17 réponses à ce sujet

[Greg Shepard]

There are a few decisions made throughout the ME trilogy that ended up having little bearing on Mass Effect 3. But no other decision rang as hollow for me as the decision of keeping or destroing the Collector Base.

That decision should have had an adverse effect on Cerberus's role in the third game. Now we all know Cerberus are servants of the Reapers (unwitting or otherwise) but why are they? I think it's because The Reapers needed a replacement for the Collectors. The Colletor's role in the Prothean cycle is identical the Cerberus' role in the current cycle. In order to indoctrinate Cerberus, they leaked info to Illusive Man about the human proto-reaper, which he then used Shepard (under the guise of saving colonies) to locate the base for him. The Reapers wanted Cerberus to find the proto-reaper so it would indoctrinate him.
That, in my opinion, was Illusive Man's ulterior motive in ME2. And that was the reapers' master plan.

So here's what I wouldve done and what the writers should've done:
At the end of the suicide mission, you are given a choice. Hand the base to Cerberus (thus unwittingly hatching Reapers's evil plan) or destroy it for moral reason (unwittingly foiling their plans).

This decision would change how Cerberus would be portrayed in ME3 and would change a series of missions where Cerberus is the enemy force when it makes no sense for them to be there (like Sur'Kesh and Eden Prime).

If you kept the Collector Base then ME3 would play out the way it already does with Cerberus being the moustache-twirling, goatee-sporting, indoctrinated baddies they are already.

But if you destroyed the Base, well, that would really shake things up. Instead of fighting Cerberus on Sur'Kesh, Eden Prime, Thessia, and Tuhcanka, you would instead fight Reapers (cuz Cerberus ain't doing their bidding).

Third act would also play out very differently as well. Instead of losing your catakyst info on Thessia to Cerberus, you'd instead lose it to a Reaper ambush (as Reapers found it before Cerberus did). You'd instead end up having to track down Cerberus to find the other piece of the Prothean Archive on Mars.

The Cerberus Base mission would, instead of being a full frontal assault (cuz you're not at war with Cerberus), it would instead be an infiltration mission. And then you could confront the Illusive Man face to face and convince him to join you against the Reapers, or just shoot him in the face.

Basically if you destroy the base, their role would be that of a more grey antagonist that is opposed to the Reapers and just Shepard. Cuz the base was destroyed, Illusive Man wouldve never gotten indoctrinated, and would therefore be neutral and independent. (Thus a more ambitious, passive role)

This wouldn't really change the very end of the game, it would just change cerberus' role and portrayal.

And thus is a summary of how I think the Collector Base decision SHOULD HAVE changed the story.

[KaiserShep]

I don't believe that there should have been a decision at all. Shepard's ability to choose between keeping the base or destroying it entirely hinges on the capabilities of some technomagic puck that she plugs into the Apparatus of Convenience. If it was only capable of simply wiping out the Collectors while keeping the base intact, then that's pretty much that. We take control over the base and learn whatever's there is to know about reaper manufacturing or the Collector general's diary or something. 

[Natureguy85]

Interesting ideas but I really like your premise about the Reaper's motivations in ME2. I don't know that there's evidence for it but it's a cool idea. It ties in with the idea that limited control is required for the subject to still be useful. I then like the idea of the Reapers cringing and screaming when their servant brings their enemy back to life. Now they are hoisted by their own petard.

[Greg Shepard]

Actually the decision of destroying the base or keeping it has some character significance for shepard. If you destroy it, according to the dialogue, Shepard does so for moral reasons.
Keeping it, in my opinion reflects a more pragmatic Shepard who doesn't care about the means so long as it ends with dead Reapers.

I almost always keep the base despite playing a paragon Shepard because it is the logical choice.

I was always dissatisfied with Cerberus' portrayal in ME3 and this is a theoretical way that Bioware could've made your decisions matter more in rehards to the Collector Base.

