I mean, It just goes to cerberus and as we were shown in ME3 cerberus are the baddies, So I dont get why would anyone renegade or paragon would keep the collector base intact?
EDIT: Wow! Alot of well thought out replies, I must admit first time I played ME2 I kept the base intact because I didn't know cerberus would be the baddies in ME3
You are metagaming, i.e. using your advance knowledge of how things turn out in ME3 to justify actions in ME2. And even then, your metagaming should tell you that saving the base is the better call since it is worth 10 more war assets while nothing else changes.
The question that is more often asked is why would Shepard destroy the base? What reason is there to get rid of all this advanced technology that might help the Reapers? Because some humans died there? That's no reason. Because Shepards "won't let fear compromise who she is?" That statement doesn't make much sense. Because Shepard doesn't trust TIM? Well, ok now we are starting to get somewhere. But then why not just tell the Alliance about it? Or the Council?
You are metagaming, i.e. using your advance knowledge of how things turn out in ME3 to justify actions in ME2. And even then, your metagaming should tell you that saving the base is the better call since it is worth 10 more war assets while nothing else changes.
The question that is more often asked is why would Shepard destroy the base? What reason is there to get rid of all this advanced technology that might help the Reapers? Because some humans died there? That's no reason. Because Shepards "won't let fear compromise who she is?" That statement doesn't make much sense. Because Shepard doesn't trust TIM? Well, ok now we are starting to get somewhere. But then why not just tell the Alliance about it? Or the Council?
If I didn't consider ME3, I still wouldn't give the base to TIM. I'm always a deeply suspicious person and it was his endgame all along. Did he think I wouldn't notice all the smear campaign he did, all the happy Cerberus faces he show to me, all the sabotage, the threats and the greed.
I've kept it a couple of times
Once when I was trying to get the most assets. The other time because I felt like it. And to listen to the dialogue from the other characters.
I usually destroy it because the ending finale is far more epic escaping a base that's blowing up versus something that is getting "EMP blasted" or something. Plus I never trusted TIM even though I did like. I only keep the base on Renegade plays and to see how it affects things in ME3. But it barely does.
What justification is there not to? There's literally no reason not to once we learn that all the Collectors can be killed while leaving the base and its data intact (I think I destroyed it once on my retarded failshep playthrough), with the knowledge that we are the only ones who can get through the Omega 4 Relay to reach it.
That is of course before acquiring the metagaming knowledge that Derperus apparently can pull a bunch of Reaper IFFs out of their arse between ME2 and 3 ( I guess they came bundled with the giant flotilla of warships that also magically sprung into existence), thus gaining the ability to even reach the base with anything other than the Normandy SR-2, an ability they didn't previously possess....
but they do that and study the base even if you destroy it anyway, because muh choices matter or something, so even when metagaming saving the base is better (more war assets at no loss). That is unless you're intentionally playing the crappiest Commander Shepard ever, and want to burn down the galaxy in the low EMS Destroy ending (again requiring decisions based on metagaming).
The decision is best framed as whether or not the player believes that reverse engineering reaper tech is going to help defeat the Reapers or blow up in your face. In game Shepard dialogue notwithstanding.
The biggest problem I have with the base decision, other than the fact that it doesn't really affect anything, is the fact that Shepard just happened to go in carrying this gizmo that both blows up and does a timed radiation pulse. Why would we have one piece of hardware that does both? You'd think that TIM would have anticipated this.
I believe the explanation is that Shepard is using the base's own systems to accomplish the goal. Shepard didn't really bring anything to that final confrontation except a flash drive with the appropriate program needed to override the the base's operations and accomplish either destruction, or an emp pulse.
The decision is best framed as whether or not the player believes that reverse engineering reaper tech is going to help defeat the Reapers or blow up in your face. In game Shepard dialogue notwithstanding.
The problem is that every other squadmate who argues for destroying the base follows essentially the same idiot logic as Paragon Shepard. They're never concerned with the supposed dangers of Reaper tech, only the supposed moral outrage presented by using the "vile" "abomination" that is the Collector base, often along with some vague nonsense about "using the enemy's methods" or something (even though I'm pretty sure Shep doesn't intend to kidnap and liquefy more colonists).
Yeah, destroying the base doesn't bring the people back and keeping it doesn't make more die. The only reason I had for destroying it was to not let TIM have it but Shepard gave a dumb speech about "who he is". And then he repeats it in ME3. I like how Shamus Young put it at that point.
"Did you head-canon your own reasons for blowing up the Collector base? Well the writer wants to remind you that their story is more important than your roleplaying. You had the nerve to argue with the writer`s self-insert hero, therefore your character is a sneering ******. (And also a massive hypocrite if you played The Arrival.)"
The only difference ended up being how much of the proto reaper got salvaged and I think there was a small bump in war assets if the base was saved. This is one thing I will admit should have had a bigger impact in ME 3.
