582 réponses à ce sujet

[Vicious]

Samara says, "You made the right choice. The Illusive man thinks he has the wisdom to utilize it [the base], but he does not."



And I totally agree. Yes, the guy is genius-level intellect, but there is no way in sam hill that I'm going to hand that kind of tech over to him. The tech that created Reapers and could one day create more should die with their kind.



Besides, humanity can't stand alone against the Reapers. It's just not happening. Even if the WHOLE ALLIANCE got reaper tech it wouldn't stand a chance against it's creators. And the Illusive man sure as hell won't share since that could jeapordize the human race's superiority.



So in short, he yelled at me and I told him to go F-- himself. Should be fun for the third game, but too bad for him, my whole crew agrees with my choice, and I saved ALL of them, so I don't think they are going to care about what the Illusive man says anymore.

[Proud Larry]

Edit*

Wow you totally beat me to it.

Modifié par Proud Larry, 02 février 2010 - 10:33 .

[falloutgod13]

Well it's the end game so I better have option to break his face if he does anything stupid with the tech.

[Proud Larry]

What's interesting is that by taking the first two renegade options with TIM during the ending, then taking the neutral choice, our conversation seemed to conclude with us agreeing to still work together despite my taking charge of the Normandy. Yet conversations with crew like Jacob still seemed to imply that I would be on the run from Cerberus.

[Fulgrim88]

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

john william wrote...

Sounds like you guys are the ones indoctrinated!

Seriously, all Shepard has to do is whisper to the alliance or the council about it. Problem solved.

Also: it's not a reaper ship. It doesn't have the natural psychological attack to it.

Precisely my reasoning and I hope every single person who chooses the Paragon choice has twice as hard of a time defeating the Reapers in ME3.

I'm with you on that one. But it won't happen. People doing Paragon choices expect them to have the best of possible outcomes. This might be false for any real life situation, still the game obliges.

Just look at the outcome of ME1. So you either have the old council with humans as members (1Human Member, Alien Council, unwilling to see the threat), or the New, (apparently) Human dominated Council (still just 1 Human Member with somehow still zero influence, Alien council, unwilling to see the threat)
There are simply no benefits for doing the hard decision. My Shep was a xenophile and nearly as much Paragon as he was Renegade, fully aware of the unpopularity of his choice, still willing to make it for the greater good, yet nothing came out of it.
Now they can't punish the popular Paragon choices as much as reality demands, still it's somehow unsatisfying that we can be pretty sure that the Paragon choice won't have any negative consequences. Win/Win. Again.

[falloutgod13]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

john william wrote...

Sounds like you guys are the ones indoctrinated!

Seriously, all Shepard has to do is whisper to the alliance or the council about it. Problem solved.

Also: it's not a reaper ship. It doesn't have the natural psychological attack to it.

Precisely my reasoning and I hope every single person who chooses the Paragon choice has twice as hard of a time defeating the Reapers in ME3.

I'm with you on that one. But it won't happen. People doing Paragon choices expect them to have the best of possible outcomes. This might be false for any real life situation, still the game obliges.

Just look at the outcome of ME1. So you either have the old council with humans as members (1Human Member, Alien Council, unwilling to see the threat), or the New, (apparently) Human dominated Council (still just 1 Human Member with somehow still zero influence, Alien council, unwilling to see the threat)
There are simply no benefits for doing the hard decision. My Shep was a xenophile and nearly as much Paragon as he was Renegade, fully aware of the unpopularity of his choice, still willing to make it for the greater good, yet nothing came out of it.
Now they can't punish the popular Paragon choices as much as reality demands, still it's somehow unsatisfying that we can be pretty sure that the Paragon choice won't have any negative consequences. Win/Win. Again.

Now you're making me think of KOTOR2 where I played the light side for one guy and gave some guy creds on a planet. He ended up getting his ass kicked. I think when I played the dark side and hit him he ended up kicking someones ass. Anyway, choices should have unforseen consequences, cookie cutter crap is boring.

[senojones]

falloutgod13 wrote...

I said it at the the start of the thread. This goes out the... ignorant, yes, that's the proper word for their lack f understanding. If TIM were to build a reaper how would he control it? Yeah.... come on now... sentient being with free will bent on harvesting organic species. Why would anyone build a reaper if the reapers are trying to kill them?

Obviously the people who started saying that were not paying attention in the game. To build a machine whose operating program consists of a large number of minds would be idiotic. You think any species forced to make up a reaper would be happy about it? Not to mention it would be a reaper, why would it work for organics? It probably wouldn't and lets say hypothetically one did. What good would one reaper be against thousands of reapers?