Honestly I think it'd be awesome if they wrote this idea in as dlc or a patch lol

[AlanC9]

This decision would change how Cerberus would be portrayed in ME3 and would change a series of missions where Cerberus is the enemy force when it makes no sense for them to be there (like Sur'Kesh and Eden Prime).
If you kept the Collector Base then ME3 would play out the way it already does with Cerberus being the moustache-twirling, goatee-sporting, indoctrinated baddies they are already.
But if you destroyed the Base, well, that would really shake things up. Instead of fighting Cerberus on Sur'Kesh, Eden Prime, Thessia, and Tuhcanka, you would instead fight Reapers (cuz Cerberus ain't doing their bidding).
Third act would also play out very differently as well. Instead of losing your catakyst info on Thessia to Cerberus, you'd instead lose it to a Reaper ambush (as Reapers found it before Cerberus did). You'd instead end up having to track down Cerberus to find the other piece of the Prothean Archive on Mars.
The Cerberus Base mission would, instead of being a full frontal assault (cuz you're not at war with Cerberus), it would instead be an infiltration mission. And then you could confront the Illusive Man face to face and convince him to join you against the Reapers, or just shoot him in the face.

This would have burned a huge amount of dev time, of course. What would you have cut to make this happen?

[Greg Shepard]

This would have burned a huge amount of dev time, of course. What would you have cut to make this happen?

Well
Nothing.

Mass Effect 3 was rushed out before we could get what Bioware wanted to give us (I think). Having only two years to work on it. ME3 needed at least three years.


So I wouldn't cut anything. I would have merely delayed the game by a few months. And delay it more so they could have more time to find a plot and vision the writing team could actually agree on. Not that what isn't already an alright story.

[themikefest]

I don't know if you know this, but the collector base does make a difference. Its only for low ems

 

If the base is saved and ems is below 1750, control will be the only option available. The memorial scene still happens

 

If the base is destroyed and ems is below 1750, destroy will be the only option available. Earth is scorched and the door to the Normandy doesn't open suggesting everyone onboard is dead

 

Here's a thread I created about 2 years ago mentioning the collector base decision

[Natureguy85]

Actually the decision of destroying the base or keeping it has some character significance for shepard. If you destroy it, according to the dialogue, Shepard does so for moral reasons.
Keeping it, in my opinion reflects a more pragmatic Shepard who doesn't care about the means so long as it ends with dead Reapers.

I almost always keep the base despite playing a paragon Shepard because it is the logical choice.

I was always dissatisfied with Cerberus' portrayal in ME3 and this is a theoretical way that Bioware could've made your decisions matter more in rehards to the Collector Base.

Honestly I think it'd be awesome if they wrote this idea in as dlc or a patch lol

 

The problem is that Shepard's dialogue for destroying the base is moronic. I wanted to blow it up because I don't trust TIM as far as I can throw his sun. However I was forced to spout some BS about "not compromising who I am" as if blowing up the base somehow brought back all the liquefied people. This was especially stupid considering we already had this same moral dilemma with the Genophage cure on Mordin's loyalty mission.

 

This would have burned a huge amount of dev time, of course. What would you have cut to make this happen?

 

No it wouldn't. From his description, all that would change is which enemies you'd fight in most missions. The only big change is a different last mission. As for what to cut, I'd say the ending.

[Greg Shepard]

The problem is that Shepard's dialogue for destroying the base is moronic. I wanted to blow it up because I don't trust TIM as far as I can throw his sun. However I was forced to spout some BS about "not compromising who I am" as if blowing up the base somehow brought back all the liquefied people. This was especially stupid considering we already had this same moral dilemma with the Genophage cure on Mordin's loyalty mission.



No it wouldn't. From his description, all that would change is which enemies you'd fight in most missions. The only big change is a different last mission. As for what to cut, I'd say the ending.

I know what you mean by how you destroyed it because you distrusted TIM. And I wish we could get different dialogue of Shep destroying or keeping it based off how he interacted with TIM in previous conversations

[rossler]

There are a few decisions made throughout the ME trilogy that ended up having little bearing on Mass Effect 3. But no other decision rang as hollow for me as the decision of keeping or destroing the Collector Base.

 

There is a lot of stuff carried from ME1 into ME2 that didn't mean much either. Where's that all human council Udina was talking about in ME1? Oh yeah, it didn't happen. You got an alien council with different leaders than if you saved the first council.

