293 réponses à ce sujet

[yukon fire]

The Angry One wrote...

They should release Mass Effect 1: Mac Walters Edition.
Your only option at the end will be to surrender to Saren.

You know, to maintain the artistic vision.

Saren: Join me Shepard 

Shepard: I don't know...

Still better than ME3

Modifié par yukon fire, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:33 .

[fchopin]

MetioricTest wrote...

If victory was an impossibility and pointless to attempt until Liara found the crucible plans on the floor at the start of the game. Why did it matter that the council refused to believe the Reaper threat? Why was that dramatic? **** it, if defeat at the hands of Reapers was assured unless someone stumbles over an "I win" button, we may as well deny Reaper existance and die in happiness instead of long drawn out agonizing death. Hell the stumbling part can happen either way (as indeed it did)

From ME1 i knew that the enemy was very powerful and there was little chance to win.
Being ready means that you have a small chance of winning conventionally so the council believing in the threat would have been a big help in preparing for the reapers.
They could have searched for a weakness to the reaper shields and could have prepared a united fleet that would be ready on the first signs of the reapers.
 
ME2 should have been about Shepard uniting all the different races to be ready as well as searching the galaxy for any info or damaged reaper ships to find a weakness.
 
They could have also investigated the relays so they could control them to stop the reapers from being able to fly to different planets quickly, if they could do this then they could concentrate the fleet on individual planets to stop the reapers in small numbers which would have given them a reasonable chance.
 
By doing nothing and making ME2 in to a not important game in the mass effect universe Bioware basically confirmed what ME3 would be about, needing a miracle.
 
A prepared enemy is always a much tougher fight.

[The Angry One]

I'm sorry, but blaming ME2 is the easy way out.
Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

ME3 completely failed to make anything that happened in ME2 relevant. Not the Collectors, not Shepard's resurrection, not the human Reaper, not even Arrival.
Now, people don't like some or all of these things and some with good reason, but they were still established and were all but ignored in ME3.

These elements could've been used to craft a story where we actually, you know, fight the Reapers. The human Reaper could've been used to show the Reaper's true desperation and weaknesses that they've been hiding.
If Mass Effect 2 wasted time, then so did Mass Effect 3 with the Crucible. ME3 could've been solely about uniting the races against the Reapers, gaining enough assets to win major battles, retake homeworlds and topple their leadership with Harbinger.

[Seival]

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

[Shaigunjoe]

Haha, new IT theory, that's perfect.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

Yes the artistic value of borrowing heavily from Deus Ex. Please pass whatever you're smoking I could use a laugh.

[Voiceacted a Husk]

Such was the problem with having the Reapers invade, odd as it seems.

I mean, we needed the Crucible and its instant-win button to defeat the Reapers, and that was when they acted like IDIOTS. I'd argue that we could've beaten them conventionally because they acted like first-time invaders.

What's worked for them every single cycle? Hit the CITADEL, ISOLATE races, SYSTEMATICALLY destroy everything.

They threw all that out the window for no reason whatsoever. If they hadn't and had followed their previous plan, then conventional victory would've been impossible the instant Bioware came out with the Arrival DLC and established that the Reapers weren't actually "trapped in dark space", as Vigil had told us, but that they were...lazy.

The dumbing-down of the Reapers began long before the Catalyst.

Modifié par Voiceacted a Husk, 19 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .

[fchopin]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm sorry, but blaming ME2 is the easy way out.
Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

I agree that ME2 could have been used to help more in ME3 but not the way it was done.
 
The council should have been involved with the human reaper so it would be investigated for weaknesses; Cerberus taking over the human reaper helps no one and the two years that shepard was dead were a waist that the galaxy could not afford.
 
The council taking no part in ME2 meant that ME2 was a side quest game and not relevant.
ME3 should not have been named retake Earth, it should have been named Retake the Galaxy and the council should have been the people to help Shepard as this was a galaxy war and not an Earth war.

[The Angry One]

Arrival didn't tell us that the Reapers were lazy so much as they NEEDED the Citadel plan for their strategy to work.
The original plan, Sovereign's improvisations and the Alpha Relay all involved taking the Citadel first and moving on from there. The Citadel was always the vital center of their plans.

