701 réponses à ce sujet

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...

someone else wrote...

But your dissatisfaction is based on your meta awareness of the developers choices -

nly m

Yes, the "fun" is a key part of the game and "fun" is necessarily a meta-concept since it is not a concept within the story.

and so you can't have "fun" because you know the defaults - you read spoilers, though?  But that doesn't take the fun out - let's assume you are thrilled with the spoilers by the way.

Saphra Deden wrote...
You sound like you are autistic.

...you mean like david?  - just let me unhook my eyes for a minute...or do you mean because of the "nly m" ? 

Modifié par someone else, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:29 .

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...

someone else wrote...

And your objection is that a renegade import has no impact on the ME2 starting gamestate.

Please correct me if I misunderstand your point.

Yes and your rambling about Schrodinger's cat has absolutely no bearing on it.

...then tell me how you would feel if a paragon import had no impact on the ME2 starting gamestate.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
The rationale for keeping the base outweighs the rationale for destroying it.

If you work for Cerberus, that is, which most people don't.

[rolson00]

i play paragon and i think no, if you dont like renagade choices then maybe it isnt for you redshep is simply willing to let hundreds die to save millions blueshep refuses to let anyone die even if it mean doing things the hard way. but anyway in me3 bioware have said red&blue are means to an end(thats in my own words) both are different paths to the same goal.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

jreezy wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
This really isn't worth the debate.

Indeed. Anyone who actually puts some thought behind the CB decision and thinks blowing it up is the best idea is a blight on the human race. Debate with such a person is pointless.

Harsh and incorrect.

The rationale for keeping the base outweighs the rationale for destroying it.

Trusting Cerberus is not a rationale. It is what you feel is right. Just like people feel that they can't trust them. Also it is an abomination. Many people were kindapped and murdered in there. I'll say it with Jack's words. Sometimes you want to see the world burn. In this case only the the collector base.

However the simple justification for Shep to destroy (or keep) it: Shepard conquered it. And probably nobody else could have done it. So whatever Shep decides, it is his full right. Whether others agree or not is their problem. They can't stop him anyway.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:37 .

[warriorN7]

yeah ok i opened Pandora's box here this was just a hypothetical question aimed at paragons not another par vs ren argument.

my bad

[AlexXIV]

warriorN7 wrote...

yeah ok i opened Pandora's box here this was just a hypothetical question aimed at paragons not another par vs ren argument.

my bad

Lol don't worry it had to happen. If not here then somewhere else. It is what Bioware was asking for with their renegade/paragon system tbh.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:39 .

[mango smoothie]

warriorN7 wrote...

yeah ok i opened Pandora's box here this was just a hypothetical question aimed at paragons not another par vs ren argument.

my bad

In case you didn't see my post.

@OP
      I was talking to my brother recently and he and I we're
discussing what we might be doing in ME3. Now my brother has played a
goody two shoes paragon in both ME 1 and 2 with the only renegade
decision he made was destroying the greybox on Kasumi's mission. He told
me though that he feels he made too many sacrifices to keep his moral
self in both games, and that he's probably going to think through his
decisions more and try to do whats best for the war. So I know of at
least one paragon who will be more open to renegade decisions in ME3.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Trusting Cerberus is not a rationale.

It has less to do with Cerberus and much more to do with exploring the only avenue available to us to understand and defeat the Reapers.

Cerberus is not as dangerous as the Reapers. They can't be. They haven't the manpower, firepower, or technology. They could be a threat later, yes, but not one that can rival the Reapers. I am willing to accept this risk if it means I have a chance to uncover vital knowledge or technology that might let us defeat the Reapers. I think the risk of Cerberus being a threat is less severe than the risk of going to war without sufficient understanding of our enemy and no means to even the technological gap.

They don't need to be stronger than the Reapers. They only need to ally with the Reapers against you. So the base won't help you, it will be used against you again. It's like giving it back to the Reapers. And after all we know about ME3 that's exactly what is going to happen.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:42 .

