I don't get why one side has to get a gut punch in the end..
Den of Delusions - The morality discussion topic
Débuté par
Kaiser Shepard
, juil. 30 2011 01:18
Retour en haut
#2252
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:10
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
My first playthrough I picked whatever options I wanted,it was awful when I got to things like the Jack/Miranda fight etc.Davie McG wrote...
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.
I kind of wish it was like KOTOR where choices dictated your alignment and alignment didn't dictate choices,of course we would have to work on charm and persuade but still.
#2253
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:13
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
STRYFEDX wrote...
I don't get why one side has to get a gut punch in the end..
I think one should, because if they didn't, I think it would lessen the impact of your decisions if no matter what path you chose it all worked out in the end.
Edit: @Humanoid_Typhon, I get what your saying, I usually have more paragon points so I get to choose the paragon option in those situations but in quite a few I have enough points in both to go one way or the other. I was disappointed to find out though that both paragon and renegade responses are practically the same.
Modifié par Davie McG, 14 août 2011 - 07:19 .
#2254
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:24
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
@McG I suppose that's the beauty of save editing,you can just max out both and pick whatever you want.
#2255
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:31
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
I've always been tempted to but I dunno if I would risk getting banned from xbox live.
#2256
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:35
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
It's single player and they have absolutely no way of knowing,unless your friends are jerks and report you lol.Davie McG wrote...
I've always been tempted to but I dunno if I would risk getting banned from xbox live.
Concern is understandable,but its light risk and the priiiiiize.
Grunt+revenant or minigun is just....priceless.
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 14 août 2011 - 07:36 .
#2257
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:37
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
It's single player and they have absolutely no way of knowing,unless your friends are jerks and report you lol.Davie McG wrote...
I've always been tempted to but I dunno if I would risk getting banned from xbox live.
Concern is understandable,but its light risk and the priiiiiize.
Grunt+revenant or minigun is just....priceless.
That's always been my thought, what detered me most was that it might waste my import. After I've completed the third game I'll go back and use the editor.
#2258
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:40
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Yeah I don't mess with my important import games,but it is nice to have a profile that is for the lulz.Davie McG wrote...
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
It's single player and they have absolutely no way of knowing,unless your friends are jerks and report you lol.Davie McG wrote...
I've always been tempted to but I dunno if I would risk getting banned from xbox live.
Concern is understandable,but its light risk and the priiiiiize.
Grunt+revenant or minigun is just....priceless.
That's always been my thought, what detered me most was that it might waste my import. After I've completed the third game I'll go back and use the editor.
But we should get back on topic
It does get kind of disheartening when you can or cannot make a decision because of your alignment,thankfully they don't do it for major decisions (CB,Geth,Tali's LM,etc.)
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 14 août 2011 - 07:45 .
#2259
Posté 14 août 2011 - 07:49
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
I know, it always irritated me that a game that boasts choice would shoe horn you into choosing just paragon or neutral or just renegade and neutral.
#2260
Posté 15 août 2011 - 03:42
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
[quote]SandTrout wrote...
[/quote]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.[/quote]
No problem, i understood what you were trying to point out, i just felt in taking the single point you'd actually missed the entire context and what the point itself was in relation to.
[/quote]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.[/quote]
No problem, i understood what you were trying to point out, i just felt in taking the single point you'd actually missed the entire context and what the point itself was in relation to.
#2261
Posté 15 août 2011 - 03:58
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[
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
Actually i don't for the simple reason that it wasn't in the context of what you argued, your now trying to argue a hypothetical what if situation to try and justify your original argument which was they would do a certain thing.
The simple fact is that your argument was they would do x, which now is being changed to what if x happened what would they do then, which in terms of the original context and in broader relation to cerberus are both complete bogus arguments.
In terms of the rachni wars, when a species got out of control, actions were taken to fix the problem, these actions were taken by consensus decision, not a unilateral one, the outcome is irrelevant, for the simple reason that your argument is not based on an outcome but on your assertion that the council races would in someway act unilaterely which makes them the same as Cerberus.