Then ME3 comes along and tells us yes, the Reapers were just lazy. They didn't even need the Citadel! What, was Sovereign running around for centuries coming up with plans to take the Citadel on a bet?

[Hendrik.III]

The whole "we can't beat them conventionally" only emerged until after the reapers attacked. I think no one in the universe had anticipated there to be so ff-ing many.

The only thing we knew was that they were coming and how they destroyed the Protheans. Their actual numbers and how to fight them effectively were unknown. We've seen what it took to take down one Reaper and how easily the one-shotted our ships.

But the whole Collector thing in ME2 was a bit weird, I think in retrospect they could have spent ME2 preparing better - I mean, even if the collector's finished that one human reaper, it would not be able to make things any more worse than it already was. As TheAngryOne stated, there is little in ME3 that has anything to do with ME2. Even keeping the base or not, which was the final decision in ME2 (and boy, did it feel like something important at that time!) has little influence.

There are enough hints in ME1 and 2 that show there wasn't a clear idea where the series would end. They would just produce pieces of subsequent lore through comics, books and games. They were writing as they went. That base at the end of ME2 was something big and I think they had plans with it at the time. I mean, Cerberus betrayal from keeping the base was a given, we all knew TIM was going to do something stupid with it- just how was not clear at that point.

[tanisha__unknown]

MetioricTest wrote...

Now first off this isn't an ending topic. I'm not saying I want a convential victory or it should be included in DLC or anything like that. I frankly didn't and don't care how the end of the war went down so long as it was told well.

But since this whole "conventional victory" stuff popping up recently (I think some people are calling it the new IT) I've seen literally hundreds of people declare that it is and always was impossible, presented as such since the first game.

And to that I say bull****.

If victory was an impossibility and pointless to attempt until Liara found the crucible plans on the floor at the start of the game. Why did it matter that the council refused to believe the Reaper threat? Why was that dramatic? **** it, if defeat at the hands of Reapers was assured unless someone stumbles over an "I win" button, we may as well deny Reaper existance and die in happiness instead of long drawn out agonizing death. Hell the stumbling part can happen either way (as indeed it did)

What's the relevance of bringing Shepard back to life and stopping the Collectors from abducting human colonies? Saving a few lives? We'd save even more if we took all the resources/time/effort we spent into doing that and instead put it into curing dieases and giving it to hospitals.

Why does it matter whether or not we save Toombs? Take down the Shadow Broker? 

What's the dramatic value in anything, anything at all if at absolute best all it means is "Well, at least we'll go down swinging a little bit more when we all die." That's terrible... The point always was working towards the ultimate goal of defeating the Reapers.

Now don't misunderstand my point here. I'll repeat I'm not saying this as a "And so they should have made it an option!" I'm saying "Within the context of the story it should have been possible or else the story loses a lot of meaning and drama."

The entire trilogy and ME3 especially is so much stronger if:
"We could have beaten the Reapers If only.... The council listened two years ago."
"We could have beaten the Reapers if only.... We would unify our fleets, even at the cost of our homeworld's security."
"We could have beaten the Reapers if only.... The Asari had shared knowledge of the prothean beacon."
"We could have beaten the Reapers if only.... The Batarians had been more cooperative."
"We could have beaten the Reapers if only.... Miranda's butt wasn't distracting the admirals."
"We could have beaten the Reapers if only.... TIM's obsession didn't lead him to indoctrination and he had worked with us."
Etc.
And now we have to fall back on this desperate crucible plan because of the folly of man.

As opposed to:
"Never had a chance. Good thing Liara found those plans 5 minutes ago."

Just my thoughts. In my "headcannon" or whatever (I don't like that term for some reason) defeating the Reapers was always possible. It just was never realized due to arrogance and denial.  I find that to be a much more powerful and moral story than "We were always ****ed but then we discovered the Death Star."