I don't know why I even bother pointing out the flaws in these people arguments. The vast majority of them sound too cognitively challenged to comprehend the fallacy in their statements. Then again I'm not doing it for them, I'm doing it for the sake of reason and logic. Something inane arguments of "omg tim will build a reapper somgsxor it's evil!" lack.

He was capable of reviving Shepard from the dead with his billion $ connection, who are you to say he can't do something? And who says that ship is only capable of creating a human reaper? All he cares about is his own survival and humanity being on the top of the food chain in the universe, and what better way to achive both goals then gain control of the most powerful technology in existance from the most iconic human in the galaxy.

TIM is the iconic idea of how powerful and evil a human can be.. never underestimate the power of money.

[darth randas]

First its important to make a distinction between "Renegade", and " evil villan".

Secondly, it becomes abundantly clear, Illusive man has shady motivation.

He talks a big talk, about the greater good. But at the end of the day, he acts out of selfishness and fear. Not reason. Just like Renegade Shep.

When Cereberus investigated the derelict Reaper what happened? All of Cereberus employees were indoctrinated, and turned into husks. You think the collector base is different?  Illusive man is candid about his desire to use it to secure humanities position in the universe. In direct conflict with other races. Can you trust the illusive man, can you trust Cereberus with this installation?

And of Mass Effect 1, were you not paying attention?

It wasn't just the council you swooped in to save. You saved the remnants of the Citadels fleet. Which was defending the council. Ever heard of Ghengis Khan? Divide and conquer.  That is,  when Ghengis Khan tricked two enemy generals, into seperating their forces, so he could eliminate them one by one. Because if he fought them at the same time, he would of been outnumbered, and he would of lost. The key idea to extract here, is that having allies only serves you, if you work together. Hiding back, while the council fleet is decimimated is a selfish, cowardly, and a foolish choice.

In Mass Effect 1, you can choose to have the fleet stand back and watch as the citadel fleet engages the Geth. And then swoop in and destroy Soverign. Allowing your fleet to escape any casualties. After the Council, and Citadel fleet is dead. Or you can send in the Cavalry, the desision thats tactically wiser, and universally more rewarding. You save thousands of lives, at the cost of hundreds.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

People saying they woulda given the location to the Alliance or Council... I see the point. But there's no way TIM would have allowed that. The best ship in the galaxy with the best pilot in the Alliance was barely able to maneuver away from the debris in time. TIM puts some mines and attack ships in there, and nobody is gonna get through the Omega-4 unless he says so.

[Corben158]

I always looked at it, that if we keep the ship, we can make and test new weapons out on the reaper technology and also we can see how they were making the reaper, and find advantages to destroy them, not just make all your tech off they're tech

[Sniper11709]

Am i the only one here that laughs whenever someone makes out like the Alliance/Council are any better then Cerberus.

The Alliance had the Biotic Acclimation and Temperance Training and their L2 implants which to me doesn't seem that far off Cerberus experiments with Gillian except that Cerberus didn't have anyone watching them so they didn't have any reason to stop.

The Turians attack humans for no reason other then they disagree with what we are doing (opening relays) and don't even tell us that they disagree, they just open fire and destroy a exploration ship. They also aren't bothered with the fact that they have a pretty much led another race to extinction by utilizing the Genophage, if they are bothered i haven't seen any indication in game.

The Salarians are the worst of the bunch with them developing the Genophage and if that wasn't enough they then went and updated it when the Krogan were finally adapting to it.

The Asari are the only race that we don't know anything seriously bad about.

Now i actully agree with use of the Genophage being used but to see the coucil as any better then Cerberus is a tad naive.

Modifié par Sniper11709, 02 février 2010 - 12:08 .

[Proud Larry]

The way I saw it, Shepherd is going to kick the crap out of the Reapers in Mass Effect 3 no matter what, so I would rather deny the Illusive Man than let him get his hands on something so dangerous. That guy is way too sinister. I do not trust him when he says his only motive is to preserve humanity.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vicious wrote...
Besides, humanity can't stand alone against the Reapers. It's just not happening. Even if the WHOLE ALLIANCE got reaper tech it wouldn't stand a chance against it's creators. And the Illusive man sure as hell won't share since that could jeapordize the human race's superiority.