 

Other stuff amounted to an e-mail, couple lines of dialogue, or a cameo (both ME2 and ME3).

 

Expecting any of the choices to completely change a story arc is a bit much I'd say.

 

Basically if you destroy the base, their role would be that of a more grey antagonist that is opposed to the Reapers and just Shepard. Cuz the base was destroyed, Illusive Man wouldve never gotten indoctrinated, and would therefore be neutral and independent. (Thus a more ambitious, passive role)

 

lllusive Man became indoctrinated by an artifact in Mass Effect: Evolution which happened quite a while before ME1 even happened. Around the First Contact War. The guy is pretty strong willed at resisting the Reapers' influence. It was even said that you were essentially being used the whole time by Cerberus. They were never your friends or neutral. They were always the bad guys in ME1, ME2 and ME3.

 

The Cerberus Base mission would, instead of being a full frontal assault (cuz you're not at war with Cerberus), it would instead be an infiltration mission. And then you could confront the Illusive Man face to face and convince him to join you against the Reapers, or just shoot him in the face.

 

You already tried to convince the Illusive Man to join you, many times throughout the game. He already made up his mind and decided not to listen to you.

[Natureguy85]

There is a lot of stuff carried from ME1 into ME2 that didn't mean much either. Where's that all human council Udina was talking about in ME1? Oh yeah, it didn't happen. You got an alien council with different leaders than if you saved the first council.

 

I always let that one slide. I chalk it up to Udina having some wide eyed ramblings because he senses opportunity and failed to make it a reality. He thought they had a better hand than they actually did. That said, I forget; is the new council more deferential or at least accepting of Anderson? That would be a cool difference considering the old council barely acknowledges him.

 

 

 

You already tried to convince the Illusive Man to join you, many times throughout the game. He already made up his mind and decided not to listen to you.

lllusive Man became indoctrinated by an artifact in Mass Effect: Evolution which happened quite a while before ME1 even happened. Around the First Contact War. The guy is pretty strong willed at resisting the Reapers' influence. It was even said that you were essentially being used the whole time by Cerberus. They were never your friends or neutral. They were always the bad guys in ME1, ME2 and ME3.

 

Books shouldn't be used to alter our understanding of the games, so I always view TIM as becoming Indoctrinated in between Mass Effect 2 and 3 after being around the Reaper tech from the Collector base. I don't know how he got it if you Destroy the base but he does.

[Greg Shepard]

There is a lot of stuff carried from ME1 into ME2 that didn't mean much either. Where's that all human council Udina was talking about in ME1? Oh yeah, it didn't happen. You got an alien council with different leaders than if you saved the first council.
 
Other stuff amounted to an e-mail, couple lines of dialogue, or a cameo (both ME2 and ME3).
 
Expecting any of the choices to completely change a story arc is a bit much I'd say.
 

 
lllusive Man became indoctrinated by an artifact in Mass Effect: Evolution which happened quite a while before ME1 even happened. Around the First Contact War. The guy is pretty strong willed at resisting the Reapers' influence. It was even said that you were essentially being used the whole time by Cerberus. They were never your friends or neutral. They were always the bad guys in ME1, ME2 and ME3.
 

 
You already tried to convince the Illusive Man to join you, many times throughout the game. He already made up his mind and decided not to listen to you.

Yes, but in that circumstance, TIM wouldnt be indoctrinated. In the normal game, TIM is indoctrinated. But if you denied the Reapers the chance to indoctrinate him by blowing up the base, I see no reason why T
IM wouldn't at least hear Shepard out.

[rossler]

Books shouldn't be used to alter our understanding of the games, so I always view TIM as becoming Indoctrinated in between Mass Effect 2 and 3 after being around the Reaper tech from the Collector base. I don't know how he got it if you Destroy the base but he does.

 

It's more plausible that if you include the books that he was indoctrinated before ME2 in the First Contact War.

 

I know you might think books aren't canon, but they expand the knowledge of the universe. They, along with the three games are all apart of the Mass Effect franchise. They could very well be essential to understanding the whole story. There's some things the games don't tell us that the books do.

 

I've personally read all the comics, as well as the Revelation, Retribution and Ascension books.

