays the possible positives in the best light, complete ignores the possible negatives and then presenting it as fact when in reality its just a hypothetical plucked from the air to try and prove your point.[/quote]
If anyone has been ignoring things, it's been you. You've constantly avoided any positive and blowing the negatives to redicolous proportions. You pick the most improbable scenarios and run with them as fact, compeltely ignoring far more probable scenarios- because they don't suit your view.
[quote][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]
You have more, you have false hope you win.[/quote]
"False Hope - To hope with little reason or justification - a hope based entirely around a fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome."
Base yielding good things = likely outcome, with reason and justification.
solution droppng out of nowhere = false hope. Unlikely, no reason or justification.
You were saying?
[quote][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]
But using cost vs. benefit as the key reasoning behind your choices is not being biased in any way.[/quote]
That's like saying that saying that standing o na croubling ledge and seeing a rope, that if I base my decision on grabing the rope on my survival chances, and not the rope color, I'm biased.
Biased in favor of survival I guess. That's reasonable bias. Practical one.
[quote][quote]
When did I ever said peopel aren't entilted to use whatever justification they want?
[/quote]
You said you hated people who did so, which while not saying they aren't entitled to is however expressing your feelings on people who do, which can be inferred as saying they shouldn't be entitled to.[/quote]
.. Don't infer.
[quote][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]
If they jam the signal or if they send out a false one, there are numerous ways around any scenario you present as to why you may not be able to do what you claim.[/quote]
And there's numerous ways to go around that too. There's no practical way for the reapers to come trough the Omega 4 relay without being detected.
[quote]
The races of the galaxy being under an attack by an overwhelming force which is quickly destroying those capabilities may not have resources to spare or those resources may not make it to where they should be deployed or carry out the mission you want them to, simply because of the very nature of the conflict they're in.
As for the Normandy, well isn't that going to be explained in game, isn't rallying the galaxy apparently what the normandy is doing.[/quote]
Those resoruces should be there long before hte reaprs come, so that's moot point.
As for the Normady - I argue that rallying the galaxy is not tacticly important, the same way you argue the base isn't.
Hoisted by your own petard!
[quote][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]
Speed means nothing is what your doing is simply repeating the same mistakes just doing it more quickly. I assume that it could be the case that doing the same things we've done thus far, things that have been shown to lead to mistakes may in fact be just repeating those mistakes because that's what we've been shown.
You say finding a different way is all nice and proper if you can afford the time, i say better that than repeating the same mistakes over and over.[/quote]
I'd rather make soem mistakes, loose a few people, and return to a living galaxy, then not make any mistakes, but reurn to find a graveyard.
You're not taking the reapers seriously enough.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]
The fact your using cost vs. benefit as the prime reasoning in making the choice is placing other factors immediately lower in your weiging up of those choices. Rather than approach each choice and base it on its complete merits and take into account each factor as being of the same importance your approaching the choice with cost vs. benefit as the most important part of the choice, your skewing the choice from the beginning.
I argue that an approach where all factors are of equal importance makes your decision in that choice more balanced, it gives you a more rounded view of the choice rather than just this is the most important factor therefore all other factors mean less.
You disagree with this approach, your perfectly entitled to, as am i to agree to disagree with you on this point.[/quote]
Given that the survival of all life in the galaxy is at stake, cost vs. balance Is hte factor with the msot importance (or should be). Disagree all you want, but that's the only reasonable approach.
Thank God you are in no position of important decision making.
[quote][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]
I have an in game example of TIm behaving in one way with Shepard, so why should that example not be the same way he behaves with others also?[/quote]
Because that's an assumption based on a single point of data. And a point that is also very debatable t oboot.
[quote]
He doesn't have to lie to anyone, there are layers of people in cerberus that would never know anything other than a stated goal and their own role in that goal, they wouldn't be privy to the highest echelons of cerberus so what they in fact know is only what they've been cleared to be told.