You say that as if keeping the base automatically means humanity won't have allies. I kept the base, while also keeping the cure for the genophage, rewriting the geth and asking the quarians to not go to war with the Geth. Humanity's alliance with them is almost assured.
And yes, I wouldn't want TIM to share the technology with them. 

@ people talking about the finale choice in ME1.
People are reading too much into it. Logically speaking, it's not a commander's business to order a fleet around while there is an admiral on board. So don't think too much of it tactically wise, because it makes little sense. Here you were offered two choices. Either save the council by sacrificing human lives, or go directly against Sovereign. There was no tactics involved in the decision. And neither choice is "cowardly". Lables asuch as this, or glory or honor are irrlevent against a enemy like the reapers. 
I chose to let the council die as that's the perfect opportunity and I wouldn't sacrifice human lives to save those who would let thousands of humans perish without doign anything.  

[Sierra163]

Legion put it best. "Taking another's path of technology blinds you to alternatives."

[Fulgrim88]

Proud Larry wrote...

The way I saw it, Shepherd is going to kick the crap out of the Reapers in Mass Effect 3 no matter what, so I would rather deny the Illusive Man than let him get his hands on something so dangerous. That guy is way too sinister. I do not trust him when he says his only motive is to preserve humanity.

Hindsight. It just sucks to base roleplaying decisions on that, imo

[Fulgrim88]

Sierra163 wrote...

Legion put it best. "Taking another's path of technology blinds you to alternatives."

And it's not like we're arguing that Reaper technology is the best way.
We're arguing that it's the only realistic one, given the current situation.

Theres simply no time to come up with 1000 years worth of engineering, when the threat is imminent
Still at least for those who blew the base up, the Council will probably come up with Anti-Reaper cannons on their own, albeit not knowing the slightest about them (and with all evidence gone not even knowing any more about the threat than they knew before). Because we're really that awesome<_<

[KnightofPhoenix]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Sierra163 wrote...

Legion put it best. "Taking another's path of technology blinds you to alternatives."

And it's not like we're arguing that Reaper technology is the best way.
We're arguing that it's the only realistic one, given the current situation.

Theres simply no time to come up with 1000 years worth of engineering, when the threat is imminent
Still at least for those who blew the base up, the Council will probably come up with Anti-Reaper cannons on their own, albeit not knowing the slightest about them (and with all evidence gone not even knowing any more about the threat than they knew before). Because we're really that awesome<_<

But of course! If you plan to win a war and survive annihilation, it's better to do it the hardest way possible on purpose jst because something being harder is by definition better.

I think people should read the history of warfare in our short human history and I think they will be dissapointed at how "monstrous" our race is.

[Barquiel]

Every single squadmate thinks it's a bad idea to keep the base. Miranda (the Loyalist!) even abandoned Cerberus. It was an easy decision imo.

[Metal Mills]

Remember renegade isn't evil. I chose to save the base because it can hel;p fight the reapers and fighting the reapers is my shepherd's main mission. Think of it like Jack Bauer. He's a good guy but sometimes he has to let people die or do bad things to stop a nuke or a big terrorist attack.

The Alliance had trouble fighting a single Reaper, there are millions of them coming. To gain some of that superior power was a "for the greater good" kind of thing.

I just hope you can pull some of the human dominance stuff back in ME3 because I don't want that.

Modifié par Metal Mills, 02 février 2010 - 12:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Metal Mills wrote...

Remember renegade isn't evil. I chose to save the base because it can hel;p fight the reapers and fighting the reapers is my shepherd's main mission. Think of it like Jack Bauer. He's a good guy but sometimes he has to let people die or do bad things to stop a nuke or a big terrorist attack.

The Alliance had trouble fighting a single Reaper, there are millions of them coming. To gain some of that superior power was a "for the greater good" kind of thing.

I just hope you can pull some of the human dominance stuff back in ME3 because I don't want that.

Yea I don't like the idea of renegade automatically meaning pro-human dominance. In ME3, one should be given the choice to screw over TIM and give the technology to the council.

I personally won't do that, as I am pro-human dominance (and mostly paragon). But I dislike manichean choices where one is offered only two choices. It's very easy to see them in black and white, instead of both being grey. 
However in one interview at IGN, producers said they have alot more liberty to make the story diverge in ME3, because they don't have to worry about exporting anything. Hopefully that means there will be alot of choices  and variant endings.   

[Fulgrim88]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Yea I don't like the idea of renegade automatically meaning pro-human dominance. In ME3, one should be given the choice to screw over TIM and give the technology to the council.