I've made peace with my ME3 ending choice. I still haven't made peace with the ME2 one. More than any other decision in the trilogy, this one drives me nuts, and for all the wrong reasons. Shepard's stated reasons for destroying the base are objectively terrible, arguing from a purely sentimental perspective. At one point he expresses a fear that TIM will use it to build his own Reaper, but that's drowned by the "people died here" argument.
What obliterates my sanity, however, is the contradiction in the statements from Mordin and Legion. The facility is just data, destroying it won't bring people back, they'll have died in vain, we can use it to save others, etc. But then after the Suicide Mission, suddenly they think you made the wrong decision. In fact, every single person thinks you did the wrong thing. It's a total failure in the writing department. I'm actually sympathetic towards the intended point of the ME3 ending, and have long argued that it isn't actually that bad, but I freely admit even now that the ME2 ending is awful, and it's all because the writers didn't seem to agree on what the base choice actually meant.
Which is the real abomination? The Collector Base, or the writing surrounding it?
I've made peace with my ME3 ending choice. I still haven't made peace with the ME2 one. More than any other decision in the trilogy, this one drives me nuts, and for all the wrong reasons. Shepard's stated reasons for destroying the base are objectively terrible, arguing from a purely sentimental perspective. At one point he expresses a fear that TIM will use it to build his own Reaper, but that's drowned by the "people died here" argument.
What obliterates my sanity, however, is the contradiction in the statements from Mordin and Legion. The facility is just data, destroying it won't bring people back, they'll have died in vain, we can use it to save others, etc. But then after the Suicide Mission, suddenly they think you made the wrong decision. In fact, every single person thinks you did the wrong thing. It's a total failure in the writing department. I'm actually sympathetic towards the intended point of the ME3 ending, and have long argued that it isn't actually that bad, but I freely admit even now that the ME2 ending is awful, and it's all because the writers didn't seem to agree on what the base choice actually meant.
Which is the real abomination? The Collector Base, or the writing surrounding it?
the real adomination is the writing and the fanbase.
You are metagaming, i.e. using your advance knowledge of how things turn out in ME3 to justify actions in ME2. And even then, your metagaming should tell you that saving the base is the better call since it is worth 10 more war assets while nothing else changes.
The question that is more often asked is why would Shepard destroy the base? What reason is there to get rid of all this advanced technology that might help the Reapers? Because some humans died there? That's no reason. Because Shepards "won't let fear compromise who she is?" That statement doesn't make much sense. Because Shepard doesn't trust TIM? Well, ok now we are starting to get somewhere. But then why not just tell the Alliance about it? Or the Council?
saving the base would be to deliver the technology to TIM. The Alliance couldn t do nothing to prevent TIM of getting there first. At least i see it like that.
how do you get your squadmates to talk like this? I don't think I ever heard them
-------
Kinda wish it was more than "I won't sacrifice who I am"... instead "So this is why you raise me from the dead. All the reaper tech you want and now I have all the power." *evil laugh* bomb the place... (headcanoning this hard while TIM curse in several languages)
The problem is that every other squadmate who argues for destroying the base follows essentially the same idiot logic as Paragon Shepard. They're never concerned with the supposed dangers of Reaper tech, only the supposed moral outrage presented by using the "vile" "abomination" that is the Collector base, often along with some vague nonsense about "using the enemy's methods" or something (even though I'm pretty sure Shep doesn't intend to kidnap and liquefy more colonists).
Interesting! I don't remember having squadmates argue for keeping it. Legion's dialogue is my favorite. How about after the mission? I recall everyone being in agreement that it should have been destroyed. I know Legion will favorably compare Shepard to the Geth for rejecting "the Old Machines' gifts."
saving the base would be to deliver the technology to TIM. The Alliance couldn t do nothing to prevent TIM of getting there first. At least i see it like that.
Well you're right once TIM magically gets ships through, but at the time only the Normandy can go through the Relay. But I didn't know if Shepard was going to go straight back to the Alliance or what.
Interesting! I don't remember having squadmates argue for keeping it. Legion's dialogue is my favorite. How about after the mission? I recall everyone being in agreement that it should have been destroyed. I know Legion will favorably compare Shepard to the Geth for rejecting "the Old Machines' gifts."
If you initially reject the idea of keeping the base, a squadmate will chime in on how you should consider keeping it. As for Legion's view on rejecting reaper tech, he seems to have forgotten his own philosophy in ME3.
If you initially reject the idea of keeping the base, a squadmate will chime in on how you should consider keeping it. As for Legion's view on rejecting reaper tech, he seems to have forgotten his own philosophy in ME3.
Neat. As for Legion, that is true and I hate it.
I like to think ME2 Legion and ME3 Legion as separate entities. The Geth VI was more like his old self though, robotic and alien and enhanced by reaper code. While ME3 Legion was a fully evolved AI with his own personality like EDI. I remember how everyone mentioned him being Pinocchio but Legion was already a 'real boy' when you met him. He lied a lot too (remember that conversation you had with EDI). Besides, they're written by different writers... who don't agree with each other apparently.
Role-play and because I'm bastard 
Volver arriba