When your trying to make a point at lease try to have it be in someway relevant to the original point.
The very same thing is true of the Justicars, they are an order which follows a specific code, they are as accepted by the Asari as the spectres are by the council, so again what point is it your trying to make.
Your argument was that the council races would not act in consensus and to support that argument, you bring up 2 irrelvant points as if they prove your argument, no wonder you dismiss arguments so easily, half the time your not even arguing your own points.
Modifié par alperez, 15 août 2011 - 03:59 .
#2262
Posté 15 août 2011 - 03:58
Kaiser Shepard
-
- Members
- 7 890 messages
I've actually never managed to get 'stuck' on a choice I didn't want to pick due to a lack of Paragon/Renegade...Davie McG wrote...
I know, it always irritated me that a game that boasts choice would shoe horn you into choosing just paragon or neutral or just renegade and neutral.
What does bother me personally, however, is how in a series hyped on the promise of having our choices resonanting throughout an entire series, we have yet to see a single major consequence of our actions. These sorts of thread would be much more interesting if something like the Rachni decision already had an impact on the endgame of ME1, or somewhere else in ME2. Likewise, keeping the Collector Base should've had an immediate effect on ME3; allowing Shepard to stay on friendly terms with the entirety of Cerberus, having another faction take their place as 40% of all enemies instead.
The way things are looking now, I've seems like we're led to believe everything will matter during ME3's endgame. But being the pessimist that I am, I'm starting to lose faith in that as well...
#2263
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:32
alperez
-
- Members
- 880 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]
Again stating an opinion as fact, survival of all life in the galaxy is the most important factor, it still doesn't mean that the basis for every single choice you make should be so skewed in this regard that the other factors involved in your decision are reduced to insignificance.
When making a choice, all the various elements involved in that choice should be taken into account, even if your placing more importance on cost vs. benefit, it still should be the sum of all these factors that influence how you decide.
If however your going in, already deciding that these other factors are insignificant, then your not making a rational decision based on the unique circumstances, your making a blanket one where despite whatever circumstances may be present, you've already decide that if the cost. vs. benefit is skewed either way then no other reasoning to make that choice exists.
[quote]
Because that's an assumption based on a single point of data. And a point that is also very debatable t oboot.
[/quote]
How is showing TIM in game doing something in any way debatable, does he or does he not withold information?
You can argue why he does it, but not the fact that he does in fact do it.
[quote]
Miranda is part of the higher echelon. And you really haven't answered the bolded part.
[/quote]
Miranda's in charge of the lazurus cell which gives her a somewhat high position, but in game she claims very little knowledge in regards to the other cells other than basic general knowledge that they exist. Her reaction on Pragia shows just how involved she is in other activities, which actually proves my point.
You say i didn't answer the bolded part.
Tim doesn't need to lie to everyone, cerberus being compartmentilised allows for him to tell just enough to each cell without giving the full picture to any of them. Miranda the example you use above shows this on pragia, she calls it a rogue operation which as an explanation to her views on cerberus makes sense to her, so again the very nature of the organisation allows that even when a situation occurs that may not tally with an indviduals understanding of cerberus, an explantion to be given to that individual that they accept without question.
The party line or stated goals of Cerberus which is what, human dominance and fighting the reapers, if a cell is told what they are doing is in order to acheive these goals and they have no knowledge of what a different cell is that could lead them to question their own activities, then why would they believe anything other than the party line.
Or are you arguing that thus far everything cerberus have been doing has been to stop the reapers, so therefore they are in fact doing as they say because if you are your being presumptious, considering you have not yet seen the the full explantion behiind why cerberus does what it does.
[quote]
.
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.
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]
So being confined by the laws and actions of that universe is in somehow metagaming, seriously someone needs a dictionary really badly.
Your actually the one who's metagaming because your trying to bring into the argument something that's been shown in game to be incorrect, if in game shepard makes all the choices and is the person who must deal with the ramifications of those choices, then trying to argue someone else can do the very same thing even though that's been shown to be incorrect, is in fact metagaming.