In fact given what you learn about the inner workings of cerberus, it seems that they are compartmentalized in such a way that not every cell knows what other cells are doing, so it stands to reason that someone on the normandy knows only their role and nothing else in terms of what cerberus is really up to.
Your saying its a crazy theory that TIM alone knows exactly what cerberus is and what they stand for, that its impossible for that to be the case, when cerberus is basically a dictatorship with TIM at the helm and dictators have been known to keep their true motivations to themselves.[/quote]
Miranda is part of the higher echelon. And you really haven't answered the bolded part.
[quote][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]
Again you try to bring in other factors into the discussion, the geth and rachni have no bearing on the collector base except in your own attempts to bring them in to prove a point.
And get real for a second, this is not real life, this is a game, in this game we've been shown that Shepard alone makes the choices and has to deal with the ramifications of those choices, Shepard doesn't do something and someone else clears up the mistake, Shepard does something and Shepard clears up the mistake.
Your trying to portray the choice as if its a real life situation and what would happen in that situation, when in fact its not, its a scenario in a game where your limited by what the game has already shown to be true.[/quote]
Dude, that's why it's called a In-character (or in-universe) decision.
You make decisions as if everything is TRUE. ME universe is real. Go from there.
Sad that you (again, for the n'th time) try to resort to metagaming to defend your arguments.
[quote][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]
Its an assumption based on reasoning that could be wrong, something you completely refuse to accept, so rather than accept it as such, you argue its right, therefore disagreeing with it is wrong.[/quote]
THEN PROVE IT WRONG. I dared you eons ago. I dared you to come up with viable strategy to defet them.. even with a small numebr of reapers you couldn't.
The reasoning is as solid as a rock.
[quote]
Everything you argue is predicated on what you claim is a fact, that the base can do x, will do x, when in fact all your saying is you believe this to be the case, something we clearly disagree on.
A and b are a given no matter what, with the base or without these 2 are both true so there's no point in stating them.
C is an assumption you make based on your own claim that the base can do as you say, something you cannnot know but only hope for.
D. is true even with the base, the only difference being that you believe keeping the base is a plan, which while technically correct, still doesn't make it a valid one.
As for your last 2 lines, with or without the base that is still exactly the same scenario, the difference once again is your belief that with it somehow the odds are different, something i disagree with for reasons i've spelt out.[/quote]
a, b, c and d are all correct.
C is the asumption that is more probable thany anything you put forward, and it makes more sense than anything you put forward.
D changes the odds significantly, weather you want to accept it or not.
[quote][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]
The positives outweigh the negatives is your opinion, i disagree, its really that simple.
Your argument is again predicated on cerberus giving the positives to the rest of the galaxy, which may or may not happen and then that the only negative is that cerberus have stronger weapons, which doesn't make them a larger threat in your eyes even in any post reaper attack.
The simple truth is that you have no idea what the base may produce good or bad, have no idea if what's produced will be given to everyone as you suggest and have no idea if what's produced will be something cerberus could use against everyone else.
Your creating a basic scenario involving the hypothetical benefits and hypothetical negatives which fits nicely into proving that the benefits outweigh the negatives, i've created numerous hypothetical's which show otherwise, the problem is you dismiss my hypotheticals as ridicolous, which forces me to now do the same to yours.[/quote]
All of your hyprotheticals have been shot down, if you bother to check back.
Yes, we in fact can make a reasonable predicion of what can come out of the the base. There are many possiblities, but agian, probablity is the key here.We can reasonably assume that starship technolgoy will be among those probable things (as reapers are starships).
[quote][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 survival or extinction of a sentient species happens to be a slightly larger factor than the stupid way you try to portray the decision above, so quit being childish.[/quote]
galaxy > single race
[quote]
Should you doom a species based on the actions of that species thousands of years ago and the fear that the species could repeat those actions, simply because the cost vs. benefit could turn out to be negative.