[BlueMagitek]

warriorN7 wrote...

yeah ok i opened Pandora's box here this was just a hypothetical question aimed at paragons not another par vs ren argument.

my bad

On BSN, every topic is secretely a Renegade vs. Paragon in disguise.

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...
There is no getting through to you.

ditto.

Look, you are dissatisfied because you know the renegade choices are replicated in vanilla ME2 starts.   You complain it takes the fun out of it to know that - all your choices were moot - you might as well have not played at all.  But if you didn't know that, if you could not play ME2 without an ME1 import, the basis for your objection would disappear.

But you can play ME2 as a stand-alone, and therefore it must have a starting game state - from that perspective one state is a valid as any other - you really have no basis for an objection. except as I said earlier, that the devs could have opted for a more balanced selection - to that extent I would agree a valid observation.

Modifié par someone else, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:47 .

[naledgeborn]

AlexXIV wrote...

Also it is an abomination. Many people were kindapped and murdered in there.

It's technology. The same technology used in a nuclear ordinace that can kill millions of people can also power millions of pacemakers thereby saving millions of people with heart complications. Sorry that excuse doesn't fly with me.

[warriorN7]

mango smoothie wrote...

warriorN7 wrote...

yeah ok i opened Pandora's box here this was just a hypothetical question aimed at paragons not another par vs ren argument.

my bad

In case you didn't see my post.

@OP
      I was talking to my brother recently and he and I we're
discussing what we might be doing in ME3. Now my brother has played a
goody two shoes paragon in both ME 1 and 2 with the only renegade
decision he made was destroying the greybox on Kasumi's mission. He told
me though that he feels he made too many sacrifices to keep his moral
self in both games, and that he's probably going to think through his
decisions more and try to do whats best for the war. So I know of at
least one paragon who will be more open to renegade decisions in ME3.

thank you for getting the point of this thread 

[DiebytheSword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Trusting Cerberus is not a rationale.

It has less to do with Cerberus and much more to do with exploring the only avenue available to us to understand and defeat the Reapers.

Cerberus is not as dangerous as the Reapers. They can't be. They haven't the manpower, firepower, or technology. They could be a threat later, yes, but not one that can rival the Reapers. I am willing to accept this risk if it means I have a chance to uncover vital knowledge or technology that might let us defeat the Reapers. I think the risk of Cerberus being a threat is less severe than the risk of going to war without sufficient understanding of our enemy and no means to even the technological gap.

This presumes that the reapers are indefeatable without the collector base.  Vigil plainly stated that they were not invincible to their own technology trap.  If development of mass effect technology goes past the point where Sovereign would normally being the decapitation attack against the Citadel, then their gambit has already failed, and the Reapers have a real war on their hands.  While there is little arguing that keeping the base should give Ceberus the upper hand dealing with the Reapers, there is also little indication that this tool will benefit anyone but Ceberus once the Reapers are taken care of.  Which of course fits the cause, in your case.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

They don't need to be stronger than the Reapers. They only need to ally with the Reapers against you.

Why would they do that?

At the worst this is only as bad as going to war with the Reapers and Cerberus with the base destroyed. Either way we've got nothing. Cerberus won't have gained anything either since by allying with the Reapers they'll have access to all the Reaper tech support that they could ever want.

So, what have you got to lose by keeping the base? At least with the keeping the base you allow the possibility of getting value out of it. You don't know that Cerberus would ally with the Reapers after all and have no real reason to believe that they would.

Well since Shepard is the last best hope of the galaxy I would hope he is smarter than I am. So I hope he did think about it enough to not be handing it to Cerberus if there is a chance that they would be more of a pain in the ass than a help in the comming war.

The base is not only a technology to study, it is also a weapon. And if they change the IFF signature then nobody has even access to the mu relay anymore. So they could make a new base, just this time eliminating the risk of Shep comming through with a stolen reaper IFF.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:51 .