[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]
Its impossible to prove something wrong without the facts that show its wrong, considering those facts are at present unavailable i can't argue that the reasoning is wrong anymore than you can argue its right, so instead i've continually argued that it could be.
The reasoning you claim is as solid as a rock is in fact nothing of the sort for the simple reason that your assuming an outcome that is unknown.
[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]
Saying something does not make it fact, hell it doesn't even make it true, perhaps thats a lesson you should learn.
You really should re-read you arguments before you put them down, first claim a,b.c, and d are all correct (stating an incorrect fact) then in the very next line stating that C is an assumption and then reverting back to D as being a fact when it too is also an assumption.
You claim the base gives us an advantageand that it changes the odds signifcantly which are assumptions my friend, not facts, not truths, they are your assumption of what the outcome on an unknown will be, stating them as facts doesn't change this no matter how much you long for it to be the case.
[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]
As much as you'd like to believe it, just simply stating your opinion does not shoot down arguments, to try and claim it does really is you putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "i'm right, i'm right, i said it so i must be".
We can make a reasonable assumption of what can come out of the base, works both ways positively and negatively, simply assuming the most likely outcome is positive goes complete against probability, since either outcome have an equal chance of happening.
You say we can reasonably assume that starship tech will be amongst those probable things that come from the base, which completely ignores that we can reasonably assume that the only thing that comes out of the base is indoctrinated scientists or personell.
Or has this not been shown in game to be something that also occurs regularly.
[quote]
galaxy > single race
[/quote]
Galaxy = sum of its parts, each of which is as important as the other.
[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]
The fact that the racni were extinct, doesn't enter into the equation of whether its right to doom the species, what they were is irrelevant considering its the fact they now exist and you would be making the choice to doom them, the fact that this already was the case is made irrelevant by the fact it no longer is.
Firstly just because a choice has a common factor between it and another does not mean that you ignore the different factors and instead base your choice on the one common one.
Secondly when all else fails you once again revert to the CB's base having great benefits argument (an assumption) followed by the old chestnut that destroying the base dooms the galaxy (another assumption),seriously its like a safety blanket to you and as usual irrelevant to the argument anyway, considering it is nothing more than an assumption.
You spared the rachni queen because in your analysis the cost. vs. benefit argument worked out positive, which kinda proves my original point about using letting the cost. vs. benefit argument skew every choice.
[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]
Firstly, ive ignored the queston because it has no relevance to the argument, a point you continually miss and bringing the same point up constantly doesn't change.
Secondly, it is actually a blindness in the fact that your using it as you most important basis for every choice rather than just a factor in those choices, its a vision allright, just a flawed one.
[quote]
There is also no way back once you blow hte base up..and yet you can always blow the base up later.
[/quote]
Indeed once i destroy the base there is no way i can undestroy it, however TIM and cerberus still happen to be alive do they not, which was in fact the point, they may not have the base, but they themselves still exist, something that isn't the case with the other 2 choices.
You can always blow the base up later is i'm afraid an assumption once again, there is no proof this can happen, just an assumption that this could happen, which as usual brings us back to a real world/in game argument, if this was the real world then i have options available to me that unfortunately are not present in game, since i must accept only my in game options and since in game this option is not presente to me, i cannot assume that it will happen later simply because it may not be the case.
[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]
I have the same priorities as you do, the difference is i'm exploring those priorities while taking every factor into account, your using one factor as the determining factor in everything you do, of course certain criteria are important, they are just not the only important criteria to be used when making what are vastly different choices.
[quote]
Yes you have. You have to offer an alternative to saving the galaxy.
[/quote]
No i don't, in order to disprove what your saying i only need to offer a reason why what your saying could be incorrect, not a plan to save the galaxy in its place, but a reason why yours isn't a plan.