Thats what the choice boils down to, its a factor thats not present despite how much you want it to be in keeping or not keeping the collector base, by not handing the base over to TIM i'm not dooming him to extinction, i'm not dooming anyone to extinction as much as you like to claim otherwise.[/quote]
The species has already been extinct. The death of a hundered rachnii on that base is harldy a huge price to pay for the safety of the galaxy. Assuming of course, they really are such a huge threat.
It doesn't matter if it's factor that's not present, becuse there's a common factor between them. And if you want antoehr factor, how about the CB's far greater benefits? You know that you MAY be dooming everyone to extinction, as much as you definately want to claim that that is not a possiblity, despite it being obvious that it most likely is.
Again, the rachnii queen is there to maek a point. I spared her in my playtrough (the Godzilla Treshhold thing).
[quote][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]
Firstly in a thread about keeping a base or destroying it, of course i keep focussing on the potential negatives of the CB choce, simply because thats the choice the thread is about, its not a rachni thread or a geth thread, its a thread about keeping or destroying the base.
Secondly, i've continually explained why the choices are different and why they should be treated different, its your own view that each choice most important factor is cost vs, benefit that blinds you to why the choices are not relevant to each other.[/quote]
Firstly, you keep ignoring the question.
Secondly, I continually explained why you're wrong.
Cost vs. benefit is not blindness. It's vision.
[quote]
Each choice has its own variables, its own known outcomes and its own possible ones, in 2 of these choices the known outcome is death or the rachni, destruction of the geth, there is no way back once you make those choices.[/quote]
There is also no way back once you blow hte base up..and yet you can always blow the base up later.
[quote]
In the base the known outcome is cerberus don't get the base, that's it, not destruction of cerberus, not death of TIm, a simple he don't get the base, if you fail to see why these choices are different which you obviously do, then your either being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary for the sake of it.[/quote]
And the galaxy is standing at the edge of oblivion and you're running around having completely different priorities.
If you fail to see why the criteria are critical, then your either being deliberately obtuse or just plain contrary
for the sake of it
[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]
The base being kept is not the best chance we have, you believe it is but this isn't a fact, i don't have to name another way that i think is superior, considering i believe your premise is wrong in the first place.[/quote]
Yes you have. You have to offer an alternative to saving the galaxy.
[quote][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]
My point was you claimed the scientists acheived something because they had reports which must have contained info, which thus far the only info gained was directions to the iff, something we were there to find anyway.
The scientist's were there to study the reaper something which as we see turned out extremely well.
We're the one's sent to find the IFF, they were there for a complete different reason, not to find the Iff as you claim.
[/quote]
Wrong. They went there to study the reaper and locate the IFF.
How do you think Shep even knows there to look for it, or how can he ever recognize it? It's an alien device among other alien devices.Is Shepo psychic? Does he automaticly know the fucntion of every peice of a reaper on sight? No?
Then don't say things that make no sense.
[quote][quote]
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)
[/quote]
Your stating your opinion backing it up with a hypothetical that portrays the possible positives in the best light, complete ignores the possible negatives and then presenting it as fact when in reality its just a hypothetical plucked from the air to try and prove your point.[/quote]
If anyone has been ignoring things, it's been you. You've constantly avoided any positive and blowing the negatives to redicolous proportions. You pick the most improbable scenarios and run with them as fact, compeltely ignoring far more probable scenarios- because they don't suit your view.
[quote][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]
You have more, you have false hope you win.[/quote]
"False Hope - To hope with little reason or justification - a hope based entirely around a fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome."
Base yielding good things = likely outcome, with reason and justification.
solution droppng out of nowhere = false hope. Unlikely, no reason or justification.
You were saying?
[quote][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]
But using cost vs. benefit as the key reasoning behind your choices is not being biased in any way.[/quote]
That's like saying that saying that standing o na croubling ledge and seeing a rope, that if I base my decision on grabing the rope on my survival chances, and not the rope color, I'm biased.