 

Yes, but in that circumstance, TIM wouldnt be indoctrinated. In the normal game, TIM is indoctrinated. But if you denied the Reapers the chance to indoctrinate him by blowing up the base, I see no reason why TIM wouldn't at least hear Shepard out.

 

Illusive Man doesn't want to listen to Shepard unless their goals are the exactly same. He even said as much. Our goals are simply too disparate. I believe destroying the Reapers could be the biggest mistake. While Shepard is telling him the opposite. The whole game. He is so convinced in his ways, he won't see it any differently. Like trying to argue with a guy covering his ears the whole time.

[Natureguy85]

It's more plausible that if you include the books that he was indoctrinated before ME2 in the First Contact War.

 

I know you might think books aren't canon, but they expand the knowledge of the universe. They, along with the three games are all apart of the Mass Effect franchise. They could very well be essential to understanding the whole story. There's some things the games don't tell us that the books do.

 

I've personally read all the comics, as well as the Revelation, Retribution and Ascension books.

 

 

Illusive Man doesn't want to listen to Shepard unless their goals are the exactly same. He even said as much. Our goals are simply too disparate. I believe destroying the Reapers could be the biggest mistake. While Shepard is telling him the opposite. The whole game. He is so convinced in his ways, he won't see it any differently. Like trying to argue with a guy covering his ears the whole time.

 

It may be more plausible but I still reject it because it alters what is presented in the games. Books only aren't canon where they contradict the games.

Expanding knowledge is good, but changing things is bad. Based on the game itself, there is no reason to think TIM is Indoctrinated in ME2 so a book that says he is presents a problem. If they are essential to understanding the whole story, that is a writing mistake. It is reasonable to expect me to have played ME1 and ME2 to understand events in ME3 but it is not reasonable to expect me to have also read books to understand key events in the games.

 

There is a lot of ground between "too disparate" and "exactly the same". You're right that he's "covering his ears" but the voice he hears is that of the Reapers, being Indoctrinated at that point.

[Greg Shepard]

It may be more plausible but I still reject it because it alters what is presented in the games. Books only aren't canon where they contradict the games.
Expanding knowledge is good, but changing things is bad. Based on the game itself, there is no reason to think TIM is Indoctrinated in ME2 so a book that says he is presents a problem. If they are essential to understanding the whole story, that is a writing mistake. It is reasonable to expect me to have played ME1 and ME2 to understand events in ME3 but it is not reasonable to expect me to have also read books to understand key events in the games.
 
There is a lot of ground between "too disparate" and "exactly the same". You're right that he's "covering his ears" but the voice he hears is that of the Reapers, being Indoctrinated at that point.

Not only does TIM show no indication of being indoctrinated in ME2, but his goals to thwart Reapers plans to stop human abductions (or the ulterior motive of stealing reaper tech from Collectors) are simply in keeping with the rreaper agenda. The Collectors are servants of the Reapers, why would they send another servant to wipe them out? TIM was manipulated into trying to acquire the Collector Base so the Reapers could indoctrinate him

[Natureguy85]

Not only does TIM show no indication of being indoctrinated in ME2, but his goals to thwart Reapers plans to stop human abductions (or the ulterior motive of stealing reaper tech from Collectors) are simply in keeping with the rreaper agenda. The Collectors are servants of the Reapers, why would they send another servant to wipe them out? TIM was manipulated into trying to acquire the Collector Base so the Reapers could indoctrinate him

 

That's an interesting perspective but that's an awfully convoluted way to go about that goal. TIM already found a Reaper. All they had to do was drop some Reaper tech in TIM's lap and he'd have played with it.

[wright1978]

I'd have much preferred Cerberus to have been treated as a independent faction rather than moustache swirling indocrinated villains. Shep as ringmaster with keeping base vs destroying influencing size and ability to get them to support Shep's coalition of the willing.

[Greg Shepard]

I'd have much preferred Cerberus to have been treated as a independent faction rather than moustache swirling indocrinated villains. Shep as ringmaster with keeping base vs destroying influencing size and ability to get them to support Shep's coalition of the willing.

so you like my idea?