[/quote]
[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]
You need to brush up on the mission brieifing given to you by TIM before you do the mission then, How can they have been sent to find something they didn't know existed or was needed until EDI found that info when you boarded the collector ship.
So who exacly isn't making sense.
[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]
Again re-read my arguments, show me where from my original stance i've changed and ignored the positives, my original argument has always been that both keeping or destroying the base make perfect sense depending on your understanding and assessment of the info presented to you. SInce that point i've counter argued your assertion that destroying the base makes no sense and is not a logical and valid choice, so in arguing the counter to your point why would i then argue your point also?
[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]
If a hope is based on what turns out later on to have been an incorrect premise then it fits exactly the definition you took so much time to copy and past above.
Base yielding good things = possible not likely outcome as it ignores the same possibiltiy that it will yield bad things, so your reason and justification could be based on a false premise which is exactly what i've been pointing out to you.
Every thing you base your argument on, boils down to an assumption that the base yields good things and is in fact a plan to stop the reapers, if as i continually say this is untrue, your hope is false.
[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]
Once again insert stupid comparision claim this comparision is the same as what the other person has said and then try to claim this disproves the other persons point, well done, you've reached the maturity level of a preteen.
[quote][
:huh: .. Don't infer.
[/quote]
The don't claim to feel one way about the justifcations of how people make their choices and then try to assert that what you were saying does not mean that's how you feel.
[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]
Sure there isn't, superior technolgically advance warships, don't just appear suddenly and destroy everything in their path before the opposition can stop them acheving the first part of their objective.
Oh wait hang on a sec, didn't sovereign just appear at the citadel, destroy the ships in his path and land where he wished.
Didn't the collector ship just appear out of nowhere and destroy the normandy without giving the normandy the chance to do anything about it, btw wasn't the normandy supposedly using some sort of advanced tech that meant this couldn't happen also, a stealth system i believe.
[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]
As the woulda, coulda, shoulda defence, they should do something,which mean they could do something, which of course proves they would do something.
Yes rallying the races for a combined effort to stop the reapers is not tactially important whatsoever, why instead i'll not do that and place all my faith in a base that i can be sure will be more tactically important.
Even though i have no certainty that the base offers me anything whatsoever, but i do have hope that this is the case and hope beats certainty any day.
When your attempting to hoist someone by their own petard at least make your reasoning make some sort of sense as to why this is in fact the case, although reason may not be your strongest ally.
[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]
Yes repeat the same mistakes over and over, don't learn from them and continue to do the same things, lose a few people here and there, to provide you with the same information you already know, but don't worry about it because this proves your willing to make mistakes and that you alone are taking the reapers seriously.
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]
Again stating an opinion as fact, survival of all life in the galaxy is the most important factor, it still doesn't mean that the basis for every single choice you make should be so skewed in this regard that the other factors involved in your decision are reduced to insignificance.
When making a choice, all the various elements involved in that choice should be taken into account, even if your placing more importance on cost vs. benefit, it still should be the sum of all these factors that influence how you decide.
If however your going in, already deciding that these other factors are insignificant, then your not making a rational decision based on the unique circumstances, your making a blanket one where despite whatever circumstances may be present, you've already decide that if the cost. vs. benefit is skewed either way then no other reasoning to make that choice exists.
[quote]
Because that's an assumption based on a single point of data. And a point that is also very debatable t oboot.
[/quote]
How is showing TIM in game doing something in any way debatable, does he or does he not withold information?
You can argue why he does it, but not the fact that he does in fact do it.
[quote]
Miranda is part of the higher echelon. And you really haven't answered the bolded part.
[/quote]
Miranda's in charge of the lazurus cell which gives her a somewhat high position, but in game she claims very little knowledge in regards to the other cells other than basic general knowledge that they exist. Her reaction on Pragia shows just how involved she is in other activities, which actually proves my point.
You say i didn't answer the bolded part.