Biased in favor of survival I guess. That's reasonable bias. Practical one.
[quote][quote]
When did I ever said peopel aren't entilted to use whatever justification they want?
[/quote]
You said you hated people who did so, which while not saying they aren't entitled to is however expressing your feelings on people who do, which can be inferred as saying they shouldn't be entitled to.[/quote]
.. Don't infer.[quote][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]
If they jam the signal or if they send out a false one, there are numerous ways around any scenario you present as to why you may not be able to do what you claim.[/quote]
And there's numerous ways to go around that too. There's no practical way for the reapers to come trough the Omega 4 relay without being detected.
[quote]
The races of the galaxy being under an attack by an overwhelming force which is quickly destroying those capabilities may not have resources to spare or those resources may not make it to where they should be deployed or carry out the mission you want them to, simply because of the very nature of the conflict they're in.
As for the Normandy, well isn't that going to be explained in game, isn't rallying the galaxy apparently what the normandy is doing.[/quote]
Those resoruces should be there long before hte reaprs come, so that's moot point.
As for the Normady - I argue that rallying the galaxy is not tacticly important, the same way you argue the base isn't.
Hoisted by your own petard!
[quote][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]
Speed means nothing is what your doing is simply repeating the same mistakes just doing it more quickly. I assume that it could be the case that doing the same things we've done thus far, things that have been shown to lead to mistakes may in fact be just repeating those mistakes because that's what we've been shown.
You say finding a different way is all nice and proper if you can afford the time, i say better that than repeating the same mistakes over and over.[/quote]
I'd rather make soem mistakes, loose a few people, and return to a living galaxy, then not make any mistakes, but reurn to find a graveyard.
You're not taking the reapers seriously enough.
#2246
Posté 14 août 2011 - 06:49
STRYFEDX
-
- Members
- 9 messages
Soronar is fail just cause he either trolling or he doesn't understand he is using his view as logic or fact when its nothing more than his personal view..
#2247
Posté 14 août 2011 - 06:51
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Which is the point we have been making for a few days but he seems incapable of seperating assumption,opinion and fact,and when you disagree with him it's just wrong or invalid.STRYFEDX wrote...
Soronar is fail just cause he either trolling or he doesn't understand he is using his view as logic or fact when its nothing more than his personal view..
#2248
Posté 14 août 2011 - 06:58
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Seboist wrote...
Would have been awesome though.SandTrout wrote...
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.
Harbinger:
Shepard, you had the only chance to break the cycle, but in your folly you destroyed it!
Paragons:
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 août 2011 - 07:03 .
#2249
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:01
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Paragons get their cake and eat it too Zulu
That said I would tottaly do a renegade playthrough if it ends like KOTOR where I am the dark lord
I hated not being able to actually play as the dark lord though....ME post -game ftw.
EDIT:I actually do have a renegade play-through
,but it's with default game *TO THE SAVE EDITOR!*
That said I would tottaly do a renegade playthrough if it ends like KOTOR where I am the dark lord
I hated not being able to actually play as the dark lord though....ME post -game ftw.
EDIT:I actually do have a renegade play-through
,but it's with default game *TO THE SAVE EDITOR!*
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 14 août 2011 - 07:05 .
#2250
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:07
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
I don't really play with Paragon/Renegade in mind, I mostly just pick the response I find most appropriate to the situation.
There are times where the renegade options just seem unnecessarily harsh, so I go for the neutral or Paragon options. However when I feel that I'm justifiably outraged or exasperated I go for the Renegade option.
Edit: That and sending the biotic god into battle is just funny.
There are times where the renegade options just seem unnecessarily harsh, so I go for the neutral or Paragon options. However when I feel that I'm justifiably outraged or exasperated I go for the Renegade option.
Edit: That and sending the biotic god into battle is just funny.
Modifié par Davie McG, 14 août 2011 - 07:09 .