You have a point there. However, I disagree. Standing together could also mean developing the crucible and finding out what it does when the Reapers have not arrived. The prothean beacon was there all along on Thessia and I doubt that the Mars archive were the only prothean remains that contained information about it. Asssume, the Reapers could only be beaten with the crucible, so non conventionally, and with a better introduction and without starchild we would have gotten a way better mainplot that does not devalidate ME1. Still, ME2 is pointless but that would be true if conventional victory was an option.

[palician]

Krunjar wrote...

Honestly I don't think so. It took Sovereign managed to chew it's way through 30% of the alliance fleet with it's shields down and its posterior hanging in the wind. And as numbers go up the power of individuals rise as well.

Whatever way you look at the story its just bad writing.If the reapers are impossible to defeat by conventional means(& by that I mean realistic within the context of the story)then why not just head straight for the citadel,as they have done numerus cycles before.The reapers were more interesting back in mass effect 1 before they became to much like emotional organics(feelings like anger & hate).One of the things that got me into mass effect in the first place were the reapers & how we were going to defeat them.Not for one second did I think that the writers would run out of idea's & FORCE in some magical fantasy ending.The series started off pretty grounded but mass effect 3 really jumped the shark.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

In retrospect?

ME2 ends with Shepard not having a clue of how to beat the Reapers, and going on to look for new ways to do so. It put itself back in the same position of ME1, of flying off into the space-sunset. That's not an inference: that's a key part of the Paragon ending, that the Collector Base won't be a solution.

[dreman9999]

The op is not understanding that finding the weakness of the reapers does not mean conventional victory. Everything the character of the series have been doing is finding the weakness of the reapers.

[dreman9999]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

In retrospect?

ME2 ends with Shepard not having a clue of how to beat the Reapers, and going on to look for new ways to do so. It put itself back in the same position of ME1, of flying off into the space-sunset. That's not an inference: that's a key part of the Paragon ending, that the Collector Base won't be a solution.

ME2 ends with Shepard having info on how the reapers are assembled and with Cerberus having the same info....Info that lead then to finding out the reapers can be controled.

[robertthebard]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm sorry, but blaming ME2 is the easy way out.
Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

ME3 completely failed to make anything that happened in ME2 relevant. Not the Collectors, not Shepard's resurrection, not the human Reaper, not even Arrival.
Now, people don't like some or all of these things and some with good reason, but they were still established and were all but ignored in ME3.

These elements could've been used to craft a story where we actually, you know, fight the Reapers. The human Reaper could've been used to show the Reaper's true desperation and weaknesses that they've been hiding.
If Mass Effect 2 wasted time, then so did Mass Effect 3 with the Crucible. ME3 could've been solely about uniting the races against the Reapers, gaining enough assets to win major battles, retake homeworlds and topple their leadership with Harbinger.

Yeah, it's totally ME 3's fault that we spent 2 years dead/being rebuilt by Cerberus, instead of rallying the galaxy, and getting assets together for a war that we know is coming, despite how the Council wants to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's not real.  Unfortunately, all that time that we wasted in ME 2, that should have been used to prepare for ME 3, was spent instead doing loyalty missions for a crew that, with few exceptions, won't be around for missions in ME 3,  What was the point of that again?  Oh yeah, side quests.

So no, refocusing the game where it should have been focused all along didn't make ME 2 pointless, ME 2 was just pointless.  The Crucible, in theory, was a good idea.  It is, afterall, a weapon that turns the original Reaper strategy against them, and uses the Citadel, the main controller for all the Relays, to transmit something that kills the Reapers.  This is where my vision of what it was, and BioWare's parts, but really, it's been beaten to death over the last few months, I'm not going to continue the trend.  Defeating Sovereign was expensive.  Defeating all the Reapers would be expensive on a scale that some just can't seem to imagine, which is why some believe they could fight a nice tidy war against them, and then go kick it on the beach.  If it's going to take a much more advanced race a century, according to Liara's estimate, to accomplish their mission, it's going to take us at least that long to kick them to the curb.  It will likely take longer.  Since we wasted two years messing around with Cerberus, it's probably going to take even longer.  That's 2 years we could have spent building more ships, shoring up our defences, knowing damn good and well what we're up against.