Exactly. My Shep is actually a Xenophile and by no means a one dimensional "renegade" a**hole. Still he does what he deems necessary. He didn't like the outcome of ME1, still he tells himself that it was the right choice to put Victory over Sovereign first.
(I personally imagine the Paragon ending to have far more severe consequences)

The ME2 ending, however, implies that there's a choice to either side with Cerberus or not, even if you kept the base. It would be sad if they forced that decision on us, by magically making the Renegade Choice the Pro-Human choice again.

However in one interview at IGN, producers said they have alot more liberty to make the story diverge in ME3, because they don't have to worry about exporting anything. Hopefully that means there will be alot of choices  and variant endings.   

Any source on that?
It kinda sounds like the impact of the ME2 ending will be small in comparison, to that of ME1 (which wasn't major itself)

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 02 février 2010 - 01:18 .

[Amethyst Deceiver]

john william wrote...

Bioware's morality makes about as much sense here as the whole "destroy the council/save the council" dilemma at the end of ME1.  Which is to say none at all.  I actually resisted the urge to keep the collector base but I couldn't argue against Illusive Man's cold, hard logic.  There's no question that the galactic civilization is better off with the treasure trove of secrets that is the collector base.

At the end of WW2 it came to light that both the Germans and the Japanese conducted horrifying experiments on live human subjects and made certain breakthroughs because of it.  Would the allies have performed those same experiments.  Of course not.  Did the allies throw their research away?  Hell freaking naw!

bringing up WW2 really?

heres the short version:

the allies (mainly the US) scored a MASSIVE +renegade during and especially after WW2 (as did basically everyone involved in the war on all sides). if you think thats a good/bad thing thats entirely your problem.

the difference between "good" and "bad" isnt clear cut, and never will be. thats life.

[Taura-Tierno]

I'm going to save the base on my new playthrough. But you say there isn't any way to give it to the Alliance and/or council? That you have to give it to Cerebrus? That's lame, if it's true. I mean. It wouldn't take any more than Shepard, immediately at exiting the Omega-4 relay, contacting the council and alliance, and send some data that proves it, to have all of them over there just as quickly as Cerebrus.



I'm of the opinion that both options invite completely unknown consequences, and there's no possible way to predict which is best for galaxy. By destroying the base, you prevent any sneaky Reaper technology from performing indoctrination, and such. But we don't know how many Reapers exist. What if their numbers are so overwhelming, that without a boost to current technology, there's no possible way to win? In that case, that base might have been the best way to do it.



If some creepy Reaper technology gets into the hands of the wrong people ... well, as long as it gets into the hands of the right people as well, it's very possible to develop counter-meassures, and if I get to choose between Cerebrus (or the Council for that matter) having mind-controlling technology and total eradication of the entire galaxy, I'd choose the former.



Still, since it's impossible to predict the ramifications of either choice, I don't think there's a "bad" choice at all.

[falloutgod13]

senojones wrote...


He was capable of reviving Shepard from the dead with his billion $
connection, who are you to say he can't do something? And who says that
ship is only capable of creating a human reaper? All he cares about is
his own survival and humanity being on the top of the food chain in the
universe, and what better way to achive both goals then gain control of
the most powerful technology in existance from the most iconic human in
the galaxy.

TIM is the iconic idea of how powerful and evil a human can be.. never underestimate the power of money.

Okay I'll take it one thing at a time.

"He was capable of reviving Shepard from the dead with his billion $ connection, who are you to say he can't do something?"

So he was capable, to finance the project at least. He did finance it and I don't disagree with that. I just like to point I out I did NOT say he couldn't do anything.

"And who says that ship is only capable of creating a human reaper?"

Who does? Certainly NOT me, so I don't understand the point or relevance.

"All he cares about is his own survival and humanity being on the top of the food chain in the universe, and what better way to achive both goals then gain control of the most powerful technology in existance from the most iconic human in the galaxy."

Really, now where does it say those things?

"TIM is the iconic idea of how powerful and evil a human can be.. never underestimate the power of money."

Money is not always power, it's certainly a resource. Resources are neither inherently good or evil. I can prove this with infallible logic.

First, good an evil are concepts of preconception. Concepts that are relative to someones opinion.

Let me do a little word equation here.

IF reaper tech = evil THEN mass relay  = evil

THEREFORE using one is evil?

So just because it's made by someone who is "evil" the technology is now "evil".  After all, if the station was made by Collectors{servants of the EVIL reapers, by default a tool used by the EVIL} made another tool (the station) to produce more EVIL [a human reaper].

