951 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

So when you meta-game,assume,and ass-pull all is well and logical,but when anyone else does it,they are an idiot?

Umm... exactly what am I meta-gaming here?

Well,you didn't deny it was a massive ass-pull,maybe we are making some progress.


You are saying Shep can go pay the council a visit whenever he likes to tell him he commited treason and gave the base to Cerberus....wasn't an option in the game.

[TheZyzyva]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You are going to have to face indoctrination anywayh. Studying the base will at least present you with another opportunity to study it under controlled circumstances before the Reapers arrive. It is your best chance to develop an understanding of indoctrination. Understanding it will open the way to developing means to repel, resist, or reverse it.

Honest question since it's been awhile since I ran through ME2: Was the derelict Reaper destroyed after obtaining the IFF? I can't remember.

More to the point though, studying the CB for info on indoctrination would be like giving a group of scientists HIV so they could watch it become AIDS.
The indoctrination concern isn't why I don't fork over the base though, rather I have no faith in Cerberus and wouldn't trust them to handle a squirt gun safely.

[Seboist]

The derelict Reaper was crushed by the brown dwarf's gravity, so yeah it was destroyed.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

You are saying Shep can go pay the council a visit whenever he likes to tell him he commited treason and gave the base to Cerberus....wasn't an option in the game.

No, but it is an option in-universe.

That's not meta-gaming.

Gah, I love your double-standards.

You love to throw around words like meta-gaming and you have just proven to not even know what it means.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 10:03 .

[TheZyzyva]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, but it is an option in-universe.

That's not meta-gaming.

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

Read the bold. Sorry Saphra, it pains me to tell you this, but you are in fact wrong in this case. Making a hypothetical decision that is not presented in the game does indeed fall under the category of meta-gaming. 

Modifié par TheZyzyva, 24 août 2011 - 09:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Letting the Council die is not only a reaslistic choice, but it's the sensible choice.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheZyzyva wrote...

Read the bold. Sorry Saphra, it pains me to tell you this, but you are in fact wrong in this case. Making a hypothetical decision that is not presented in the game does indeed fall under the category of meta-gaming. 

If I'm meta-gaming then so are you. having to clean up after Cerbeurs is never brought up as a reason to destroy the base.

LMAO,way to go saphra, just go ahead and show everyone you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

Is that really the best you can come up with? You've been proven wrong,so wrong that your best response is,
If I'm meta-gaming so are you."

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 10:19 .

[Reever]

Argh, don´t have the nerve for all these morality discussion. So I won´t (fully) read ´em.

Only thing I have to say: Play how you think it´s right (at least for your current Shep). This is a constructed world either way, so it really doesn´t matter what you discuss.
Your Shepard couldn´t act entirely objective in the seconds or minutes he has to decide what to do.

I just hope the morality system in ME3 lets you do all the choices you think of as the right ones at the moment when you have to choose - because otherwise you won´t have another alternative, and your path in the war is set by the game mechanic (we could still cheat of course, but they could just change the system).

[Jog0907]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Letting the Council die is not only a reaslistic choice, but it's the sensible choice.

agree, I took it not because of being anti-alien but because I thought they were incompetent so they had to be replaced by a more capable council, in that case I think the renegade action was the sensible choice to make (or maybe the neutral one, given its position on the wheel), also that they were REALLY dumb to think that going to a ship that is only acting as a bullet magnet to the enemy fleet was the best course of action to ensure survival, I mean really they were kinda trying to get themselves killed.

[Thompson family]

OK. SandTrout made some very good points but one option is the very one I disagree with the most: Killing Shiala on Feros:

SandTrout's reasoning:

Admitted agent for the enemy, regardless of potential 'rehabilitation'. Even if you assume Indoctrination, it is irreversible as far as we know, and the subject could 'relapse' into enemy control...

Relapse is a possibility. The coming out of indoctrination -- however temporarily -- is an established fact. Shiala's spell of indoctrination was broken, however briefly, and yielded absolutely vital intelligence (including the Cipher).

She is living proof that indoctrination can be reversed, even if it can only be reversed temporarily.