Tim doesn't need to lie to everyone, cerberus being compartmentilised allows for him to tell just enough to each cell without giving the full picture to any of them. Miranda the example you use above shows this on pragia, she calls it a rogue operation which as an explanation to her views on cerberus makes sense to her, so again the very nature of the organisation allows that even when a situation occurs that may not tally with an indviduals understanding of cerberus, an explantion to be given to that individual that they accept without question.
The party line or stated goals of Cerberus which is what, human dominance and fighting the reapers, if a cell is told what they are doing is in order to acheive these goals and they have no knowledge of what a different cell is that could lead them to question their own activities, then why would they believe anything other than the party line.
Or are you arguing that thus far everything cerberus have been doing has been to stop the reapers, so therefore they are in fact doing as they say because if you are your being presumptious, considering you have not yet seen the the full explantion behiind why cerberus does what it does.
[quote]
.
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.
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]
So being confined by the laws and actions of that universe is in somehow metagaming, seriously someone needs a dictionary really badly.
Your actually the one who's metagaming because your trying to bring into the argument something that's been shown in game to be incorrect, if in game shepard makes all the choices and is the person who must deal with the ramifications of those choices, then trying to argue someone else can do the very same thing even though that's been shown to be incorrect, is in fact metagaming.
[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]
Its impossible to prove something wrong without the facts that show its wrong, considering those facts are at present unavailable i can't argue that the reasoning is wrong anymore than you can argue its right, so instead i've continually argued that it could be.
The reasoning you claim is as solid as a rock is in fact nothing of the sort for the simple reason that your assuming an outcome that is unknown.
[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]
Saying something does not make it fact, hell it doesn't even make it true, perhaps thats a lesson you should learn.
You really should re-read you arguments before you put them down, first claim a,b.c, and d are all correct (stating an incorrect fact) then in the very next line stating that C is an assumption and then reverting back to D as being a fact when it too is also an assumption.
You claim the base gives us an advantageand that it changes the odds signifcantly which are assumptions my friend, not facts, not truths, they are your assumption of what the outcome on an unknown will be, stating them as facts doesn't change this no matter how much you long for it to be the case.
[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]
As much as you'd like to believe it, just simply stating your opinion does not shoot down arguments, to try and claim it does really is you putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "i'm right, i'm right, i said it so i must be".
We can make a reasonable assumption of what can come out of the base, works both ways positively and negatively, simply assuming the most likely outcome is positive goes complete against probability, since either outcome have an equal chance of happening.
You say we can reasonably assume that starship tech will be amongst those probable things that come from the base, which completely ignores that we can reasonably assume that the only thing that comes out of the base is indoctrinated scientists or personell.
Or has this not been shown in game to be something that also occurs regularly.
[quote]
galaxy > single race
[/quote]
Galaxy = sum of its parts, each of which is as important as the other.
[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]
The fact that the racni were extinct, doesn't enter into the equation of whether its right to doom the species, what they were is irrelevant considering its the fact they now exist and you would be making the choice to doom them, the fact that this already was the case is made irrelevant by the fact it no longer is.
Firstly just because a choice has a common factor between it and another does not mean that you ignore the different factors and instead base your choice on the one common one.
Secondly when all else fails you once again revert to the CB's base having great benefits argument (an assumption) followed by the old chestnut that destroying the base dooms the galaxy (another assumption),seriously its like a safety blanket to you and as usual irrelevant to the argument anyway, considering it is nothing more than an assumption.
You spared the rachni queen because in your analysis the cost. vs. benefit argument worked out positive, which kinda proves my original point about using letting the cost. vs. benefit argument skew every choice.
[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]
Firstly, ive ignored the queston because it has no relevance to the argument, a point you continually miss and bringing the same point up constantly doesn't change.
Secondly, it is actually a blindness in the fact that your using it as you most important basis for every choice rather than just a factor in those choices, its a vision allright, just a flawed one.
[quote]
There is also no way back once you blow hte base up..and yet you can always blow the base up later.
[/quote]
Indeed once i destroy the base there is no way i can undestroy it, however TIM and cerberus still happen to be alive do they not, which was in fact the point, they may not have the base, but they themselves still exist, something that isn't the case with the other 2 choices.