Despite horrific experiments the German's scientists performed during Hitler's rein of power there is a lot of medical data still used today. German's were one of the first to utilize X-Ray's on a large scale before WWII and during it. Imagine the world without x-ray technology being used in the medical fields just because the ****'s used it. So just because the technology was developed and perfected by people considered inherently "evil" by the ethics of history does it dictate we shouldn't use it either? No, it does not and to defend that stance just makes you look immature and ignorant.

Now, before I digress too far lets jump back on to money. While you did not state it's the root of all evil I'm still going debunk the notion. You use money to purchase services and things you need to survive. Without money you would have to barter. What if you did not have a service or item to trade for a service or item you desperately needed in order to survive?

Simple really, you would die without it unless someone else helped you out but then you would probably owe them. Money simplifies this; it's something we know we can trade for any service or item. It serves its purpose well and without it life would be really complicated. Our industries and societies could not have developed the lengths they have without currency. To say that money is the root of all evil is to say that cars are the root of all evil. People die every day in horrid car accidents. Despite this we still drive and we still cash in our checks. Nothing is evil and nothing is good in reality; it is what is. There's no Justicars in the real world and nothing is black and white.

So here's to pragmatism and logic. Cheers!. {smilie}

EDIT: Wow... so screwed up the whole post by qouting the wrong person. Anyway, should make more sense now.

Modifié par falloutgod13, 02 février 2010 - 03:06 .

[Mister Mage]

falloutgod13 wrote...
Really, now where does it say those things?

He shows his ego trip if you do the Paragon ending.  When you question if he cares about Humanity, or just Cerberus, he says "Cerberus IS humanity!".  Not really the line you expect from a benevolent source.

Money
is not always power, it's certainly a resource. Resources are neither
inherently good or evil. I can prove this with infallible logic.

Resources inherently are power.  

IF reaper tech = evil THEN mass relay  = evil

THEREFORE using one is evil?

So just because it's made by someone who is "evil" the technology is now "evil".  After all, if the station was made by Collectors(servants of the EVIL reapers, by default a tool used by the EVIL made another tool (the station) to produce more EVIL (a human reaper).

Despite horrific experiments the German's scientists performed during Hitler's rein of power there is a lot of medical data still used today. German's were one of the first to utilize X-Ray's on a large scale before WWII and
during it. Imagine the world without x-ray technology being used in the medical fields just because the ****'s used it. So just because the technology was developed and perfected by people considered inherently "evil" by the ethics of history does it dictate we shouldn't use it either? No, it does not and to defend that stance just makes you look immature and ignorant.

Mass Relays don't eat people.

X-Rays don't eat people.

X-Rays, when held as a technology by one person, would not be so incredibly advanced that it would allow totalitarian rule over at least their own race, if not the galaxy.

It would be like giving nuclear bombs to ancient Mongolians. Weapons in the modern world are generally not evil because they are, on the whole, relatively balanced.  Diplomacy and other people with big bombs act as deterrents.  You give a really big, or a technology that EATS PEOPLE, to someone that doesn't care about everybody, evil happens.

Now, before I digress too far lets jump back on to money. While you did not state it's the root of all evil I'm
still going debunk the notion. You use money to purchase services and things you need to survive. Without money you would have to barter. What if you did not have a service or item to trade for a service or
item you desperately needed in order to survive?

Simple really, you would die without it unless someone else helped you out but then you would probably owe them. Money simplifies this, it's something we know we can trade for any service or item. It serves its purpose well and without it life would be really complicated. Our industries and societies could not have developed the
lengths they have without currency. To say that money is the root of all evil is to say that cars are the root of all evil. People die every day in horrid car accidents. Despite this we still drive and we still cash in our checks. Nothing is evil and nothing is good in reality, it is what is. There's no Justicars in the real world and nothing is black and white.

The idea is that EXCESSIVE wealth and OBSESSION with wealth is bad.  Money is not inherently bad, the Illusive Man could use that wealth for good.

He rarely does.  He funded those horrible experiments in ME2, didn't he?  He thinks that the end goal is all that matters, without worrying about the process, assuming he'll be vindicated by history.  This is a theme of the franchise, that the process is just as important as the end goal.  Legion says so.  Sovereign says so.  They do so in the context of advancing on your own, instead of along the Reaper's tech tree, but the theme is still being applied here.  The Illusive Man says "Judge us not by what we do, but what we seek to accomplish".  He may not be pure "evil", he may see his way as just, but he's horribly misguided, by the morality set in this universe at least.