Now, does reversing indoctrination require mind control by another entity (the Thorian, in this case,) then turning the other "controller" "off" or killing it? We don't know -- and never will know if Shiala dies.

If some member of my crew was indoctrinated and there was a cure, even if it left my crewmember sick and green, I'd d*** sure want to have it. Are Thorian spores a "vaccine" against indoctrination? I don't know, but I'd like to.

Beyond all that, shooting defectors who give you vital intelligence is self-evidently bad intelligence work. There is nothing more valuable to your intelligence work than traitors. That's been a known fact since Thucydides and Sun Tzu.

Reasonable analysis could conclude too great a risk for no real reward besides a clear conscience.

A risk of what? That she'll turn the surving colonists of Feros against Shep?

During wartime, traitors and spies are executed, and a trial is not really necessary to determine guilt, as a confession has already been volunteered.

You shoot YOUR traitors and ENEMY spies. You WANT the enemy's people to turn traitor.

Sun Tzu: "Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies. None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

"... The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the
enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance,
from the converted spy (traitor). Hence it is essential that the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality."

And as Thucidydies put it, nobody can do more harm to his side than the traitor, because traitors know where his side's weaknesses are hidden. Shiala told plenty about Saren but doesn't know a thing about Shep, other than that s/he left Feros at such and such a time.

Thucidydies referred specifically to Alcibiades who, after being driven from Athens, turned traitor to Sparta and told the Spartans where Athen's secret silver mines were, which largely paid for the Athenian war effort. Seizure of those mines proved to be the crippling blow.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 août 2011 - 10:20 .

[J-Sheridan]

Smart Shepard
TIM: Horizon is under attack, go check it out
Shepard: Notify the Alliance
TIM: Nah, I wont
Shepard: Joker, Send a transmission to the Alliance telling them about the attack on Horizon.
TIM:

Game Shepard
TIM: Horizon is under attack, check it out

Shepard: Notify the Alliance

TIM: Nah, I wont

Shepard: Curse you villian for not contacting the Alliance. I am totally forced to go along with this decision. Its not like we have our own communication system to notify themselves...

Smart Shepard
Council: Your totally working for Cerberus and are evil...
Shepard: Nope, heres all the recordings of data, mission reports and video footage of my dealings
Apparantly, TIM was idiotic enough to leave tons of files on the ship so even a nutcase like Jack could rake through them.
Council: Working on the inside as a double agent. Well we can just drop these charges of Treason.
Shepard: Excellent, I can keep feeding you this data after every mission
Anderson: We have an investigation going on into Cerberus, thanks for all this info its gonna help a bunch. We will replace your crew with Alliance personnel immediately and put you back under military command to stop the Collectors.
TIM: Damnit

Game Shepard
Council: Your totally working for Ceberus and are evil
Shepard: Totally, I am a good guy seriously... its not how it looks... I deserve better than this even though I have provided no proof.
Council: Yeah, we dont believe you but we will make you a Spectre again. Just go play over there and dont talk to us again.
Anderson: Hey, we have an investigation into Ceberus... you cant trust them but go back to it.
Shepard: I should go and work with Ceberus...

Smart Shepard
TIM: The Collector ship has been found... it attacked a Turian patrol
Shepard: Sure, Joker contact the Alliance and Council.
Alliance / Council: Whats going on ?
Shepard: Got the folks responsible for attacking human colonies and they attacked a Turian patrol
Turian: We dont have patrols out there... it's a Trap !
Shepard: Thanks for the heads up... Hackett... got an observer I can borrow... like Ashley / Kaiden to confirm my story ?
TIM: Damn it Shepard stop doing this !

Game Shepard
Shepard: I totally believe you and will go head first to find the Collectors

Smart Shepard
TIM: We found a dead Reaper. Its got an IFF you can use to go to the Reaper base. Here is the location, you c...
Shepard: Joker, Council and Alliance please
A / C - Jesus, what now Shepard...
Shepard - Found a Reaper and it allows access to a Collector base. Do you want me to say 'I told you so now or shall I save that for when I bring Amy Wong here with a film crew ?
A / C - Son of a  !!!
TIM:

Game Shepard
TIM: We found a dead Reaper. Its got an IFF you can use to go to the Reaper base. Here is the location, you c...
Shepard: Yes Sir, I totally hate your guts but am following your instructions without fail even when you have screwed me twice already.

