Only idiots destroy the base. Why would you destroy a soon-to-be-void-of-life base full of advanced tech?
Nuts, absolutely nuts.
I admit I did metagame a bit when I destroyed the base. If there was an option to give the base to the council, I'd keep it. But seeing the Illusive Man's devious, almost evil grin at the very end...
I admit I did metagame a bit when I destroyed the base. If there was an option to give the base to the council, I'd keep it. But seeing the Illusive Man's devious, almost evil grin at the very end...
I would never trust anyone but Cerberus with the base. They'd fail to use it out of some bs ideal of ethics and morality. That said, I don't trust Cerberus with the base. I don't trust the base with anyone. There's too much unrestrained Reaper technology.
The council would deny the collector base exists just like they deny the "Geth" ship was a reaper
I would never trust anyone but Cerberus with the base. They'd fail to use it out of some bs ideal of ethics and morality. That said, I don't trust Cerberus with the base. I don't trust the base with anyone. There's too much unrestrained Reaper technology.
It's too bad plot incompetence precludes the use of probes to sift through the thing. There's no need to send so many bodies to such a dangerous location when mechs can do the job just fine.
Only idiots destroy the base. Why would you destroy a soon-to-be-void-of-life base full of advanced tech?
Nuts, absolutely nuts.
Uhm, see Omega (the comic series) and of course Mass Effect 3.
I wouldn't trust TIM with a Reaper-made coffeemaker, let alone a Build Your Own Reaper playset.
I would never trust anyone but Cerberus with the base. They'd fail to use it out of some bs ideal of ethics and morality. That said, I don't trust Cerberus with the base. I don't trust the base with anyone. There's too much unrestrained Reaper technology.
I'd trust myself with it. In my Reduced Idiocy rewrite where I don't just turn myself in like a tool and actually use the resources I've gathered I'd use the SB network to recruit a team that can study the tech. Supervised by Miranda herself (from a safe distance) as I've also set up my stronghold in the space beyond Omega 4. And once I've destroyed Cerberus and/or annexed their resource, that's even more researchers I can throw at it. I'd also use geth for the actual handling of the tech. Synthetics can't be indoctrinated.
Only idiots destroy the base. Why would you destroy a soon-to-be-void-of-life base full of advanced tech?
Nuts, absolutely nuts.
Because we don't trust the people most likely to use it? Simply calling people "idiots" for not keeping it is a little extreme. I was actually half-convinced by TIM the first time I played the game, but then he went into his "human dominance" routine afterward and I thought, "OK, not gonna do that again" (at least not when playing Shepards with outlooks similar to my own).
You don't even have to be especially idealistic not to trust TIM. The stunt he pulls with the "disabled" Collector Ship is a significant bit of paranoid control-freakery. Does he really think that an N7 soldier, his top Lazarus Cell operative, an ex-C-Sec/turian military officer, the best thief in the galaxy, etc. can't successfully pretend to walk into a trap? And when he contacts Shepard with the plan to keep the base, he phrases it entirely in terms of being able to save more lives and then only tips his hand about the "human dominance" thing after Shepard has made the decision.
The council would deny the collector base exists just like they deny the "Geth" ship was a reaper
Not in the archives they don't.
Fat lot of good that ends up doing us.
Because we don't trust the people most likely to use it? Simply calling people "idiots" for not keeping it is a little extreme. I was actually half-convinced by TIM the first time I played the game, but then he went into his "human dominance" routine afterward and I thought, "OK, not gonna do that again" (at least not when playing Shepards with outlooks similar to my own).
You don't even have to be especially idealistic not to trust TIM. The stunt he pulls with the "disabled" Collector Ship is a significant bit of paranoid control-freakery. Does he really think that an N7 soldier, his top Lazarus Cell operative, an ex-C-Sec/turian military officer, the best thief in the galaxy, etc. can't successfully pretend to walk into a trap? And when he contacts Shepard with the plan to keep the base, he phrases it entirely in terms of being able to save more lives and then only tips his hand about the "human dominance" thing after Shepard has made the decision.
Giving it to a maniac is still better than destroying it.
as for me and the collector base, I rather trust Cerberus over Alliance and the Council.
They'd fail to use it out of some bs ideal of ethics and morality.
In BioWareland yeah, but irl? Nah. Governments in real life wouldn't let stuff like ethics and morals stop them from keeping a base with such advanced technology. Bioware writers on the other hand....
Giving it to a maniac is still better than destroying it.
Seriously?