Regarding lazy and "trapped", evidently some people have no idea of the distances that need to be covered.  They are essentially trapped, in that it took them a couple of years to get to where they could use the Alpha Relay from the events in ME 1.  These are essentially ships that don't require fuel.  So how many trillions of miles do they have to travel to get to where the Alpha Relay is?  Their original plan is disabled prior to the events in ME 1, which we know, from ME 1.  So no, they couldn't do it that way.  So now, they have to do it the way they did it in the first "cycle", aka Plan B.  Since it's only 6 months from the events at the end of ME 2 to where the Reapers show up, according to Shep talking to Chakwas, it didn't take them very long to get from where the Alpha Relay was to the next relay, where they surged through to Arcturus, and then to Sol/Palaven systems, and more, as we can see from the Galaxy Map when we're jumping system to system.  Unfortunately for us, our Plan B gets badly mishandled, but that doesn't infer that the idea was bad, just the implementation.

[Kamfrenchie]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

In retrospect?

ME2 ends with Shepard not having a clue of how to beat the Reapers, and going on to look for new ways to do so. It put itself back in the same position of ME1, of flying off into the space-sunset. That's not an inference: that's a key part of the Paragon ending, that the Collector Base won't be a solution.

ME2 ends with Shepard having info on how the reapers are assembled and with Cerberus having the same info....Info that lead then to finding out the reapers can be controled.

and should lead to info on their weaknes instead, that is, if you don't just blow up the station as stupid parangon

[robertthebard]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

In retrospect?

ME2 ends with Shepard not having a clue of how to beat the Reapers, and going on to look for new ways to do so. It put itself back in the same position of ME1, of flying off into the space-sunset. That's not an inference: that's a key part of the Paragon ending, that the Collector Base won't be a solution.

ME2 ends with Shepard having info on how the reapers are assembled and with Cerberus having the same info....Info that lead then to finding out the reapers can be controled.

and should lead to info on their weaknes instead, that is, if you don't just blow up the station as stupid parangon

So I was curious, and did a save run where I saved the base, and what do you know, even my Cerberus lap dogs thought it was a bad idea.  I wonder why.  Surely an advanced AI, that's already hooked into the CB mainframe can spend some time dl'ing information, while I'm fighting the giant Terminator.  Smart or stupid really depends on your personal opinion of Cerberus.  Since I spent my entire first playthrough waiting for the promised choice to leave them, I don't feel stupid at all of denying an organization that I don't like, or trust, information that can tip them to the true power in the galaxy, especially knowing what lengths they are willing to go to to power in the first place.  Sorry, but we have a squadmate that can attest to events in ME 3 before ME 3 was ever released.  If they will just kill children in experiment after experiment trying to make a human superbiotic, what else are they going to do with tech that may or may not be able to indoctrinate?  Nope, blowing up the station seems like the smart thing to do.  Especially since saving it doesn't make the lapdogs in your own crew happy.

[MetioricTest]

dreman9999 wrote...

The op is not understanding that finding the weakness of the reapers does not mean conventional victory. Everything the character of the series have been doing is finding the weakness of the reapers.

...

I don't believe I ever mentioned "weakness of the reapers" at any point.

[Kamfrenchie]

robertthebard wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

In retrospect?

ME2 ends with Shepard not having a clue of how to beat the Reapers, and going on to look for new ways to do so. It put itself back in the same position of ME1, of flying off into the space-sunset. That's not an inference: that's a key part of the Paragon ending, that the Collector Base won't be a solution.