And... finally...

Smart Shepard
TIM: Collector Base... keep it
Shepard: Ok...
TIM:
Shepard: Contact the Council and Alliance... we have a Collector base and the means to get to it along with proof the Reapers exist. Tell them Cerberus is trying to capture it for terrorist activities so probably best to keep it under military control and shoot any Cerb that comes through
TIM: FU Shepard !!!
Shepard: Hows it feel to be screwed back TIMmy and when we meet in person I have an inferno round with your name on it

Game Shepard
TIM: Collector Base... keep it
Shepard: Ok
TIM:
Shepard: I'm just gonna fly the Normandy into the sunset leaving behind a massive base that noone can reach except through one relay and only Cerberus knows how...

------------------

I'm sorry... when has Mass Effect choices been realistic ?

Modifié par J-Sheridan, 24 août 2011 - 10:22 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Letting the Council die is sensible because saving them is taking a huge risk by weakening your fleet when it goes to fight Sovereign. If you fail to defeat Sovereign you fail to save the Council anyway and you fail to save the galaxy.

Look at this... saving the Alien Council...

Heavy Risk... but the prize!

Turian councillor: Ahh yes "Reapers" the immortal race of sentient starships, allegedly waiting in dark space. We have dismissed that claim

DOH!

[TheZyzyva]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If I'm meta-gaming then so are you. having to clean up after Cerbeurs is never brought up as a reason to destroy the base.

You blew up the base purely because you felt it was morally wrong to keep it. No other reasoning is allowed because that is meta-gaming.

So, since you made an emotion decision instead of a logical one (which is to keep the base), then clearly I win the argument.

Ok, give me a minute to try and wrap my head around this argument....

For one thing, I never said I wasn't meta-gaming. I merely said you were, and, since you did not refute that statement, I believe we are in agreement there. Secondly, when making my decision to blow up the base, I looked at the track record of Cerberus that was presented in game, and decided that they were not deserving of such a responsibility. I based my decision on a perceived outcome that was derived from on nothing but the facts contained in the game itself and my opinion of them. If that is metagaming than yes, I am guilty of metagaming. You made the decision to keep the base based off of the same in-game information and that is merely a difference of opinion. Where you meta-game is by justifying the decision by assuming there is an option to retake the base at a later time. As for your assertion that logic beats emotion, I don't even know where to begin. We are human. We possess the capabilties for both emotion and logic, neither is inherently better than the other. If you are operating on pure logic alone, you would be no better than a machine, something you have a problem with if I remember your opinions on the Geth right. And that's disregarding the fact that outside of mathematics, no logic is absolute. Different conclusions can be reached by different people based on the same information. That is perfectly acceptable as we are all different people with different ideas and minds. So no, you did not "win the argument" as I am yet to be dissuaded from my prior stance.

And most importantly, I am currently eating cheesecake and icecream. I am impervious to all things that would seek to disrupt me.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

How dare you call Jack a "nutcase"

You raise a good points though...

[Thompson family]

J-Sheridan wrote...

Smart Shepard ... Game Shepard

That was good.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

TheZyzyva wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

If I'm meta-gaming then so are you. having to clean up after Cerbeurs is never brought up as a reason to destroy the base.

You blew up the base purely because you felt it was morally wrong to keep it. No other reasoning is allowed because that is meta-gaming.

So, since you made an emotion decision instead of a logical one (which is to keep the base), then clearly I win the argument.

Ok, give me a minute to try and wrap my head around this argument....