You can always blow the base up later is i'm afraid an assumption once again, there is no proof this can happen, just an assumption that this could happen, which as usual brings us back to a real world/in game argument, if this was the real world then i have options available to me that unfortunately are not present in game, since i must accept only my in game options and since in game this option is not presente to me, i cannot assume that it will happen later simply because it may not be the case.
[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]
I have the same priorities as you do, the difference is i'm exploring those priorities while taking every factor into account, your using one factor as the determining factor in everything you do, of course certain criteria are important, they are just not the only important criteria to be used when making what are vastly different choices.
[quote]
Yes you have. You have to offer an alternative to saving the galaxy.
[/quote]
No i don't, in order to disprove what your saying i only need to offer a reason why what your saying could be incorrect, not a plan to save the galaxy in its place, but a reason why yours isn't a plan.
[/quote]
[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]
You need to brush up on the mission brieifing given to you by TIM before you do the mission then, How can they have been sent to find something they didn't know existed or was needed until EDI found that info when you boarded the collector ship.
So who exacly isn't making sense.
[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]
Again re-read my arguments, show me where from my original stance i've changed and ignored the positives, my original argument has always been that both keeping or destroying the base make perfect sense depending on your understanding and assessment of the info presented to you. SInce that point i've counter argued your assertion that destroying the base makes no sense and is not a logical and valid choice, so in arguing the counter to your point why would i then argue your point also?
[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]
If a hope is based on what turns out later on to have been an incorrect premise then it fits exactly the definition you took so much time to copy and past above.
Base yielding good things = possible not likely outcome as it ignores the same possibiltiy that it will yield bad things, so your reason and justification could be based on a false premise which is exactly what i've been pointing out to you.
Every thing you base your argument on, boils down to an assumption that the base yields good things and is in fact a plan to stop the reapers, if as i continually say this is untrue, your hope is false.
[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]
Once again insert stupid comparision claim this comparision is the same as what the other person has said and then try to claim this disproves the other persons point, well done, you've reached the maturity level of a preteen.
[quote][
:huh: .. Don't infer.
[/quote]
The don't claim to feel one way about the justifcations of how people make their choices and then try to assert that what you were saying does not mean that's how you feel.
[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]
Sure there isn't, superior technolgically advance warships, don't just appear suddenly and destroy everything in their path before the opposition can stop them acheving the first part of their objective.
Oh wait hang on a sec, didn't sovereign just appear at the citadel, destroy the ships in his path and land where he wished.
Didn't the collector ship just appear out of nowhere and destroy the normandy without giving the normandy the chance to do anything about it, btw wasn't the normandy supposedly using some sort of advanced tech that meant this couldn't happen also, a stealth system i believe.
[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]
As the woulda, coulda, shoulda defence, they should do something,which mean they could do something, which of course proves they would do something.
Yes rallying the races for a combined effort to stop the reapers is not tactially important whatsoever, why instead i'll not do that and place all my faith in a base that i can be sure will be more tactically important.
Even though i have no certainty that the base offers me anything whatsoever, but i do have hope that this is the case and hope beats certainty any day.
When your attempting to hoist someone by their own petard at least make your reasoning make some sort of sense as to why this is in fact the case, although reason may not be your strongest ally.
[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]
Yes repeat the same mistakes over and over, don't learn from them and continue to do the same things, lose a few people here and there, to provide you with the same information you already know, but don't worry about it because this proves your willing to make mistakes and that you alone are taking the reapers seriously.
Modifié par alperez, 15 août 2011 - 05:48 .
#2264
Guest_HomelessGal_*
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:42
Guest_HomelessGal_*
Guest_HomelessGal_*
-
- Guests
For an attempt to refresh the topic, does anyone's opinion about keeping the base change if Cerberus actually is using Indoctrination to recruit for its own purposes during ME3?
I'll text dump why I think this may be the case, if need be.