ME2 ends with Shepard having info on how the reapers are assembled and with Cerberus having the same info....Info that lead then to finding out the reapers can be controled.

and should lead to info on their weaknes instead, that is, if you don't just blow up the station as stupid parangon

So I was curious, and did a save run where I saved the base, and what do you know, even my Cerberus lap dogs thought it was a bad idea.  I wonder why.  Surely an advanced AI, that's already hooked into the CB mainframe can spend some time dl'ing information, while I'm fighting the giant Terminator.  Smart or stupid really depends on your personal opinion of Cerberus.  Since I spent my entire first playthrough waiting for the promised choice to leave them, I don't feel stupid at all of denying an organization that I don't like, or trust, information that can tip them to the true power in the galaxy, especially knowing what lengths they are willing to go to to power in the first place.  Sorry, but we have a squadmate that can attest to events in ME 3 before ME 3 was ever released.  If they will just kill children in experiment after experiment trying to make a human superbiotic, what else are they going to do with tech that may or may not be able to indoctrinate?  Nope, blowing up the station seems like the smart thing to do.  Especially since saving it doesn't make the lapdogs in your own crew happy.

My crew have their opinion, I have mine. Besides, grunt agrees The base has all we need to prove the reaper existence and develop weapons to destroy them. It's strategic value is undenible. It's never hinted that EDI download anything until the end sequence where you get the harbinger plan. Which are never used againin ME3.... yaay.

If edi said she had gathered enough data to stop the reapers already I would view this diffrently.

Unless you metagame saving the base is the only sane option, not " I won't let fear compromise who I am"

And well you should have been allowed to bring th council in and warn them and whatnot.

TIM says it was a rogue cell who did the stuff wth jack. There is some doubt.

And I don't see your obsesion with "leaving" cerberus. You don't have to do squat for cerberus during your entire playthrough if you don't want. Cerberus only gives you assets.
You don't like to get good, free stuff ?


Logically, the intel you can get from the base can let you face the reapers on nearly equal terms. blowing it up means you're till completely screwed, and you spent the whole game for almot nohing

And cerberus in ME2 was at worst, pragmatic evil. in ME3 it's stupid evil

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:12 .

[Memnon]

OP is correct and underlies a fundamental problem in the design of this trilogy. Bioware has admitted that they had no thoughts of doing more ME games when they first released ME1, and were caught off guard by its popularity. So when they did realize how popular the franchise was and decided to make it a trilogy, they should have planned out - or at least bandied ideas about - how the Reapers could be stopped.

As much as I enjoyed ME2, it added absolutely nothing towards this end - ME1 was the introduction and revelation; when they started making ME2, they should have had the means of defeating the Reapers in mind. This is the point of the OP that a lot of people miss when discussing a conventional battle - what the hell were we doing in ME1 and ME2?

If the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally, and if it was indeed hinted in ME1 (which it wasn't), then there is zero point of the two games prior to ME3 - if they can't be defeated conventionally, then your sole mission in life is to wander around the galaxy looking for that magical long forgotten, all-powerful ancient artifact that is the Reaper's off button. You have no plan other than you 'hope' you find it at some point ... oh, and that you'll kill a lot of stuff along the way

Modifié par Stornskar, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:21 .

[BatmanPWNS]

ME3 already killed the first two games.

[TK514]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

The discovery of the Atomic Bomb was an I win button for America, are you saying World War 2 was a bad story?

What? I don't even know where to respond to that. It has nothing to do with anything.

It's a sinfully simple allegory.  The crucible is to the atomic bomb what the war with the reapers was to World War 2.  

American Scientists discovered how to create a bomb capable of destroying major cities in an instant, this was detonated over Hiroshima to end world war 2.
Liara discovered how to create a bomb capable of destroying the reapers all at once.  This was detonated over planet earth to end the war with the reapers.

how is that hard to understand?  Its the exact same thing.  ME3 is a World War 2 story.  Casey hudson said this like a million times before the game came out.  The crucible is even shaped like the atomic bomb that ended world war 2.  I recognized what they were going for the instant I saw the Crucible (its a bomb) because I know my history.

If this is true, then it makes an even stronger case for 'conventional victory should have been possible', and means ME 3 is even a failure as an allegory.

The Atomic Bomb wasn't America's 'I WIN' button for WWII.  The Bomb was never necessary.  It wasn't the Allies' last and only hope for defeating Japan.  It was, quite simply, the least costly way of making the inevitable happen.  By the time the bomb was deployed, Japan had already lost.  All the bomb did was convince the Japanese to capitulate instead of forcing the Allies to effectively wipe out an entire generation of Japanese men while simultaneously carpet bombing Japan's industrial base into rubble.