To me that borders on self-evidently false. If someone invents something along the lines of, say, a Dr. Strangelove-style "Doomsday Weapon" and my choices are to blow it up or give it to, say, North Korea, it gets blown up with barely a second thought. Hell, I'd barely trust *any* government with it, much less one with a history of extreme behavior.
Giving it to a maniac is still better than destroying it.
Seriously?
To me that borders on self-evidently false. If someone invents something along the lines of, say, a Dr. Strangelove-style "Doomsday Weapon" and my choices are to blow it up or give it to, say, North Korea, it gets blown up with barely a second thought. Hell, I'd barely trust *any* government with it, much less one with a history of extreme behavior.
We're not talking about a doomsday weapon here. We're talking about deliberatly destroying advanced tech just because you don't like the receiver and what he might do with it.
If it just went *boom, everybody's dead* I'd destroy it.
And, not unimportant in the case of the game Mass Effect: the galaxy is about to be emptied of advanced life. Destroying it is just a waste.
In BioWareland yeah, but irl? Nah. Governments in real life wouldn't let stuff like ethics and morals stop them from keeping a base with such advanced technology. Bioware writers on the other hand....
Indeed. I'd realistically be assigned to some of the projects regulating their use. The government will be whisper quiet about everything.
Interestingly enough, it was Mac Walters, I believe, who decided that the council should deny the existence of the Reapers. The same guy responsible for ret-conning Cerberus into everything and that ending of theirs. I'm not surprised.
We're not talking about a doomsday weapon here. We're talking about deliberatly destroying advanced tech just because you don't like the receiver and what he might do with it.
If the receiver is someone with his own agenda that won't necessarily align with the good of the galaxy as a whole, it's reasonable to conclude that keeping it may cause more problems than it solves. The base isn't a doomsday weapon, but the one thing we know it *can* do is kill people and use their biological material to create a new Reaper. Maybe it could be adapated for defensive uses as well, but maybe not. Cerberus has had its own experiments get out of control more than once, and their leader has misled and manipulated Shepard before and has obvious ambitions beyond just stopping the Reapers. Miranda, who knows TIM best and probably has a better idea what he's likely to do with it, openly objects to the idea of keeping the base.
If I'd had the option to give it to someone I actually trusted, that would be one thing. If I could do whatever I wanted with it, I'd have Shepard go back through the relay with Mordin, Garrus, Tali, and Legion (as the most science/technology-oriented crew members) to see what they can salvage, and assuming they don't find a risk of mass indoctrination, I'd use it to try to get the Council's heads out of the sand and work with R&D teams from the Alliance and any other reliable species-based militaries to see if new defenses can be reverse-engineered from the base's technology. But the Illusive Man is just too much of a wild card - it would be like handing it to the Shadow Broker or Aria.
If the receiver is someone with his own agenda that won't necessarily align with the good of the galaxy as a whole, it's reasonable to conclude that keeping it may cause more problems than it solves. The base isn't a doomsday weapon, but the one thing we know it *can* do is kill people and use their biological material to create a new Reaper. Maybe it could be adapated for defensive uses as well, but maybe not. Cerberus has had its own experiments get out of control more than once, and their leader has misled and manipulated Shepard before and has obvious ambitions beyond just stopping the Reapers. Miranda, who knows TIM best and probably has a better idea what he's likely to do with it, openly objects to the idea of keeping the base.
If I'd had the option to give it to someone I actually trusted, that would be one thing. If I could do whatever I wanted with it, I'd have Shepard go back through the relay with Mordin, Garrus, Tali, and Legion (as the most science/technology-oriented crew members) to see what they can salvage, and assuming they don't find a risk of mass indoctrination, I'd use it to try to get the Council's heads out of the sand and work with R&D teams from the Alliance and any other reliable species-based militaries to see if new defenses can be reverse-engineered from the base's technology. But the Illusive Man is just too much of a wild card - it would be like handing it to the Shadow Broker or Aria.
You snipped out the most important part: the Reapers are coming. Destroying the base is just stupid. What if it contains information that could win the war?
We know it doesn't, or not really, but you don't know that at the point you have to take the decision. At the point you make the decision, and you choose to destroy, you're potentially destroying something that could save everybody just because you don't like the receiver.
That's just stupid. We're not in some utopian state where giving certain things to certain madmen could result in bad things. We're in a situation where bad things are definetly going to happen, and you're destroying something that could make it less bad.
I dunno, when I got to that point in ME2, I agreed with what shep said during the first conversation with TIM on Mars in ME3. I'm basing this off my own canon playthrough, but that base was an abomination. Hundreds of thousands of people died. I didn't care what intel I might be losing. I'd find another way to fight the reapers. Plus, TIM was a little too enthusiastic in his desire for it, and I never trusted him.