For one thing, I never said I wasn't meta-gaming. I merely said you were, and, since you did not refute that statement, I believe we are in agreement there. Secondly, when making my decision to blow up the base, I looked at the track record of Cerberus that was presented in game, and decided that they were not deserving of such a responsibility. I based my decision on a perceived outcome that was derived from on nothing but the facts contained in the game itself and my opinion of them. If that is metagaming than yes, I am guilty of metagaming. You made the decision to keep the base based off of the same in-game information and that is merely a difference of opinion. Where you meta-game is by justifying the decision by assuming there is an option to retake the base at a later time. As for your assertion that logic beats emotion, I don't even know where to begin. We are human. We possess the capabilties for both emotion and logic, neither is inherently better than the other. If you are operating on pure logic alone, you would be no better than a machine, something you have a problem with if I remember your opinions on the Geth right. And that's disregarding the fact that outside of mathematics, no logic is absolute. Different conclusions can be reached by different people based on the same information. That is perfectly acceptable as we are all different people with different ideas and minds. So no, you did not "win the argument" as I am yet to be dissuaded from my prior stance.

And most importantly, I am currently eating cheesecake and icecream. I am impervious to all things that would seek to disrupt me.

Lmao, I can't get over what saphra said, she can't judge what metagaming is,because she clearly has no grasp on it, I made the decision base on what I had seen in-game,the whole "I wont let fear comprimise who I am" thing happens AFTER I click blow the base,therefore you lose and you are WRONG.

It may be a foriegn concept to beleive in saphra but you aren't always right.

[TheZyzyva]

J-Sheridan, you pretty much summed up all my complaints with ME2. Add in being able to tell the Qurians that the Geth are peaceful and not even on their home world and it's complete.

[Ianamus]

J-Sheridan wrote...

:snip:

To be fair, TIM had a lot of control over the Normandy- and could have just blown it up or disabled it if Shepard did something like that. (I agree that it was poor writing though)

After EDI takes full control though, no excuses. 

[J-Sheridan]

EJ107 wrote...

J-Sheridan wrote...

:snip:

To be fair, TIM had a lot of control over the Normandy- and could have just blown it up or disabled it if Shepard did something like that. (I agree that it was poor writing though)

After EDI takes full control though, no excuses. 

Even before EDI takes full control it has no excuse. TIM had no control over the Normandy, we dont see him do anything to force the Normandy one way or another.
Sure, TIM has force of plot to make characters do what he says but thats another example of extremely poor writing.

As for blowing it up or disabling it... even if possible you would expect a smart Shepard to have the Normandy tested with a fine comb to get anything like that out.
Obviously the crew become a major security risk like Miranda, Jacob, Zaeed, Kasumi, Kelly etc. and TIM can order them to attack you etc.

That said, an ingame acknowledgement Shepard literally has a gun at his back if he refuses and even some actual scenes showing him being threatened / killed if he does would go a long way to make it more believable Shepard is being 'forced' to go along with Cerberus.

As the game develops and these squadmates become loyal, the gun slowly falls away and Shepard can finally break away from Cerb. That would have been far more realistic and add more dimensions to earning squad loyalty.

Game Shepard:
EDI: I monitor all the spyware on the Normandy and send it back to TIM
Shepard: Cool, back to work

Smart Shepard:
Shepard: Spyware you say... Hey Garrus / Tali / Mordin... we gotta go off world to go... shopping
*Offworld*
Shepard: When we go back, strip the entie goddamn ship of every single camera, spyware junk and trace any signals being emitted from the Normandy

TIM: What the hell... I cant see whats going on in the Normandy anymore. Shepard !
Shepard: Dont worry, Garrus is calibrating the Thanix cannons, we are gonna test fire shortly
TIM: You disabled my cameras... I object
Shepard: We tracked the signals back to your base too... Garrus... FIRE
TIM: WTF !

Seriously, Morinth is capable of disabling these devices and does so without comment and yet Shepard goes through the game without doing so.
Its not as if he didnt know they were there either... ZAEED has live feeds, Tali tells you and even EDI tells you they are there and you cant do anything about it ?

[Reever]

Thompson family wrote...

J-Sheridan wrote...

Smart Shepard ... Game Shepard

That was good.

Even if not entirely doable. The Collector Ship mission was somewhat urgent, and Alliance/Council ships in the Terminus Systems would provoke a war. The rest is pretty reasonable, but only if Sheps transmission would be actually transmitted!

TheZyzyva wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

snip

winsnip

:happy:

Modifié par BlueDemonX, 24 août 2011 - 11:15 .