The only thing the H-bomb and the Crucible have in common is that they are both weapons of mass destruction.

[CronoDragoon]

I would actually argue the opposite, that if conventional victory was possible this invalidates the first two games even more. ME1 and Arrival are both centered around delaying the Reaper arrival until a means to fight them can be found. Without Arrival Liara never has time to check the Mars archives and find the Crucible.

If conventional victory is possible, then it was possible back in ME1, as well.

[robertthebard]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

In retrospect?

ME2 ends with Shepard not having a clue of how to beat the Reapers, and going on to look for new ways to do so. It put itself back in the same position of ME1, of flying off into the space-sunset. That's not an inference: that's a key part of the Paragon ending, that the Collector Base won't be a solution.

ME2 ends with Shepard having info on how the reapers are assembled and with Cerberus having the same info....Info that lead then to finding out the reapers can be controled.

and should lead to info on their weaknes instead, that is, if you don't just blow up the station as stupid parangon

So I was curious, and did a save run where I saved the base, and what do you know, even my Cerberus lap dogs thought it was a bad idea.  I wonder why.  Surely an advanced AI, that's already hooked into the CB mainframe can spend some time dl'ing information, while I'm fighting the giant Terminator.  Smart or stupid really depends on your personal opinion of Cerberus.  Since I spent my entire first playthrough waiting for the promised choice to leave them, I don't feel stupid at all of denying an organization that I don't like, or trust, information that can tip them to the true power in the galaxy, especially knowing what lengths they are willing to go to to power in the first place.  Sorry, but we have a squadmate that can attest to events in ME 3 before ME 3 was ever released.  If they will just kill children in experiment after experiment trying to make a human superbiotic, what else are they going to do with tech that may or may not be able to indoctrinate?  Nope, blowing up the station seems like the smart thing to do.  Especially since saving it doesn't make the lapdogs in your own crew happy.

My crew have their opinion, I have mine. Besides, grunt agrees The base has all we need to prove the reaper existence and develop weapons to destroy them. It's strategic value is undenible. It's never hinted that EDI download anything until the end sequence where you get the harbinger plan. Which are never used againin ME3.... yaay.

If edi said she had gathered enough data to stop the reapers already I would view this diffrently.

Unless you metagame saving the base is the only sane option, not " I won't let fear compromise who I am"

And well you should have been allowed to bring th council in and warn them and whatnot.

TIM says it was a rogue cell who did the stuff wth jack. There is some doubt.

And I don't see your obsesion with "leaving" cerberus. You don't have to do squat for cerberus during your entire playthrough if you don't want. Cerberus only gives you assets.
You don't like to get good, free stuff ?


Logically, the intel you can get from the base can let you face the reapers on nearly equal terms. blowing it up means you're till completely screwed, and you spent the whole game for almot nohing

And cerberus in ME2 was at worst, pragmatic evil. in ME3 it's stupid evil

Isn't it convenient that, after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar, it's a rogue cell?  Was it also rogue cells in ME 1?  This question is kind of a trap, because if TIM has that little control over what his organization is doing, I really don't want him having control of the Collector Base, and, quite frankly, I made my initial decision to destroy the Reaper base, my default choice btw, based entirely on events in ME 1 and 2.  No metagaming necessary, or possible, since I hadn't played ME 3 yet.  Turning that base over to Cerberus does not equal helping the war effort, at that point in the game, and gives what, 10 points to ME 3?  It's not worth sacrificing my principles, or going against my own feelings about Cerberus, to that point in the games, which is why I made that decision in my first playthrough, with no prior knowledge to consequences in ME 3.

Since a non-import game of ME 3 indicates that you did save the Collector base, where's all that intel to make fighting them easier?  It seems that your logic is faulty, in that Cerberus keeps that information for themselves, as I suspected they would, and turns it to more "sinister" ends.  Pretty much following up on the "rogue cell's" actions with Jack that are laid out in ME 2.  Isn't that funny?