I'll text dump why I think this may be the case, if need be.
Modifié par HomelessGal, 15 août 2011 - 05:43 .
#2265
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:45
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
I always destroyed the base, had a feeling the elusive man was going to double cross me... Again.
#2266
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:45
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
Kaiser Shepard wrote...
I've actually never managed to get 'stuck' on a choice I didn't want to pick due to a lack of Paragon/Renegade...Davie McG wrote...
I know, it always irritated me that a game that boasts choice would shoe horn you into choosing just paragon or neutral or just renegade and neutral.
What does bother me personally, however, is how in a series hyped on the promise of having our choices resonanting throughout an entire series, we have yet to see a single major consequence of our actions. These sorts of thread would be much more interesting if something like the Rachni decision already had an impact on the endgame of ME1, or somewhere else in ME2. Likewise, keeping the Collector Base should've had an immediate effect on ME3; allowing Shepard to stay on friendly terms with the entirety of Cerberus, having another faction take their place as 40% of all enemies instead.
The way things are looking now, I've seems like we're led to believe everything will matter during ME3's endgame. But being the pessimist that I am, I'm starting to lose faith in that as well...
ME3's epilogue will probably be like DA:O's and just be a bunch of text and still images.
Edit: The Rachni Queen decision should have impacted the Krogans' perception of Shepard in ME2. It would cause them to view Shepard as a man with a "quad" who honored the sacrifice of their ancestors by killing the Queen or as someone who pissed on their graves by letting her go free.
That would have made them easier or harder for Shepard to ally herself with them.
Modifié par Seboist, 15 août 2011 - 05:50 .
#2267
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:45
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
Davie McG wrote...
I always destroyed the base, had a feeling the elusive man was going to double cross me... Again.
He never double crossed Shepard.
#2268
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:49
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Perhaps,but he has lied straight to your face.Seboist wrote...
Davie McG wrote...
I always destroyed the base, had a feeling the elusive man was going to double cross me... Again.
He never double crossed Shepard.
I know the reasoning but him lying to your face is indeed a fact.
#2269
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:49
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
That would ****** me off to no end. If they do that I'll boycott Bioware products.
#2270
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:49
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
HomelessGal wrote...
For an attempt to refresh the topic, does anyone's opinion about keeping the base change if Cerberus actually is using Indoctrination to recruit for its own purposes during ME3?
Of-course not, that would be meta-gaming.
Besides, I don't care if they indoctrinate their own forces or anyone else. Indoctrination being employed against organics BY ORGANICS is inevitable.
The only thing that disappoints me is that they're helping the Reapers. Albeit, I might wind up agreeing with them.
I'm already partially onboard with the idea.
#2271
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:50
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Awesome,the gangs all here.
#2272
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:52
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Perhaps,but he has lied straight to your face.Seboist wrote...
Davie McG wrote...
I always destroyed the base, had a feeling the elusive man was going to double cross me... Again.
He never double crossed Shepard.
I know the reasoning but him lying to your face is indeed a fact.
So? I don't roleplay as a Shepard who feels she needs to be worshipped as the center of the universe or holds herself above everyone else. She knows that her man was right.
#2273
Posté 15 août 2011 - 05:53
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Well,maybe McG does...so if he feels that TIM is a failure that will get his right nut indoctrinated from eating an orange,so be it.
#2274
Posté 15 août 2011 - 06:00
Davie McG
-
- Members
- 725 messages
The elusive man condoned the torture of many, the use of illegal and possibly harmful drugs on a child. He's a control freak and a liar, not to mention everyone in the galaxy considers him and his organization to be racist terrorists.
This to me doesn't sound like the guy to be in charge of uniting the governments and people of the galaxy. Which is what we need to do of we want to stop the reapers.
This to me doesn't sound like the guy to be in charge of uniting the governments and people of the galaxy. Which is what we need to do of we want to stop the reapers.
#2275
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 15 août 2011 - 06:03
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Nobody ever suggested TIM should be in charge of uniting the galaxy.