You snipped out the most important part: the Reapers are coming. Destroying the base is just stupid. What if it contains information that could win the war?
We know it doesn't, or not really, but you don't know that at the point you have to take the decision. At the point you make the decision, and you choose to destroy, you're potentially destroying something that could save everybody just because you don't like the receiver.
That's just stupid. We're not in some utopian state where giving certain things to certain madmen could result in bad things. We're in a situation where bad things are definetly going to happen, and you're destroying something that could make it less bad.
You could easily argue the other way around, though - handing a powerful weapon to someone who's unreliable could throw a monkey wrench into the war plans and cause us to lose when we might have otherwise won. (While the base itself is downplayed in ME3, Cerberus does manage to disrupt the war effort quite a bit.) And it's not like there's a "how to stop the Reapers" manual sitting on the platform where Shepard finds the human-Reaper at the end. We can speculate that there *might* be a way to use the base to do something other than kill people or create a new Reaper, but we don't know that.
I'm not saying I can't understand your logic. I'm just contesting the notion that someone would have to be an "idiot" to think otherwise.
I dunno, when I got to that point in ME2, I agreed with what shep said during the first conversation with TIM on Mars in ME3. I'm basing this off my own canon playthrough, but that base was an abomination. Hundreds of thousands of people died. I didn't care what intel I might be losing. I'd find another way to fight the reapers. Plus, TIM was a little too enthusiastic in his desire for it, and I never trusted him.
Why? People died there? That doesn't mean anything. A lot more people will now die because you didn't decide to use it. I'd personally send millions of people there myself if it solved my Reaper problem. Feeling angry or undignified or some sense of justice doesn't bring the dead back. They're dead now. They don't matter. Don't fight for the past or the present. Fight for the future. A hundred billion might die now. But in doing so, they prevent a hundred trillion more from dying or suffering under the Reapers later. Even if more people die, it will mean a stronger future for those who live.
TIM was too enthusiastic with how he'd use it. He wasn't going to be careful with it. It wasn't careful to use at all by anyone. That said, I'd sooner trust him with it than someone who holds your view.
All I'm seeing is someone shooting himself in the foot because he doesn't like the method to get to a result. Results are results. As long as you have positive ones, the method to get there is irrelevant.
Why? People died there? That doesn't mean anything. A lot more people will now die because you didn't decide to use it. I'd personally send millions of people there myself if it solved my Reaper problem. Feeling angry or undignified or some sense of justice doesn't bring the dead back. They're dead now. They don't matter. Don't fight for the past or the present. Fight for the future. A hundred billion might die now. But in doing so, they prevent a hundred trillion more from dying or suffering under the Reapers later. Even if more people die, it will mean a stronger future for those who live.
TIM was too enthusiastic with how he'd use it. He wasn't going to be careful with it. It wasn't careful to use at all by anyone. That said, I'd sooner trust him with it than someone who holds your view.
All I'm seeing is someone shooting himself in the foot because he doesn't like the method to get to a result. Results are results. As long as you have positive ones, the method to get there is irrelevant.
*Smiles* *Nods*
*Smiles* *Nods*
Instead of dismissing it, why don't you make an argument for your perspective?
Instead of dismissing it, why don't you make an argument for your perspective?
Okay, look... Based on this and other threads I'm aware of how little everyone else in the galaxy means to you. I respect your right to have your opinions and I'll defend that right, but I'm not just going to suddenly say, "You know what, you're right. Burn them all. Burn them all. Burn them all. Burn them all. Burn them all. Burn them all. Burn them all, etc."
Thing is we dunno if those millions of people wouldn't have died anyway if we saved the base. I felt like my job was to make sure that no one ever did anything like that again. Best way to do that? Remove the possibility of it. And like I said, by the end of ME2 I didn't trust TIM's motives. I could practically see the greed shining in those freaky eyes, and if it was something he wanted so badly, he had to have an ulterior motive.
Results are results. As long as you have positive ones, the method to get there is irrelevant.
Well that depends. A lot of the experimentation undertaken by German and Japanese scientists in WW2 produced results; sadly it was on POW's, Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, the mentally ill etc and was neither consented too nor ethical; was barbaric and resulted in death or pernament injury/disability.
I wouldn't call that irrelevant; neither would I call Cerberus' methods (which also involved horrific and barabic treatment of people resulting in death - uncanny echoes there) irrelevant.
Retour en haut